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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.460 (2026)

Examination of evidence by agency

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

      183.460 Examination of evidence by agency. Whenever in a contested case a majority of the officials of the agency who are to render the final order have not heard the case or considered the record, the order, if adverse to a party other than the agency itself, shall not be made until a proposed order, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, has been served upon the parties and an opportunity has been afforded to each party adversely affected to file exceptions and present argument to the officials who are to render the decision. [1957 c.717 §10; 1971 c.734 §16; 1975 c.759 §13]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 50 P.3d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 50 P.3d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “ORS 183.460. The final order in the case is the decision of the head of the agency, who is free to adopt all, part, or none of the hearing officer’s proposed order.”
Davidson v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 712 P.2d 87 (Or. 1985). · cites it 2× “ORS 183.460. The Commission may modify the proposed order, reject it and prepare its own, or adopt the proposed order as its own.”
Von Weidlein Int'l, Inc. v. Young, 517 P.2d 295 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “Specifically, petitioners complain that the commission did not make and serve upon them proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by ORS 183.460. [3] The parties stipulated at oral argument *301 that each member of the commission had read the whole record.”
Von Weidlein Int'l, Inc. v. Young, 514 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “Specifically, petitioners complain that the commission did not make and serve upon them proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by ORS 183.460. ③ The parties stipulated at oral argument that each member of the commission had read the whole record.”
Reforestation Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Filings of the Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 872 P.2d 423 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “SAIF contends that ORS 183.460 and OAR 137-03-060(2) require a party in a premium audit appeal to file exceptions to a hearings officer’s proposed order.”
Larsen v. Bd. of Parole, 138 P.3d 16 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “450 (rules of evidence in contested cases), ORS 183.460 (examination of the evidence in contested cases), and ORS 183.”
Campbell v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 518 P.2d 1042 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). “Under both ORS 183.460 and Oregon Administrative Rules, ch 847, § 60-005 (6), the respondent is not required to serve a petitioner with proposed findings and order unless a majority of the Board did not consider the record.”
Larsen v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 219 P.3d 28 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “418 (interpreters for the disabled in contested cases), ORS 183.425 (depositions and subpoenas of material witnesses), ORS 183.”
Liu v. Portland State Univ., 383 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “450 (evidence in contested cases); ORS 183.460 (examination of record by agency; right to file exceptions); ORS 183.”
Graham v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 530 P.2d 858 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). “① This quotation negatives petitioners’ claim of failure to comply with ORS 183.460 in assignment of error No. 2.”
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 783 P.2d 519 (Or. 1989). “Water Resources Department, 40 Or App 486 , 595 P2d 849 (1979) (per curiam), reversed and remanded “for compliance with ORS 183.460.” Neither of these procedural decisions dealt with the merits of the orders entered in both cases to establish a critical ground water area.”
Bruer's Contract Cutting v. Nat'l Council On Comp. Ins., 841 P.2d 690 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “Petitioner excluded the truck rent from salary when calculating its workers’ compensation premium. SAIF had informed petitioner that the practice was permissible but reversed its position after a premium audit and assessed an additional premium for April 1, 1986, through March…”
Show all 20 citing 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.