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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.464 (2026)

Proposed order by hearing officer; amendment by agency; exemptions

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

      183.464 Proposed order by hearing officer; amendment by agency; exemptions. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (1) to (4) of this section, unless a hearing officer is authorized or required by law or agency rule to issue a final order, the hearing officer shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties to a contested case hearing a proposed order, including recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed order shall become final after the 30th day following the date of service of the proposed order, unless the agency within that period issues an amended order.

      (2) An agency may by rule specify a period of time after which a proposed order will become final that is different from that specified in subsection (1) of this section.

      (3) If an agency determines that additional time will be necessary to allow the agency adequately to review a proposed order in a contested case, the agency may extend the time after which the proposed order will become final by a specified period of time. The agency shall notify the parties to the hearing of the period of extension.

      (4) Subsections (1) to (4) of this section do not apply to the Public Utility Commission or the Energy Facility Siting Council.

      (5) The Governor may exempt any agency or any class of contested case hearings before an agency from the requirements in whole or part of subsections (1) to (4) of this section by executive order. The executive order shall contain a statement of the reasons for the exemption. [1979 c.593 §§36,36b; 1995 c.79 §64; 2001 c.104 §64]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1981–2016 · leading case: Becklin v. Bd. of Examiners for Eng'g & Land Surveying, 97 P.3d 1216 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Becklin v. Bd. of Examiners for Eng'g & Land Surveying, 97 P.3d 1216 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “The administrative law judge shall also prepare and serve a proposed order in the manner provided by ORS 183.464 unless the agency or hearing is exempt from the requirements of ORS 183.”
Davidson v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 712 P.2d 87 (Or. 1985). · cites it 2× “In addition, ORS 183.464(1) provides: "Except as otherwise provided in subsections (1) to (4) of this section, unless a hearings officer is authorized or required by law or agency rule to issue a final order, the hearings officer shall prepare and serve on the agency and all…”
McGee Plumbing, Inc. v. Bldg. Codes Div., 188 P.3d 420 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 7× “ORS 183.464 provides, in part: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (1) to (4) of this section, unless a hearing officer is authorized or required by law or agency rule to issue a final order, the hearing officer shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties…”
Bice v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 383 P.3d 913 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The administrative law judge shall also prepare and serve a proposed order in the manner provided by ORS 183.464 unless the agency or hearing is exempt from the requirements of ORS 183.”
SAIF Corp. v. Eller, 74 P.3d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “SAIF reasons that, under ORS 183.464, because no valid timely exceptions were taken, the proposed order became the final order 30 days after it was served.”
Corcoran v. Bd. of Nursing, 107 P.3d 627 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “See ORS 183.464. Accordingly, the board subsequently issued an amended proposed order.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 50 P.3d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “See ORS 183.464. That possibility does not affect the agency’s ultimate control over the decision.”
Liu v. Portland State Univ., 383 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “462 (agency statement of ex parte communications and right to rebut); ORS 183.464 (proposed order by hearing officer); ORS 183.”
ETU, Inc. v. Env't Quality Comm'n, 134 P.3d 1019 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “There, the issue was the timeliness of a petition for judicial review of an order that, by operation of ORS 183.464, 8 became final 30 days after service of the proposed order and was not re-served when it became final.”
Fed'n of Indep. Seafood Harvesters v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 632 P.2d 777 (Or. 1981). “ORS 183.464(1). It is also the Commission rather than the Department which has authority to issue hatchery permits under ORS 508.”
Bingham v. Oregon Sch. Activities Ass'n, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (D. Or. 1999). “(3) A voluntary organization’s decisions concerning interscholastic activities may be appealed to the state board, which may hear the matter or by rule may delegate authority to a hearings officer to hear the matter and enter a final order pursuant to ORS 183.464(1). Such…”
Saif Corp. v. Glubrecht, 967 P.2d 490 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 10× “]” Second, ORS 183.464 provides: “(1) Except as otherwise provided * * *, unless a hearings officer is authorized or required by law or agency rule to issue a final order, the hearings officer shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties to a contested case hearing a…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.464(1) — 5 cases
Davidson v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 712 P.2d 87 (Or. 1985). “In addition, ORS 183.464(1) provides: "Except as otherwise provided in subsections (1) to (4) of this section, unless a hearings officer is authorized or required by law or agency rule to issue a final order, the hearings officer shall prepare and serve on the agency and all…”
McGee Plumbing, Inc. v. Bldg. Codes Div., 188 P.3d 420 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “ORS 183.464 provides, in part: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (1) to (4) of this section, unless a hearing officer is authorized or required by law or agency rule to issue a final order, the hearing officer shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties…”
Fed'n of Indep. Seafood Harvesters v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 632 P.2d 777 (Or. 1981). “ORS 183.464(1). It is also the Commission rather than the Department which has authority to issue hatchery permits under ORS 508.”
Bingham v. Oregon Sch. Activities Ass'n, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (D. Or. 1999). “(3) A voluntary organization’s decisions concerning interscholastic activities may be appealed to the state board, which may hear the matter or by rule may delegate authority to a hearings officer to hear the matter and enter a final order pursuant to ORS 183.464(1). Such…”
Saif Corp. v. Glubrecht, 967 P.2d 490 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “]” Second, ORS 183.464 provides: “(1) Except as otherwise provided * * *, unless a hearings officer is authorized or required by law or agency rule to issue a final order, the hearings officer shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties to a contested case hearing a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.464(2) — 1 case
Saif Corp. v. Glubrecht, 967 P.2d 490 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “]” Second, ORS 183.464 provides: “(1) Except as otherwise provided * * *, unless a hearings officer is authorized or required by law or agency rule to issue a final order, the hearings officer shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties to a contested case hearing a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.464(5) — 1 case
McGee Plumbing, Inc. v. Bldg. Codes Div., 188 P.3d 420 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “ORS 183.464 provides, in part: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (1) to (4) of this section, unless a hearing officer is authorized or required by law or agency rule to issue a final order, the hearing officer shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties…”
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.