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
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…”
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…”
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)…”
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.”
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
— 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
— 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
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(5) — 12 cases
— 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.”
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
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(a)(A) — 15 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(a)(B) — 37 cases
— 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…”
— 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.”
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
— 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…”
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…”
— 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…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(a) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(c) — 6 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.