183.417
Procedure in contested case hearing.
(1) In a contested case proceeding, the parties may elect to be represented by
counsel and to respond and present evidence and argument on all issues properly
before the presiding officer in the proceeding.
(2) Agencies may
adopt rules of procedure governing participation in contested case proceedings
by persons appearing as limited parties.
(3)(a) Unless
prohibited by law, informal disposition may be made of any contested case by
stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order or default. Informal settlement
may be made in license revocation proceedings by written agreement of the
parties and the agency consenting to a suspension, fine or other form of
intermediate sanction.
(b) Any informal
disposition of a contested case, other than an informal disposition by default,
must be in writing and signed by the party or parties to the contested case.
The agency shall incorporate that disposition into a final order. An order
under this paragraph is not subject to ORS 183.470. The agency shall deliver or
mail a copy of the order to each party and to the attorney of record if the
party is represented. An order that incorporates the informal disposition is a
final order in a contested case, but is not subject to judicial review. A party
may petition the agency to set aside a final order that incorporates the
informal disposition on the ground that the informal disposition was obtained
by fraud or duress.
(4) An order
adverse to a party may be issued upon default only if a prima facie case is
made on the record. The record on a default order includes all materials
submitted by the party. The record on a default order may be made at the time
of issuance of the order. If the record on the default order consists solely of
an application and other materials submitted by the party, the agency shall so
note in the order.
(5) At the
commencement of a contested case hearing, the officer presiding at the hearing
shall explain the issues involved in the hearing and the matters that the
parties must either prove or disprove.
(6) Testimony at
a contested case hearing shall be taken upon oath or affirmation of the
witness. The officer presiding at the hearing shall administer oaths or
affirmations to witnesses.
(7) The officer
presiding at the hearing shall place on the record a statement of the substance
of any written or oral ex parte communication on a fact in issue made to the
officer during the pendency of the proceeding and notify the parties of the
communication and of their right to rebut the communication. If an ex parte
communication is made to an administrative law judge assigned from the Office
of Administrative Hearings established under ORS 183.605, the administrative
law judge must comply with ORS 183.685.
(8) The officer
presiding at the hearing shall ensure that the record developed at the hearing
shows a full and fair inquiry into the facts necessary for consideration of all
issues properly before the presiding officer in the case and the correct application
of the law to those facts.
(9) The record in
a contested case shall include:
(a) All
pleadings, motions and intermediate rulings.
(b) Evidence
received or considered.
(c) Stipulations.
(d) A statement
of matters officially noticed.
(e) Questions and
offers of proof, objections and rulings thereon.
(f) A statement
of any ex parte communication that must be disclosed under subsection (7) of
this section and that was made to the officer presiding at the hearing.
(g) Proposed
findings and exceptions.
(h) Any proposed,
intermediate or final order prepared by the agency or an administrative law
judge.
(10) A verbatim
oral, written or mechanical record shall be made of all motions, rulings and
testimony in a contested case proceeding. The record need not be transcribed
unless requested for purposes of rehearing or court review. The agency may
charge the party requesting transcription the cost of a copy of transcription,
unless the party files an appropriate affidavit of indigency. Upon petition, a
court having jurisdiction to review under ORS 183.480 may reduce or eliminate
the charge upon finding that it is equitable to do so, or that matters of
general interest would be determined by review of the order of the agency. [2007
c.288 §4]
183.418 [1973 c.386 §6; 1989 c.224 §11;
1991 c.750 §5; repealed by 1999 c.1041 §9]
183.420 [1957 c.717 §8 (1); repealed by
1971 c.734 §21]
183.421 [1991 c.750 §4; repealed by 1999
c.1041 §9]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case:
JGB Enter., LLC v. OLCC, 529 P.3d 262 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
JGB Enter., LLC v. OLCC, 529 P.3d 262 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 8× “333(3) and therefore failed to make a prima facie case for suspension as required by ORS 183.417(4). Held: Regarding the late hearing request, OLCC did not abuse its discretion in denying the request, nor was it required to hold a “good cause” hearing under OAR 137-003-0528(3)…”
WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 342 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “We review procedural challenges to determine if “the fairness of the *229 proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed procedure, including a failure by the presiding officer to comply with…”
Liu v. Portland State Univ., 383 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “415 (right to a hearing in contested case); ORS 183.417 (contested case hearing procedures); ORS 183.”
Cascadia Wildlands v. Or. Dep't of State Lands, 427 P.3d 1091 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“480(1) provides: "Except as provided in ORS 183.417(3)(b), any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final order, whether such order is affirmative or negative in form.”
Sawyer v. Real Est. Agency, 342 P.3d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “482(7) provides, in part: “The court shall remand the order for further agency action if the court finds that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed…”
Luechtefeld v. Bd. of Lic. Pro. Counselors & Therapists, 343 Or. App. 423 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “In the fourth assignment of error, petitioner argues that the ALJ erred by failing to assist her with the filing and presentation of evidence pursuant to ORS 183.417(8). We review procedural challenges to determine if “either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of…”
Gustafson v. Bd. of Acct., 348 P.3d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“482(7), which provides, in part: “The court shall remand the order for further agency action if the court finds that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed…”
Harmon v. Oregon Med. Bd., 510 P.3d 949 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“480 provides, in its entirety: “(1) Except as provided in ORS 183.417(3)(b), any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final order, whether such order is affirmative or negative in form.”
Luechtefeld v. Bd. of Lic. Pro. Counselors & Therapists, 343 Or. App. 423 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “In the fourth assignment of error, petitioner argues that the ALJ erred by failing to assist her with the filing and presentation of evidence pursuant to ORS 183.417(8). We review procedural challenges to determine if “either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.417(1) — 2 cases
Liu v. Portland State Univ., 383 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“415 (right to a hearing in contested case); ORS 183.417 (contested case hearing procedures); ORS 183.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.417(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.417(3)(b) — 2 cases
Cascadia Wildlands v. Or. Dep't of State Lands, 427 P.3d 1091 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“480(1) provides: "Except as provided in ORS 183.417(3)(b), any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final order, whether such order is affirmative or negative in form.”
Harmon v. Oregon Med. Bd., 510 P.3d 949 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“480 provides, in its entirety: “(1) Except as provided in ORS 183.417(3)(b), any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final order, whether such order is affirmative or negative in form.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.417(4) — 2 cases
JGB Enter., LLC v. OLCC, 529 P.3d 262 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“333(3) and therefore failed to make a prima facie case for suspension as required by ORS 183.417(4). Held: Regarding the late hearing request, OLCC did not abuse its discretion in denying the request, nor was it required to hold a “good cause” hearing under OAR 137-003-0528(3)…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.417(6) — 1 case
Liu v. Portland State Univ., 383 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“415 (right to a hearing in contested case); ORS 183.417 (contested case hearing procedures); ORS 183.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.417(8) — 7 cases
WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 342 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“We review procedural challenges to determine if “the fairness of the *229 proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed procedure, including a failure by the presiding officer to comply with…”
Sawyer v. Real Est. Agency, 342 P.3d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“482(7) provides, in part: “The court shall remand the order for further agency action if the court finds that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed…”
Luechtefeld v. Bd. of Lic. Pro. Counselors & Therapists, 343 Or. App. 423 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In the fourth assignment of error, petitioner argues that the ALJ erred by failing to assist her with the filing and presentation of evidence pursuant to ORS 183.417(8). We review procedural challenges to determine if “either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of…”
Gustafson v. Bd. of Acct., 348 P.3d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“482(7), which provides, in part: “The court shall remand the order for further agency action if the court finds that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed…”
Luechtefeld v. Bd. of Lic. Pro. Counselors & Therapists, 343 Or. App. 423 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In the fourth assignment of error, petitioner argues that the ALJ erred by failing to assist her with the filing and presentation of evidence pursuant to ORS 183.417(8). We review procedural challenges to determine if “either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.417(9) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.