Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482

Jurisdiction for review of contested cases; procedure; scope of court authority

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

      183.482 Jurisdiction for review of contested cases; procedure; scope of court authority. (1) Jurisdiction for judicial review of contested cases is conferred upon the Court of Appeals. Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the Court of Appeals. The petition shall be filed within 60 days only following the date the order upon which the petition is based is served unless otherwise provided by statute. If a petition for rehearing has been filed, then the petition for review shall be filed within 60 days only following the date the order denying the petition for rehearing is served. If the agency does not otherwise act, a petition for rehearing or reconsideration shall be deemed denied the 60th day following the date the petition was filed, and in such cases, petition for judicial review shall be filed within 60 days only following such date. Date of service shall be the date on which the agency delivered or mailed its order in accordance with ORS 183.470.

      (2) The petition shall state the nature of the order the petitioner desires reviewed, and shall state whether the petitioner was a party to the administrative proceeding, was denied status as a party or is seeking judicial review as a person adversely affected or aggrieved by the agency order. In the latter case, the petitioner shall, by supporting affidavit, state the facts showing how the petitioner is adversely affected or aggrieved by the agency order. Before deciding the issues raised by the petition for review, the Court of Appeals shall decide, from facts set forth in the affidavit, whether or not the petitioner is entitled to petition as an adversely affected or an aggrieved person. Copies of the petition shall be served by registered or certified mail upon the agency, and all other parties of record in the agency proceeding.

      (3)(a) The filing of the petition shall not stay enforcement of the agency order, but the agency may do so upon a showing of:

      (A) Irreparable injury to the petitioner; and

      (B) A colorable claim of error in the order.

      (b) When a petitioner makes the showing required by paragraph (a) of this subsection, the agency shall grant the stay unless the agency determines that substantial public harm will result if the order is stayed. If the agency denies the stay, the denial shall be in writing and shall specifically state the substantial public harm that would result from the granting of the stay.

      (c) When the agency grants a stay, the agency may impose such reasonable conditions as the giving of a bond, irrevocable letter of credit or other undertaking and that the petitioner file all documents necessary to bring the matter to issue before the Court of Appeals within specified reasonable periods of time.

      (d) Agency denial of a motion for stay is subject to review by the Court of Appeals under such rules as the court may establish.

      (4) Within 30 days after service of the petition, or within such further time as the court may allow, the agency shall transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review, but, by stipulation of all parties to the review proceeding, the record may be shortened. Any party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be taxed by the court for the additional costs. The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record when deemed desirable. Except as specifically provided in this subsection, the cost of the record shall not be taxed to the petitioner or any intervening party. However, the court may tax such costs and the cost of agency transcription of record to a party filing a frivolous petition for review.

      (5) If, on review of a contested case, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good and substantial reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency, the court may order that the additional evidence be taken before the agency upon such conditions as the court deems proper. The agency may modify its findings and order by reason of the additional evidence and shall, within a time to be fixed by the court, file with the reviewing court, to become a part of the record, the additional evidence, together with any modifications or new findings or orders, or its certificate that the agency elects to stand on its original findings and order, as the case may be.

      (6) At any time subsequent to the filing of the petition for review and prior to the date set for hearing the agency may withdraw its order for purposes of reconsideration. If an agency withdraws an order for purposes of reconsideration, the agency shall, within such time as the court may allow, affirm, modify or reverse its order. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the agency action after withdrawal for purposes of reconsideration, the petitioner may refile the petition for review and the review shall proceed upon the revised order. An amended petition for review shall not be required if the agency, on reconsideration, affirms the order or modifies the order with only minor changes. If an agency withdraws an order for purposes of reconsideration and modifies or reverses the order in favor of the petitioner, the court shall allow the petitioner costs, but not attorney fees, to be paid from funds available to the agency.

      (7) Review of a contested case shall be confined to the record, and the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to any issue of fact or agency discretion. In the case of disputed allegations of irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record which, if proved, would warrant reversal or remand, the Court of Appeals may refer the allegations to a master appointed by the court to take evidence and make findings of fact upon them. The court shall remand the order for further agency action if the court finds that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed procedure, including a failure by the presiding officer to comply with the requirements of ORS 183.417 (8).

      (8)(a) The court may affirm, reverse or remand the order. If the court finds that the agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law and that a correct interpretation compels a particular action, the court shall:

      (A) Set aside or modify the order; or

      (B) Remand the case to the agency for further action under a correct interpretation of the provision of law.

      (b) The court shall remand the order to the agency if the court finds the agency’s exercise of discretion to be:

      (A) Outside the range of discretion delegated to the agency by law;

      (B) Inconsistent with an agency rule, an officially stated agency position, or a prior agency practice, if the inconsistency is not explained by the agency; or

      (C) Otherwise in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision.

      (c) The court shall set aside or remand the order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding. [1975 c.759 §15; 1977 c.798 §4; 1979 c.593 §24; 1985 c.757 §2; 1989 c.453 §1; 1991 c.331 §44; 2007 c.659 §§2,5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,881 cases (300 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Jenkins v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
Jenkins v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2014) or · cites it 20× “335(5) (1997) provided: “The Court of Appeals may affirm, reverse or remand the order on the same basis as provided in ORS 183.482 (8). The filing of the petition shall not stay the board’s order, but the board may do so, or the court may order a stay upon application on such…”
Don't Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility Siting Council (1994) or · cites it 17× “The types of errors alleged by petitioners are reviewable pursuant to the standards of review for administrative actions set forth in the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA).”
Hamel v. Johnson (2001) orctapp · cites it 20× “Defendant argues that, to the extent that sufficiency of the evidence arguments are cognizable in habeas corpus proceedings, the *316 proper standard is whether there is "some evidence" or "any evidence" to support the Board's decision. Defendant points out that there is…”
Megdal v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners (1980) or · cites it 12× “310(2)(c), see supra note 10, and review is governed by ORS 183.482. The statute was in process of revision when the Court of Appeals decided this case.”
McPherson v. Employment Division (1979) or · cites it 11× “In the case of a decision of the Employment Appeals Board, affirming a decision made on a formal hearing record by a referee, the scope of review is that stated for contested cases under the Administrative Procedure Act, ORS 183.482(8). That subsection presently provides: (8)…”
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Division (1999) or · cites it 27× ““(2) Judicial review of final orders of agencies shall be solely as provided by ORS 183.482, 183.484, 183.490 and 183.500.”
Haskell Corp. v. Filippi (1998) orctapp · cites it 72× “We have held that subsection (5) of ORS 183.482 does not apply to workers' compensation cases, but that was a narrow holding that was premised on the fact that that subsection includes a procedure that the legislature specifically removed from our review authority under ORS 656.”
Gordon v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2007) or · cites it 12× “335(3), 12 the appellate court reviews those orders using the standard of review set out in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), ORS 183.482(8). ORS 183.482(8), in turn, provides: “(a) The court may affirm, reverse or remand the order.”
Supension of Driving Privileges of Cole v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Branch (2004) or · cites it 13× “Dinsmore sought judicial review of the DMV order, pursuant to ORS 183.482, arguing that DMV’s decision to admit the police reports into evidence violated due process notions of “fundamental fairness” because she was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the officers who…”
Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co. (1988) orctapp · cites it 7× “298(6) by eliminating the language imposing on this court an obligation to conduct de novo review in workers’ compensation cases and by providing, instead: “Review shall be as provided in ORS 183.482(7) and (8).” 1 Section 12b provides: “The amendments * * * by section 12a * * *…”
Williams v. Saif Corp. (1990) or · cites it 24× “Review shall be as provided in ORS 183.482(7) and (8)." [3] This case presents a classic example of the kind of error contemplated by ORS 183.”
Application of Portland General Elec. Co. (1977) or · cites it 8× “While the case was before the Court of Appeals but after the statutory deadline for agency withdrawal of an order for reconsideration, ORS 183.482(6), petitioners and the council asked the court to remand the case for consideration of subsequent changes in the financial…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(1) — 69 cases
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Division (1999) or ““(2) Judicial review of final orders of agencies shall be solely as provided by ORS 183.482, 183.484, 183.490 and 183.500.”
Wheaton v. Kulongoski (2006) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(2) — 18 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3) — 11 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(a) — 11 cases
State v. Brewer (2014) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(a)(A) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(a)(B) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(a)(B)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(d) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(4) — 7 cases
SAIF Corp. v. Abbott (1991) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(5) — 12 cases
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Division (1999) or ““(2) Judicial review of final orders of agencies shall be solely as provided by ORS 183.482, 183.484, 183.490 and 183.500.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(6) — 55 cases
Haskell Corp. v. Filippi (1998) orctapp “We have held that subsection (5) of ORS 183.482 does not apply to workers' compensation cases, but that was a narrow holding that was premised on the fact that that subsection includes a procedure that the legislature specifically removed from our review authority under ORS 656.”
SAIF Corp. v. Fisher (1990) orctapp
Application of Portland General Elec. Co. (1977) or “While the case was before the Court of Appeals but after the statutory deadline for agency withdrawal of an order for reconsideration, ORS 183.482(6), petitioners and the council asked the court to remand the case for consideration of subsequent changes in the financial…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(7) — 301 cases
Williams v. Saif Corp. (1990) or “Review shall be as provided in ORS 183.482(7) and (8)." [3] This case presents a classic example of the kind of error contemplated by ORS 183.”
Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co. (1988) orctapp “298(6) by eliminating the language imposing on this court an obligation to conduct de novo review in workers’ compensation cases and by providing, instead: “Review shall be as provided in ORS 183.482(7) and (8).” 1 Section 12b provides: “The amendments * * * by section 12a * * *…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(7)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(7)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(7)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(7X8) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8) — 482 cases
McPherson v. Employment Division (1979) or “In the case of a decision of the Employment Appeals Board, affirming a decision made on a formal hearing record by a referee, the scope of review is that stated for contested cases under the Administrative Procedure Act, ORS 183.482(8). That subsection presently provides: (8)…”
Jenkins v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2014) or “335(5) (1997) provided: “The Court of Appeals may affirm, reverse or remand the order on the same basis as provided in ORS 183.482 (8). The filing of the petition shall not stay the board’s order, but the board may do so, or the court may order a stay upon application on such…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(a) — 524 cases
Don't Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility Siting Council (1994) or “The types of errors alleged by petitioners are reviewable pursuant to the standards of review for administrative actions set forth in the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(a)(A) — 15 cases
Megdal v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners (1980) or “310(2)(c), see supra note 10, and review is governed by ORS 183.482. The statute was in process of revision when the Court of Appeals decided this case.”
Proctor v. SAIF Corp. (1993) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(a)(B) — 37 cases
Nulph v. Board of Parole (2016) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(b) — 61 cases
Application of Portland General Elec. Co. (1977) or “While the case was before the Court of Appeals but after the statutory deadline for agency withdrawal of an order for reconsideration, ORS 183.482(6), petitioners and the council asked the court to remand the case for consideration of subsequent changes in the financial…”
Hamel v. Johnson (2001) orctapp “Defendant argues that, to the extent that sufficiency of the evidence arguments are cognizable in habeas corpus proceedings, the *316 proper standard is whether there is "some evidence" or "any evidence" to support the Board's decision. Defendant points out that there is…”
Ogden Aviation v. Lay (1996) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(b)(A) — 32 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(b)(B) — 59 cases
Gordon v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2007) or “335(3), 12 the appellate court reviews those orders using the standard of review set out in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), ORS 183.482(8). ORS 183.482(8), in turn, provides: “(a) The court may affirm, reverse or remand the order.”
Megdal v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners (1980) or “310(2)(c), see supra note 10, and review is governed by ORS 183.482. The statute was in process of revision when the Court of Appeals decided this case.”
Jenkins v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2014) or “335(5) (1997) provided: “The Court of Appeals may affirm, reverse or remand the order on the same basis as provided in ORS 183.482 (8). The filing of the petition shall not stay the board’s order, but the board may do so, or the court may order a stay upon application on such…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(b)(C) — 12 cases
Li v. State (2005) or
Lombardo v. Warner (2006) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(c) — 592 cases
Jenkins v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2014) or “335(5) (1997) provided: “The Court of Appeals may affirm, reverse or remand the order on the same basis as provided in ORS 183.482 (8). The filing of the petition shall not stay the board’s order, but the board may do so, or the court may order a stay upon application on such…”
Supension of Driving Privileges of Cole v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Branch (2004) or “Dinsmore sought judicial review of the DMV order, pursuant to ORS 183.482, arguing that DMV’s decision to admit the police reports into evidence violated due process notions of “fundamental fairness” because she was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the officers who…”
Hamel v. Johnson (2001) orctapp “Defendant argues that, to the extent that sufficiency of the evidence arguments are cognizable in habeas corpus proceedings, the *316 proper standard is whether there is "some evidence" or "any evidence" to support the Board's decision. Defendant points out that there is…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(d) — 29 cases
Application of Portland General Elec. Co. (1977) or “While the case was before the Court of Appeals but after the statutory deadline for agency withdrawal of an order for reconsideration, ORS 183.482(6), petitioners and the council asked the court to remand the case for consideration of subsequent changes in the financial…”
Dietz v. Smith (1977) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(e) — 5 cases
Hamel v. Johnson (2001) orctapp “Defendant argues that, to the extent that sufficiency of the evidence arguments are cognizable in habeas corpus proceedings, the *316 proper standard is whether there is "some evidence" or "any evidence" to support the Board's decision. Defendant points out that there is…”
Mills v. Boeing Co. (2007) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(a) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(c) — 6 cases
Baker v. Board of Parole (2020) orctapp
Supension of Driving Privileges of Cole v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Branch (2004) or “Dinsmore sought judicial review of the DMV order, pursuant to ORS 183.482, arguing that DMV’s decision to admit the police reports into evidence violated due process notions of “fundamental fairness” because she was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the officers who…”
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.