183.430
Hearing on refusal to renew license; exceptions. (1) In the case of any license
which must be periodically renewed, where the licensee has made timely
application for renewal in accordance with the rules of the agency, such
license shall not be deemed to expire, despite any stated expiration date thereon,
until the agency concerned has issued a formal order of grant or denial of such
renewal. In case an agency proposes to refuse to renew such license, upon
demand of the licensee, the agency must grant hearing as provided by this
chapter before issuance of order of refusal to renew. This subsection does not
apply to any emergency or temporary permit or license.
(2) In any case
where the agency finds a serious danger to the public health or safety and sets
forth specific reasons for such findings, the agency may suspend or refuse to
renew a license without hearing, but if the licensee demands a hearing within
90 days after the date of notice to the licensee of such suspension or refusal
to renew, then a hearing must be granted to the licensee as soon as practicable
after such demand, and the agency shall issue an order pursuant to such hearing
as required by this chapter confirming, altering or revoking its earlier order.
Such a hearing need not be held where the order of suspension or refusal to
renew is accompanied by or is pursuant to, a citation for violation which is
subject to judicial determination in any court of this state, and the order by
its terms will terminate in case of final judgment in favor of the licensee. [1957
c.717 §8 (3), (4); 1965 c.212 §1; 1971 c.734 §11]
Notes of Decisions
Reynolds v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 571 P.2d 505 (Or. 1977).
· cites it 10× “All that ORS 183.430 permits to be done without a hearing is to "suspend or refuse to renew a license,” not to revoke it.”
Corcoran v. Bd. of Nursing, 107 P.3d 627 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “tact with five female patients, WJ, SM, SC, ES, and DB, who were “vulnerable to exploitation due to age [and] mental and emotional health issues”; that there was “a high probability of recurrent acts of sexual misconduct and boundary violations” and, consequently, because…”
Lumbreras v. Roberts, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (D. Or. 2004).
· cites it 3× “In arguing that the June 12 order was invalid, Brown relied on ORS 183.430 which allows an agency to suspend or refuse to renew a license without a hearing only when “the agency finds a serious danger to the public health or safety.”
Adams v. Bd. of Clinical Soc. Workers, 119 P.3d 260 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “The board therefore upheld the emergency suspension orders under ORS 183.430. The board further held that petitioner had not been cooperative with the board in the investigation of the complaint by AO and had therefore violated OAR 877-030-0090(2) and had committed…”
Bennett v. Bd. of Optometry, 865 P.2d 362 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The Board investigated the complaints and, on July 11, 1991, it served petitioner with a suspension order and a notice of intent to revoke his license pursuant to ORS 183.430(2) and ORS 683.140. The notice advised petitioner of his right to a contested case hearing if a request…”
Schurman v. Bureau of Labor, 585 P.2d 758 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“1 ORS 183.430(1) provides: "(1) In the case of any license which must be periodically renewed, where the licensee has made timely application for renewal in accordance with the rules of the agency, such license shall not be deemed to expire, despite any stated expiration date…”
Reynolds v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 563 P.2d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 11× “ORS 183.430(1). However, where continuation of a license would create a serious danger to public health or safety, ORS 183.”
Wright v. State Ins. Comm'r, 449 P.2d 419 (Or. 1969).
“Effective August 12, 1966, under the provisions of ORS 183.430(2), petitioner’s license was again suspended by the insurance commissioner.”
Marcoules v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 756 P.2d 661 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “The letter cited only the general emergency suspension provision of the [Administrative Procedures Act], ORS 183.430(2). It did not include the violation of [OLCC] rules which were the substantive basis for the suspension.”
Hc Retail, Inc. v. Olcc, 341 Or. App. 717 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “Other Statutes Petitioners argue that the rules are invalid because they conflict with ORS 183.430(1), which is part of the Administrative Procedures Act, and which provides in part that for “any license which must be periodically renewed,” if an agency refuses to renew the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.430(1) — 6 cases
Schurman v. Bureau of Labor, 585 P.2d 758 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“1 ORS 183.430(1) provides: "(1) In the case of any license which must be periodically renewed, where the licensee has made timely application for renewal in accordance with the rules of the agency, such license shall not be deemed to expire, despite any stated expiration date…”
Reynolds v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 571 P.2d 505 (Or. 1977).
“All that ORS 183.430 permits to be done without a hearing is to "suspend or refuse to renew a license,” not to revoke it.”
Hc Retail, Inc. v. Olcc, 341 Or. App. 717 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Other Statutes Petitioners argue that the rules are invalid because they conflict with ORS 183.430(1), which is part of the Administrative Procedures Act, and which provides in part that for “any license which must be periodically renewed,” if an agency refuses to renew the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.430(2) — 10 cases
Corcoran v. Bd. of Nursing, 107 P.3d 627 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“tact with five female patients, WJ, SM, SC, ES, and DB, who were “vulnerable to exploitation due to age [and] mental and emotional health issues”; that there was “a high probability of recurrent acts of sexual misconduct and boundary violations” and, consequently, because…”
Reynolds v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 571 P.2d 505 (Or. 1977).
“All that ORS 183.430 permits to be done without a hearing is to "suspend or refuse to renew a license,” not to revoke it.”
Adams v. Bd. of Clinical Soc. Workers, 119 P.3d 260 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“The board therefore upheld the emergency suspension orders under ORS 183.430. The board further held that petitioner had not been cooperative with the board in the investigation of the complaint by AO and had therefore violated OAR 877-030-0090(2) and had committed…”
Bennett v. Bd. of Optometry, 865 P.2d 362 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“The Board investigated the complaints and, on July 11, 1991, it served petitioner with a suspension order and a notice of intent to revoke his license pursuant to ORS 183.430(2) and ORS 683.140. The notice advised petitioner of his right to a contested case hearing if a request…”
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.