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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482 (2026)

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

✓ current as of May 2026
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. 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 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 Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 881 P.2d 119 (Or. 1994). · 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, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · 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 Bd. of Dental Examiners, 605 P.2d 273 (Or. 1980). · 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. Emp. Div., 591 P.2d 1381 (Or. 1979). · 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 Div., 992 P.2d 434 (Or. 1999). · 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, 953 P.2d 396 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · 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. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 175 P.3d 461 (Or. 2007). · 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 Veh. Servs. Branch, 87 P.3d 1120 (Or. 2004). · 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., 752 P.2d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · 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., 797 P.2d 1036 (Or. 1990). · 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 Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). · 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…”
Show all 1,881 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(1) — 69 cases
Ososke v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs., 891 P.2d 633 (Or. 1995).
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 992 P.2d 434 (Or. 1999). ““(2) Judicial review of final orders of agencies shall be solely as provided by ORS 183.482, 183.484, 183.490 and 183.500.”
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 941 P.2d 593 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
Liu v. Portland State Univ., 383 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
Wheaton v. Kulongoski, 147 P.3d 1163 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(2) — 18 cases
Lovelace v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 51 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019).
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 477 P.3d 1191 (Or. 2020).
Cooper v. Eugene Sch. Dist. No. 4J, 723 P.2d 298 (Or. 1986).
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 941 P.2d 593 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3) — 11 cases
Weldon v. Bd. of Licensed Prof'l Counselors & Therapists, 293 P.3d 1023 (Or. 2012).
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 60 P.3d 1126 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Evans v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 743 P.2d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Balderas, 18 P.3d 434 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Nw. Title Loans, LLC v. Div. of Fin. & Corp. Sec., 42 P.3d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(a) — 11 cases
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 60 P.3d 1126 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Brewer, 320 P.3d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Weldon v. Bd. of Licensed Prof'l Counselors & Therapists, 293 P.3d 1023 (Or. 2012).
Oregon Sch. Activities Ass'n v. State Bd. of Educ., 260 P.3d 735 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 316 P.3d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(a)(A) — 3 cases
Evans v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 743 P.2d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 60 P.3d 1126 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Nw. Title Loans, LLC v. Div. of Fin. & Corp. Sec., 42 P.3d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(a)(B) — 4 cases
Evans v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 743 P.2d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 60 P.3d 1126 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Arlington Sch. Dist. No. 3 v. Arlington Educ. Ass'n, 55 P.3d 546 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Nw. Title Loans, LLC v. Div. of Fin. & Corp. Sec., 42 P.3d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(a)(B)(b) — 1 case
Evans v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 743 P.2d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(b) — 1 case
Nw. Title Loans, LLC v. Div. of Fin. & Corp. Sec., 42 P.3d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(3)(d) — 2 cases
Weldon v. Bd. of Licensed Prof'l Counselors & Therapists, 293 P.3d 1023 (Or. 2012).
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 60 P.3d 1126 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(4) — 7 cases
1000 Friends of or. v. Multnomah Cty., Etc., 593 P.2d 1171 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
Int'l Council of Shopping Centers v. Oregon Env't Quality Comm'n, 556 P.2d 138 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 941 P.2d 593 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
SAIF Corp. v. Abbott, 810 P.2d 878 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
Oregon Bus. Plan. Council v. Dep't of Land Conservation, & Dev., 619 P.2d 1291 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(5) — 12 cases
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 941 P.2d 593 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
Burke v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 607 P.2d 141 (Or. 1980).
Norden v. State, Water Resources Dept., 996 P.2d 958 (Or. 2000).
Gritter v. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div., 48 P.3d 195 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 992 P.2d 434 (Or. 1999). ““(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, 953 P.2d 396 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “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, 785 P.2d 1082 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). “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…”
Golden Rule Farms v. Water Resources Dept., 515 P.3d 908 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
Stelljes v. State Bd. of Parole, 769 P.2d 177 (Or. 1989).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(7) — 301 cases
Williams v. Saif Corp., 797 P.2d 1036 (Or. 1990). “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.”
Villanueva v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 39 P.3d 238 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Pulito v. Bd. of Nursing, 468 P.3d 401 (Or. 2020).
Pena v. Travelers Ins. Co. (In re Pena), 432 P.3d 382 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 752 P.2d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “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
NCE-Deer Lodge Apts. v. Hartman, 966 P.2d 245 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(7)(c) — 1 case
Oregon AFSCME Council 75 v. OJD - Yamhill Cnty., 304 Or. App. 794 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(7)(d) — 1 case
Siegel v. Gresham Grade Teachers Ass'n, 574 P.2d 692 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(7X8) — 1 case
City of Wood Vill. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 616 P.2d 528 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8) — 482 cases
McPherson v. Emp. Div., 591 P.2d 1381 (Or. 1979). “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. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 335 P.3d 828 (Or. 2014). “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…”
Martin v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 957 P.2d 1210 (Or. 1998).
Castro v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 220 P.3d 772 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole, 309 P.3d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(a) — 524 cases
Don't Waste Oregon Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 881 P.2d 119 (Or. 1994). “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).”
Springfield Educ. Ass'n v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 621 P.2d 547 (Or. 1980).
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).
Meltebeke v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 903 P.2d 351 (Or. 1995).
Am. Fed'n of State v. Exec. Dep't, 628 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(a)(A) — 15 cases
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 605 P.2d 273 (Or. 1980). “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.”
Pulito v. Bd. of Nursing, 468 P.3d 401 (Or. 2020).
Marshall's Towing v. Dep't of State Police, 116 P.3d 873 (Or. 2005).
Dearborn v. Real Est. Agency, 53 P.3d 436 (Or. 2002).
Proctor v. SAIF Corp., 860 P.2d 828 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(a)(B) — 37 cases
Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 317 P.3d 244 (Or. 2013).
Nulph v. Bd. of Parole, 381 P.3d 948 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 144 P.3d 918 (Or. 2006).
Oregon State Corr. Inst. v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 780 P.2d 743 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
Nakashima v. Oregon State Bd. of Educ., 185 P.3d 429 (Or. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(b) — 61 cases
Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). “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…”
Fred Meyer Stores v. Godfrey, 180 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Schoch v. Leupold & Stevens, 934 P.2d 410 (Or. 1997).
Hamel v. Johnson, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “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, 921 P.2d 1321 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(b)(A) — 32 cases
Fred Meyer Stores v. Godfrey, 180 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Schoch v. Leupold & Stevens, 934 P.2d 410 (Or. 1997).
J. R. Simplot Co. v. Dep't of Agric., 131 P.3d 162 (Or. 2006).
Martin v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 957 P.2d 1210 (Or. 1998).
Cuff v. Dep't of Pub. Saf. Standards & Training, 198 P.3d 931 (Or. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(b)(B) — 59 cases
Gordon v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 175 P.3d 461 (Or. 2007). “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.”
Lake Cnty. v. Teamsters Local Union 223, 145 P.3d 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 605 P.2d 273 (Or. 1980). “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. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 335 P.3d 828 (Or. 2014). “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…”
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(b)(C) — 12 cases
O'HARA v. Bd. of Parole, 203 P.3d 213 (Or. 2009).
Li v. State, 110 P.3d 91 (Or. 2005).
Cooper v. Eugene Sch. Dist. No. 4J, 723 P.2d 298 (Or. 1986).
Centennial Sch. Dist. No. 28J v. Oregon Bureau of Labor & Indus., 10 P.3d 945 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
Lombardo v. Warner, 132 P.3d 22 (Or. 2006).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(c) — 592 cases
Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 335 P.3d 828 (Or. 2014). “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…”
Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 822 P.2d 1171 (Or. 1991).
Supension of Driving Privileges of Cole v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 87 P.3d 1120 (Or. 2004). “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, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “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…”
Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(d) — 29 cases
Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). “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…”
Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988).
Lewis & Clark Coll. v. Bureau of Labor, 602 P.2d 1161 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
McIntyre v. Emp. Div., 598 P.2d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
Dietz v. Smith, 561 P.2d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(8)(e) — 5 cases
Hamel v. Johnson, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “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…”
Corcoran v. Bd. of Nursing, 107 P.3d 627 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
Campbell v. Emp. Dep't, 263 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Clackamas Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Oregon Bureau of Labor & Indus., 624 P.2d 141 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
Mills v. Boeing Co., 159 P.3d 375 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(a) — 2 cases
Emp. Solutions Staffing Grp. v. SAIF, 343 Or. App. 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Emp. Solutions Staffing Grp. v. SAIF, 343 Or. App. 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482(c) — 6 cases
Baker v. Bd. of Parole, 473 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Supension of Driving Privileges of Cole v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 87 P.3d 1120 (Or. 2004). “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…”
Hamilton v. Pac. Skyline, Inc., 338 P.3d 791 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Emp. Solutions Staffing Grp. v. SAIF, 343 Or. App. 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Pilling v. Travelers Ins. Co. (In re Pilling), 412 P.3d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
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.