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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480 (2026)

Judicial review of agency orders

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

      183.480 Judicial review of agency orders. (1) Except as provided in ORS 183.417 (3)(b), any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final order, whether such order is affirmative or negative in form. A petition for rehearing or reconsideration need not be filed as a condition of judicial review unless specifically otherwise provided by statute or agency rule.

      (2) Judicial review of final orders of agencies shall be solely as provided by ORS 183.482, 183.484, 183.490 and 183.500.

      (3) No action or suit shall be maintained as to the validity of any agency order except a final order as provided in this section and ORS 183.482, 183.484, 183.490 and 183.500 or except upon showing that the agency is proceeding without probable cause, or that the party will suffer substantial and irreparable harm if interlocutory relief is not granted.

      (4) Judicial review of orders issued pursuant to ORS 813.410 shall be as provided by ORS 813.410. [1957 c.717 §12; 1963 c.449 §1; 1971 c.734 §18; 1975 c.759 §14; 1979 c.593 §23; 1983 c.338 §901; 1985 c.757 §4; 1997 c.837 §5; 2007 c.288 §11]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 405 cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: Utsey v. Coos Cnty., 32 P.3d 933 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Utsey v. Coos Cnty., 32 P.3d 933 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 24× “2d 154 (1977), for example, the court confronted the question whether a petitioner satisfied the standing requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), ORS 183.480, commenting in a footnote that "[i]t is not contended here that the standing conferred by ORS 183.”
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 992 P.2d 434 (Or. 1999). · cites it 37× “” ORS 183.480 provides, in part: “(1) Except as provided in ORS 183.”
Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). · cites it 15× “310(2), judicial review is governed by ORS 183.480. The pertinent words read: "(1) Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by any order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final order, .”
Kellas v. Dep't of Corr., 145 P.3d 139 (Or. 2006). · cites it 8× “Because the council's decision resulted from a contested case, ORS 183.480 governed judicial review. At the time, ORS 183.”
Cascadia Wildlands v. Or. Dep't of State Lands, 427 P.3d 1091 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 14× “Thus, we must look to ORS 183.480 to determine whether petitioners have standing to seek judicial review in this case.”
Eusiquio v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs., Ctr. for Health Statistics, 259 P.3d 917 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 42× “The state registrar shall advise the applicant of the right to appeal under ORS 183.480 to 183.484." ORS 432.140. In accordance with the statute, the state registrar has promulgated rules that establish the minimum documentation required for issuance of a delayed birth…”
Oregon Restaurant Servs., Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery, 112 P.3d 398 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “In the alternative, the court concluded that— even if the letters are not “final orders” within the meaning of the APA — the court had jurisdiction to review them under ORS 183.480(3), pertaining to review of nonfinal orders in cases in which the agency is proceeding without…”
Brian v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 874 P.2d 1294 (Or. 1994). · cites it 15× “The Commission moved to determine the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and to dismiss the petition for judicial review on the ground that petitioner was not “adversely affected or aggrieved” by the Commission’s final order, within the meaning of ORS 183.480(1). 7 The Court…”
Brian v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Com'n, 891 P.2d 649 (Or. 1995). · cites it 15× “Petitioner sought, among other things, a prefiminary injunction barring the Commission from continuing the investigation, on the ground that the Commission was “proceeding without probable cause,” under ORS 183.480(3), when it found “cause” to investigate him, on February 25,…”
Hayes Oyster Co. v. DEQ, 504 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “Later, because the trial court concluded that the TMDL was a nonfinal order and was “clearly not a ‘rule,’ ” the court also concluded that 1 Under ORS 183.480, “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial…”
Wampler v. Dep't of State Police, 355 P.2d 238 (Or. 1960). · cites it 21× “* * *" ORS 183.480 (Oregon Laws 1957, ch 717, § 12).”
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 941 P.2d 593 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 34× “The foundation of that structure begins with ORS 183.480, which provides, in pertinent part: "(1) Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final order, whether such order is affirmative or…”
Show all 405 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(1) — 73 cases
Utsey v. Coos Cnty., 32 P.3d 933 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “2d 154 (1977), for example, the court confronted the question whether a petitioner satisfied the standing requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), ORS 183.480, commenting in a footnote that "[i]t is not contended here that the standing conferred by ORS 183.”
Cascadia Wildlands v. Or. Dep't of State Lands, 427 P.3d 1091 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “Thus, we must look to ORS 183.480 to determine whether petitioners have standing to seek judicial review in this case.”
Brian v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 874 P.2d 1294 (Or. 1994). “The Commission moved to determine the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and to dismiss the petition for judicial review on the ground that petitioner was not “adversely affected or aggrieved” by the Commission’s final order, within the meaning of ORS 183.480(1). 7 The Court…”
Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). “310(2), judicial review is governed by ORS 183.480. The pertinent words read: "(1) Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by any order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final order, .”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Institutional Animal Care & Use Comm., 817 P.2d 1299 (Or. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(1)(a) — 3 cases
Sch. Dist. No. 48 v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Bd., 512 P.2d 799 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
Lane Council of Governments v. Lane Council of Governments Employes Ass'n, 552 P.2d 600 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
George's Gold Coin, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 545 P.2d 1395 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(2) — 31 cases
Oregonians for Sound Econ. Policy, Inc. v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 69 P.3d 742 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Mendieta v. State, Div. of State Lands, 941 P.2d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
Kinzua Resources v. DEQ, 468 P.3d 410 (Or. 2020).
State Ex Rel. City of Powers v. Coos Cnty. Airport Dist., 119 P.3d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 992 P.2d 434 (Or. 1999). “” ORS 183.480 provides, in part: “(1) Except as provided in ORS 183.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(3) — 47 cases
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 992 P.2d 434 (Or. 1999). “” ORS 183.480 provides, in part: “(1) Except as provided in ORS 183.”
Oregon Restaurant Servs., Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery, 112 P.3d 398 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “In the alternative, the court concluded that— even if the letters are not “final orders” within the meaning of the APA — the court had jurisdiction to review them under ORS 183.480(3), pertaining to review of nonfinal orders in cases in which the agency is proceeding without…”
Brian v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Com'n, 891 P.2d 649 (Or. 1995). “Petitioner sought, among other things, a prefiminary injunction barring the Commission from continuing the investigation, on the ground that the Commission was “proceeding without probable cause,” under ORS 183.480(3), when it found “cause” to investigate him, on February 25,…”
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 941 P.2d 593 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “The foundation of that structure begins with ORS 183.480, which provides, in pertinent part: "(1) Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final order, whether such order is affirmative or…”
Hayes Oyster Co. v. DEQ, 504 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Later, because the trial court concluded that the TMDL was a nonfinal order and was “clearly not a ‘rule,’ ” the court also concluded that 1 Under ORS 183.480, “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(4) — 2 cases
Svidenko v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 267 P.3d 200 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Whitmire v. Oregon State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 533 P.2d 1375 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(5) — 1 case
Whitmire v. Oregon State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 533 P.2d 1375 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(6) — 4 cases
Oregon Env't Council v. Oregon State Bd. of Educ., 761 P.2d 1322 (Or. 1988).
Burke v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 607 P.2d 141 (Or. 1980).
Oregon State Employes Ass'n v. State, 535 P.2d 1385 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
Pac. Nw. Power Co. v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 542 P.2d 1039 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(7) — 24 cases
Oregon Env't Council v. Oregon State Bd. of Educ., 761 P.2d 1322 (Or. 1988).
Palm Gardens, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 514 P.2d 888 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
Dickinson v. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs, Clackamas Cty., 533 P.2d 1395 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
McCain v. Emp. Div., 522 P.2d 1208 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
Evjen v. Emp. Div., 539 P.2d 662 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(7)(a) — 4 cases
Giese v. Emp. Div., 557 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
Palmer v. Oregon State Penitentiary, Corr. Div., 545 P.2d 141 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
Nance v. Oregon State Sys. of Higher Educ., 543 P.2d 687 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
Whitmire v. Oregon State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 533 P.2d 1375 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(7)(d) — 13 cases
Am. Fed'n of State v. Exec. Dep't, 628 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
Skookum Co., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 545 P.2d 914 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
W. Amusement Co., Inc. v. City of Springfield, 545 P.2d 592 (Or. 1976).
Springfield Educ. Ass'n v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 547 P.2d 647 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
Braidwood v. City of Portland, 546 P.2d 777 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(8)(a) — 1 case
Oregon State Denturist Ass'n v. Bd. of Dentistry, 19 P.3d 986 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(l)(a) — 1 case
Tidewater Barge Lines, Inc. v. Oregon Env't Quality Comm'n, 974 P.2d 807 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480(l)(c) — 1 case
Brian v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Com'n, 891 P.2d 649 (Or. 1995). “Petitioner sought, among other things, a prefiminary injunction barring the Commission from continuing the investigation, on the ground that the Commission was “proceeding without probable cause,” under ORS 183.480(3), when it found “cause” to investigate him, on February 25,…”
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.