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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.450 (2026)

Evidence in contested cases

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

      183.450 Evidence in contested cases. In contested cases:

      (1) Irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded but erroneous rulings on evidence shall not preclude agency action on the record unless shown to have substantially prejudiced the rights of a party. All other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in conduct of their serious affairs shall be admissible. Agencies and hearing officers shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law. Objections to evidentiary offers may be made and shall be noted in the record. Any part of the evidence may be received in written form.

      (2) All evidence shall be offered and made a part of the record in the case, and except for matters stipulated to and except as provided in subsection (4) of this section no other factual information or evidence shall be considered in the determination of the case. Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, or by incorporation by reference. The burden of presenting evidence to support a fact or position in a contested case rests on the proponent of the fact or position.

      (3) Every party shall have the right of cross-examination of witnesses who testify and shall have the right to submit rebuttal evidence. Persons appearing in a limited party status shall participate in the manner and to the extent prescribed by rule of the agency.

      (4) The hearing officer and agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts, and may take official notice of general, technical or scientific facts within the specialized knowledge of the hearing officer or agency. Parties shall be notified at any time during the proceeding but in any event prior to the final decision of material officially noticed and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed. The hearing officer and agency may utilize the hearing officer’s or agency’s experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge in the evaluation of the evidence presented.

      (5) No sanction shall be imposed or order be issued except upon consideration of the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party, and as supported by, and in accordance with, reliable, probative and substantial evidence. [1957 c.717 §9; 1971 c.734 §15; 1975 c.759 §12; 1977 c.798 §3; 1979 c.593 §21; 1987 c.833 §1; 1995 c.272 §5; 1997 c.391 §1; 1997 c.801 §76; 1999 c.448 §5; 1999 c.849 §34]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 146 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Hamel v. Johnson, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hamel v. Johnson, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 12× “[13] One is the requirement in ORS 183.450(5), which provides that "[n]o sanction shall be imposed or order be issued except upon consideration of the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party, and as supported by, and in accordance with, reliable,…”
Dixon v. Or. State Bd. of Nursing, 419 P.3d 774 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 15× “Although Gallant did not involve allegations of fraud, it is an important decision because it is the first in which we explicitly tied the standard of proof in agency cases to ORS 183.450. That statute, which is part of the Oregon APA, requires that any sanction imposed or order…”
Llewellyn v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 863 P.2d 469 (Or. 1993). · cites it 25× “The first significant aspect of the legislative history of ORS 183.450 is that subsection (6) was part of the statutory scheme before subsections (7) and (8) were added to ORS 183.”
Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 822 P.2d 1171 (Or. 1991). · cites it 10× “Hearsay evidence is as admissible under ORS 183.450(1) [20] as any other evidence as long as it meets the statutory test of reliability.”
Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). · cites it 6× “470, which must rest exclusively on evidence that has been offered and made part of the record, or stipulated or officially noticed for the record, ORS 183.450, otherwise it must be reversed.”
Rolfe v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 633 P.2d 846 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 12× “ORS 183.450(2), (4). The board's order in this case is structured in such a way as to lead us to offer some guidance regarding the role of its expertise in individual decision making.”
Wiggett v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 738 P.2d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 10× “ORS 183.450(1). [2] Our scope of review is the same as for a contested case under the Administrative Procedures Act.”
Suspension of the Driving Privileges of Gaylord v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 391 P.3d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “2 In an administrative proceeding, the law of evidence is governed generally by ORS 183.450, which provides, in part: “Irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded but erroneous rulings on evidence shall not preclude agency action on the record unless…”
Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 789 P.2d 11 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 14× “Petitioner urges that some evidence, other than hearsay or other evidence inadmissible in a civil or criminal trial, must be present in an administrative record to support an agency's finding of fact.”
Supension of Driving Privileges of Cole v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 87 P.3d 1120 (Or. 2004). · cites it 6× “The court noted that, under the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA), “[h] ears ay evidence is as admissible under ORS 183.450(1) as any other evidence as long as it meets the statutory test of reliability.”
Robin v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 421 P.3d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “2d 814 (1999), and other cases holding that ORS 183.450 dictates the preponderance standard of proof for agency cases).”
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991). · cites it 8× “ORS 183.450. Nothing in [OEC] 101 should be construed to alter present Oregon practice under the administrative procedures statutes.”
Show all 146 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.450(1) — 61 cases
Wiggett v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 738 P.2d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “ORS 183.450(1). [2] Our scope of review is the same as for a contested case under the Administrative Procedures Act.”
Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 789 P.2d 11 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “Petitioner urges that some evidence, other than hearsay or other evidence inadmissible in a civil or criminal trial, must be present in an administrative record to support an agency's finding of fact.”
Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 822 P.2d 1171 (Or. 1991). “Hearsay evidence is as admissible under ORS 183.450(1) [20] as any other evidence as long as it meets the statutory test of reliability.”
Supension of Driving Privileges of Cole v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 87 P.3d 1120 (Or. 2004). “The court noted that, under the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA), “[h] ears ay evidence is as admissible under ORS 183.450(1) as any other evidence as long as it meets the statutory test of reliability.”
Suspension of the Driving Privileges of Gaylord v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 391 P.3d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “2 In an administrative proceeding, the law of evidence is governed generally by ORS 183.450, which provides, in part: “Irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded but erroneous rulings on evidence shall not preclude agency action on the record unless…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.450(2) — 38 cases
Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 822 P.2d 1171 (Or. 1991). “Hearsay evidence is as admissible under ORS 183.450(1) [20] as any other evidence as long as it meets the statutory test of reliability.”
Comp. of Harris v. SAIF Corp., 642 P.2d 1147 (Or. 1982).
Rolfe v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 633 P.2d 846 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “ORS 183.450(2), (4). The board's order in this case is structured in such a way as to lead us to offer some guidance regarding the role of its expertise in individual decision making.”
McDowell v. Emp. Dep't, 236 P.3d 722 (Or. 2010).
Salem Decorating Ctr., Inc. v. Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 840 P.2d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.450(3) — 12 cases
Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). “470, which must rest exclusively on evidence that has been offered and made part of the record, or stipulated or officially noticed for the record, ORS 183.450, otherwise it must be reversed.”
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy, 525 P.3d 864 (Or. 2023).
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 486 P.3d 787 (Or. 2021).
Gregg v. Oregon Racing Comm'n, 588 P.2d 1290 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
Kuykendall v. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div., 690 P.2d 517 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.450(4) — 17 cases
Rolfe v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 633 P.2d 846 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “ORS 183.450(2), (4). The board's order in this case is structured in such a way as to lead us to offer some guidance regarding the role of its expertise in individual decision making.”
McPherson v. Emp. Div., 591 P.2d 1381 (Or. 1979).
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 605 P.2d 273 (Or. 1980).
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 716 P.2d 724 (Or. 1986).
SAIF Corp. v. Calder, 969 P.2d 1050 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.450(5) — 12 cases
Hamel v. Johnson, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “[13] One is the requirement in ORS 183.450(5), which provides that "[n]o sanction shall be imposed or order be issued except upon consideration of the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party, and as supported by, and in accordance with, reliable,…”
Dixon v. Or. State Bd. of Nursing, 419 P.3d 774 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “Although Gallant did not involve allegations of fraud, it is an important decision because it is the first in which we explicitly tied the standard of proof in agency cases to ORS 183.450. That statute, which is part of the Oregon APA, requires that any sanction imposed or order…”
Gallant v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 974 P.2d 814 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Robin v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 421 P.3d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “2d 814 (1999), and other cases holding that ORS 183.450 dictates the preponderance standard of proof for agency cases).”
Rolfe v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 633 P.2d 846 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “ORS 183.450(2), (4). The board's order in this case is structured in such a way as to lead us to offer some guidance regarding the role of its expertise in individual decision making.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.450(6) — 4 cases
Llewellyn v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 863 P.2d 469 (Or. 1993). “The first significant aspect of the legislative history of ORS 183.450 is that subsection (6) was part of the statutory scheme before subsections (7) and (8) were added to ORS 183.”
Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 822 P.2d 1171 (Or. 1991). “Hearsay evidence is as admissible under ORS 183.450(1) [20] as any other evidence as long as it meets the statutory test of reliability.”
State v. Ratliff, 744 P.2d 247 (Or. 1987).
Llewellyn v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 850 P.2d 411 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.450(7) — 2 cases
Llewellyn v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 863 P.2d 469 (Or. 1993). “The first significant aspect of the legislative history of ORS 183.450 is that subsection (6) was part of the statutory scheme before subsections (7) and (8) were added to ORS 183.”
Llewellyn v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 850 P.2d 411 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.450(8) — 2 cases
Llewellyn v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 863 P.2d 469 (Or. 1993). “The first significant aspect of the legislative history of ORS 183.450 is that subsection (6) was part of the statutory scheme before subsections (7) and (8) were added to ORS 183.”
Llewellyn v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 850 P.2d 411 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.450(9) — 1 case
Llewellyn v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 850 P.2d 411 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
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.