Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.440 (2026)

Subpoenas in contested cases

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      183.440 Subpoenas in contested cases. (1) An agency may issue subpoenas on its own motion in a contested case. In addition, an agency or hearing officer in a contested case may issue subpoenas upon the request of a party to a contested case upon a showing of general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought. A party entitled to have witnesses on behalf of the party may have subpoenas issued by an attorney of record of the party, subscribed by the signature of the attorney. Witnesses appearing pursuant to subpoena, other than the parties or officers or employees of the agency, shall receive fees and mileage as prescribed by law for witnesses in ORS 44.415 (2).

      (2) If any person fails to comply with any subpoena so issued or any party or witness refuses to testify on any matters on which the party or witness may be lawfully interrogated, the judge of the circuit court of any county, on the application of the hearing officer, the agency or the party requesting the issuance of or issuing the subpoena, shall compel obedience by proceedings for contempt as in the case of disobedience of the requirements of a subpoena issued from such court or a refusal to testify therein. [1957 c.717 §8 (2); 1971 c.734 §12; 1979 c.593 §20; 1981 c.174 §4; 1989 c.980 §10a; 1997 c.837 §3; 1999 c.849 §30]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases, 1970–2020 · leading case: Smith v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 343 P.3d 245 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 343 P.3d 245 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 9× “445, upon which petitioner bases his attorney’s authority to issue subpoenas, provides: “(1) In any proceeding before an agency not subject to ORS 183.440 in which a party is entitled to have subpoenas issued for the appearance of witnesses on behalf of the party, a subpoena may…”
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 941 P.2d 593 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 18× “According to the dissent, because ORS 183.440 provides an alternative remedy, petitioners will not be irreparably harmed as a matter of law.”
Supension of Driving Privileges of Cole v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 87 P.3d 1120 (Or. 2004). · cites it 2× “See ORS 183.440 (permitting parties to request DMV to subpoena witnesses for hearing).”
Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 822 P.2d 1171 (Or. 1991). · cites it 2× “ORS 183.440(1). It is beyond question that the students' direct testimony is better evidence than their hearsay statements.”
Larsen v. Bd. of Parole, 138 P.3d 16 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “425 and ORS 183.440, providing for the deposition and subpoena of witnesses; and ORS 183.”
Liu v. Portland State Univ., 383 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “417(1)) and issuance of subpoenas on behalf of a party (ORS 183.440).” The Student Conduct Code hearing was held on June 13 and June 18, 2012.”
Palm Gardens, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 514 P.2d 888 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “WAS IT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY ISSUANCE OF SUBPENAS FOB A NEWSPAPER REPORTER AND A TELEVISION NEWS REPORTER? ORS 183.440 (1) states: “The agency shall issue subpenas to any party to a contested case upon request on good cause being shown and, to the extent required by…”
State ex rel. Motor Vehs. Div.. v. Norblad, 882 P.2d 598 (Or. 1994). · cites it 7× “450(1) 6 and ORS 183.440(2), 7 but *313 that neither statute applies here.”
Spray v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 624 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “” ORS 183.440(1). Petitioner failed to demonstrate the relevance of any testifnony these attorneys might offer concerning the issues raised in this proceeding.”
Grog House, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 507 P.2d 419 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “ORS 183.440. ⑤ Given the failure of the petitioner to request a subpoena duces tecum pursua-nt to ORS 183.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 50 P.3d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “425, ORS 183.440, ORS 183.450, ORS 183.452, ORS 183.”
Grobovsky v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 159 P.3d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “4 The board’s authority to enforce investigatory subpoenas and other orders is in addition to its general authority to enforce subpoenas in contested cases under ORS 183.440(2). See ORS 677.265(10).”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.440(1) — 5 cases
Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 822 P.2d 1171 (Or. 1991). “ORS 183.440(1). It is beyond question that the students' direct testimony is better evidence than their hearsay statements.”
Spray v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 624 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “” ORS 183.440(1). Petitioner failed to demonstrate the relevance of any testifnony these attorneys might offer concerning the issues raised in this proceeding.”
Palm Gardens, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 514 P.2d 888 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). “WAS IT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY ISSUANCE OF SUBPENAS FOB A NEWSPAPER REPORTER AND A TELEVISION NEWS REPORTER? ORS 183.440 (1) states: “The agency shall issue subpenas to any party to a contested case upon request on good cause being shown and, to the extent required by…”
Grog House, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 507 P.2d 419 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). “ORS 183.440. ⑤ Given the failure of the petitioner to request a subpoena duces tecum pursua-nt to ORS 183.”
Oregon Bus. Plan. Council v. Dep't of Land Conservation, & Dev., 619 P.2d 1291 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.440(2) — 5 cases
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 941 P.2d 593 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “According to the dissent, because ORS 183.440 provides an alternative remedy, petitioners will not be irreparably harmed as a matter of law.”
State ex rel. Motor Vehs. Div.. v. Norblad, 882 P.2d 598 (Or. 1994). “450(1) 6 and ORS 183.440(2), 7 but *313 that neither statute applies here.”
Grobovsky v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 159 P.3d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “4 The board’s authority to enforce investigatory subpoenas and other orders is in addition to its general authority to enforce subpoenas in contested cases under ORS 183.440(2). See ORS 677.265(10).”
State v. Strance, 769 P.2d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
Nyland v. City of Portland, 477 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
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.