Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.470 (2026)

Orders in contested cases

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

183.470 Orders in contested cases. In a contested case:

(1) Every order adverse to a party to the proceeding shall be in writing or stated in the record and may be accompanied by an opinion.

(2) A final order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings of fact shall consist of a concise statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings as to each contested issue of fact and as to each ultimate fact required to support the agency’s order.

(3) The agency shall notify the parties to a proceeding of a final order by delivering or mailing a copy of the order and any accompanying findings and conclusions to each party or, if applicable, the party’s attorney of record.

(4) Every final order shall include a citation of the statutes under which the order may be appealed. [1957 c.717 §11; 1971 c.734 §17; 1979 c.593 §22]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 162 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 335 P.3d 828 (Or. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 335 P.3d 828 (Or. 2014). · cites it 7× “In Martin , the board argued for a different interpretation of Drew : “The Board argues in the alternative that when, as here, an agency is exempt from the requirements of ORS 183.470, the agency should not be required to set out the rationale for its order in the order itself…”

Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). · cites it 6× “The agency's order must be based on findings and conclusions, ORS 183.470, 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.”

Williams v. Saif Corp., 797 P.2d 1036 (Or. 1990). · cites it 14× “If the statute is plain on its face, the reason is obvious and may be expressed by a simple statutory reference. If the statute requires interpretation, however, the interpretation and the agency's rationalization of it are properly a part of the reasoning of the order.”

Springfield Educ. Ass'n v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 621 P.2d 547 (Or. 1980). · cites it 3× “ORS 183.470 requires that orders contain findings of fact and conclusions of law: "(1) Every order adverse to a party to the proceeding shall be in writing or stated in the record and may be accompanied by an opinion.”

Hayes Oyster Co. v. DEQ, 504 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “470, so the 60-day period never began; and, second, plaintiff was not given that notice and, regardless of statutory requirements, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States required that plaintiff itself be formally notified that the final TMDL had…”

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 752 P.2d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “ORS 183.470(2) provides: “A final order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law.”

Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982). · cites it 4× “Springfield illustrates that: "* * * The requirement of ORS 183.470 that the order contain findings of fact and conclusions of law is a requirement that the reasoning by which the agency applies a statute to facts to reach a result be expressed in the order.”

Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 716 P.2d 724 (Or. 1986). · cites it 6× “If "immorality" is to be determined as a fact by reference to the views of "the public," the determination would take the form of findings of fact, required by ORS 183.470, which would have to be supported by substantial evidence in the record.”

Martin v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 957 P.2d 1210 (Or. 1998). · cites it 5× “The Board acknowledges that an appellate court’s authority is clear when it is conducting judicial review in a case in which the agency under review is required by law to make findings of fact and conclusions under ORS 183.470. 3 In such cases, the agency’s order must contain…”

Don't Waste Oregon Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 881 P.2d 119 (Or. 1994). · cites it 2× “Nor has EFSC pointed to any other authoritative interpretation in the record. EFSC's lawyers on review offer arguments that, in essence, ask this court to infer that EFSC adopted such an interpretation.”

Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 605 P.2d 273 (Or. 1980). · cites it 2× “Taking this assumption to its logical conclusion, such determinations would presumably have the character of findings, required by *280 ORS 183.470, which would have to be supported by substantial evidence in the record unless the conduct was deemed so clearly unprofessional, as…”

Opp v. Emp. Dep't & Youssef, Inc., 259 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “In order to facilitate meaningful review under those standards, ORS 183.470(2) provides that “[a] final order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law.”

Show all 162 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.470(1) — 2 cases

Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 335 P.3d 828 (Or. 2014). “In Martin , the board argued for a different interpretation of Drew : “The Board argues in the alternative that when, as here, an agency is exempt from the requirements of ORS 183.470, the agency should not be required to set out the rationale for its order in the order itself…”

Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole (Or. 2014).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.470(2) — 82 cases

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 752 P.2d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “ORS 183.470(2) provides: “A final order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law.”

Williams v. Saif Corp., 797 P.2d 1036 (Or. 1990). “If the statute is plain on its face, the reason is obvious and may be expressed by a simple statutory reference. If the statute requires interpretation, however, the interpretation and the agency's rationalization of it are properly a part of the reasoning of the order.”

Opp v. Emp. Dep't & Youssef, Inc., 259 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “In order to facilitate meaningful review under those standards, ORS 183.470(2) provides that “[a] final order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law.”

City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489, 639 P.2d 90 (Or. 1981).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.470(3) — 9 cases

Hayes Oyster Co. v. DEQ, 504 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “470, so the 60-day period never began; and, second, plaintiff was not given that notice and, regardless of statutory requirements, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States required that plaintiff itself be formally notified that the final TMDL had…”

Ososke v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs., 891 P.2d 633 (Or. 1995).

V. G. v. Dept. of Human Servs., 461 P.3d 1104 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

ETU, Inc. v. Env't Quality Comm'n, 134 P.3d 1019 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 316 P.3d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.470(4) — 4 cases

Callahan v. Emp. Div., 776 P.2d 21 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 941 P.2d 593 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Comm. in Opposition to the Prison v. Oregon Emergency Corr. Facility Siting Auth., 792 P.2d 1203 (Or. 1990).

Kalmiopsis Audubon Soc'y v. Div. of State Lands, 676 P.2d 885 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

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.