Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484 (2026)

Jurisdiction for review of orders other than 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

183.484 Jurisdiction for review of orders other than contested cases; procedure; scope of court authority. (1) Jurisdiction for judicial review of orders other than contested cases is conferred upon the Circuit Court for Marion County and upon the circuit court for the county in which the petitioner resides or has a principal business office. Proceedings for review under this section shall be instituted by filing a petition in the Circuit Court for Marion County or the circuit court for the county in which the petitioner resides or has a principal business office.

(2) Petitions for review shall be filed within 60 days only following the date the order is served, or if a petition for reconsideration or rehearing has been filed, then within 60 days only following the date the order denying such petition 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 case 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.

(3) The petition shall state the nature of the petitioner’s interest, the facts showing how the petitioner is adversely affected or aggrieved by the agency order and the ground or grounds upon which the petitioner contends the order should be reversed or remanded. The review shall proceed and be conducted by the court without a jury.

(4) 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, it 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.

(5)(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, it 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 it 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) The court shall set aside or remand the order if it 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.

(6) In the case of reversal the court shall make special findings of fact based upon the evidence in the record and conclusions of law indicating clearly all aspects in which the agency’s order is erroneous. [1975 c.759 §16; 1979 c.284 §121; 1979 c.593 §25a; 1985 c.757 §3; 1999 c.113 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 280 cases (58 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Kasliner v. Dept. of Human Servs., 330 Or. App. 85 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kasliner v. Dept. of Human Servs., 330 Or. App. 85 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 45× “, 329 Or 641, 649 , 996 P2d 958 (2000) (interpreting ORS 183.484). Moreover, ORS 183.484(6) “contemplates * * * [that the circuit court will make] findings of fact based on that record when it reverses the agency.”

Norden v. State, Water Resources Dept., 996 P.2d 958 (Or. 2000). · cites it 24× “On judicial review under ORS 183.484, the circuit court took evidence both of what the agency knew at the time when it issued its order as well as evidence that the agency and petitioner had obtained after the agency issued its order.”

Hayes Oyster Co. v. DEQ, 504 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 17× “Held: Plaintiff’s claim under ORS 183.484 of the APA was untimely, as the 60-day period in which to file a peti- tion for judicial review began in 2001 and had expired.”

Querbach v. Dept. of Human Servs., 512 P.3d 432 (Or. 2022). · cites it 20× “Petitioner then sought judicial review of that order as an “order in other than [a] contested case,” as provided in ORS 183.484. He filed a petition for judicial review in the circuit court for the county in which he resided, ORS 183.”

Cervantes v. Dep't of Human Servs., 435 P.3d 831 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “*693 This proceeding arises under ORS 183.484, which provides for judicial review of final agency orders "other than contested cases" in an appropriate circuit court.”

Powell v. Bunn, 108 P.3d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 22× “ORS 183.484. The superintendent declined to proceed further on petitioners' complaint of discrimination on the ground that there was no substantial evidence that the district's policy of permitting the Boy Scouts of America to make presentations to students during school hours…”

G.A.S.P. v. Env't Quality Comm'n, 108 P.3d 95 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “Petitioners sought judicial review of EQC’s order in the Multnomah County Circuit Court under ORS 183.484, which provides for judicial review of final orders in other than contested cases.”

Multnomah Cnty. v. Talbot, 641 P.2d 617 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 20× “I JURISDICTION Petitioners sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), specifically ORS 183.484, which vests jurisdiction in the circuit court for review of agency orders in other than contested cases.”

Mendieta v. State, Div. of State Lands, 941 P.2d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 18× “010, that, among other things, the leases created in the land exchange process must conform to the 1983 revisions to the land exchange and grazing lease policy and provide for terms of 20 years, with automatic renewal periods of an additional 20 years; (2) for judicial review…”

Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 992 P.2d 434 (Or. 1999). · cites it 15× “482, ORS 183.484, ORS 183.490, and ORS 183.500.”

Wheaton v. Kulongoski, 147 P.3d 1163 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “Petitioners then filed this proceeding in circuit court pursuant to ORS 183.484, which provides for judicial review of orders in other than a contested case.”

Oregon Restaurant Servs., Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery, 112 P.3d 398 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “According to the lottery, the 21 letters that are the subject of the petition are not “final orders” subject to circuit court review under ORS 183.484. By the terms of the letters themselves, the lottery argued, as well as by the rules that the letters incorporated, each of the…”

Show all 280 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(1) — 46 cases

Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 992 P.2d 434 (Or. 1999). “482, ORS 183.484, ORS 183.490, and ORS 183.500.”

Cervantes v. Dep't of Human Servs., 435 P.3d 831 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “*693 This proceeding arises under ORS 183.484, which provides for judicial review of final agency orders "other than contested cases" in an appropriate circuit court.”

White v. Pub. Employees Ret. Bd., 268 P.3d 600 (Or. 2011).

Querbach v. Dept. of Human Servs., 512 P.3d 432 (Or. 2022). “Petitioner then sought judicial review of that order as an “order in other than [a] contested case,” as provided in ORS 183.484. He filed a petition for judicial review in the circuit court for the county in which he resided, ORS 183.”

State Ex Rel. Keisling v. Norblad, 860 P.2d 241 (Or. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(2) — 32 cases

Mendieta v. State, Div. of State Lands, 941 P.2d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “010, that, among other things, the leases created in the land exchange process must conform to the 1983 revisions to the land exchange and grazing lease policy and provide for terms of 20 years, with automatic renewal periods of an additional 20 years; (2) for judicial review…”

League of Oregon Cities v. State, 56 P.3d 892 (Or. 2002).

Hayes Oyster Co. v. DEQ, 504 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Held: Plaintiff’s claim under ORS 183.484 of the APA was untimely, as the 60-day period in which to file a peti- tion for judicial review began in 2001 and had expired.”

State Ex Rel. Keisling v. Norblad, 860 P.2d 241 (Or. 1993).

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

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(3) — 14 cases

Cooper v. Eugene Sch. Dist. No. 4J, 723 P.2d 298 (Or. 1986).

Local No. 290 v. Oregon Dep't of Env't Quality, 919 P.2d 1168 (Or. 1996).

Oregon Env't Council v. Oregon State Bd. of Educ., 761 P.2d 1322 (Or. 1988).

Multnomah Cnty. v. Talbot, 641 P.2d 617 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “I JURISDICTION Petitioners sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), specifically ORS 183.484, which vests jurisdiction in the circuit court for review of agency orders in other than contested cases.”

Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Oregon Water Resources Dep't, 238 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(4) — 24 cases

Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 992 P.2d 434 (Or. 1999). “482, ORS 183.484, ORS 183.490, and ORS 183.500.”

City of Eugene v. State, 117 P.3d 1001 (Or. 2005).

Oregon Env't Council v. Oregon State Bd. of Educ., 761 P.2d 1322 (Or. 1988).

Norden v. State, Water Resources Dept., 996 P.2d 958 (Or. 2000). “On judicial review under ORS 183.484, the circuit court took evidence both of what the agency knew at the time when it issued its order as well as evidence that the agency and petitioner had obtained after the agency issued its order.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(4)(a) — 5 cases

Bingham v. Oregon Sch. Activities Ass'n, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (D. Or. 1999).

Stilger v. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div., 749 P.2d 1204 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Dority v. Water Resources Dep't, 942 P.2d 292 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(4)(a)(A)(B) — 1 case

Pen-Nor, Inc. v. Oregon Dep't of Higher Educ., 742 P.2d 643 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(4)(a)(B) — 2 cases

Polaski v. Clark, 973 P.2d 381 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

Keeton-King Constr., Inc. v. State, 809 P.2d 708 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(4)(b) — 4 cases

Don't Waste Oregon Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 881 P.2d 119 (Or. 1994).

Bradford v. Davis, 626 P.2d 1376 (Or. 1981).

Adams v. Oregon State Child.'s Servs. Div., 886 P.2d 19 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Bingham v. Oregon Sch. Activities Ass'n, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (D. Or. 1999).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(4)(b)(B) — 6 cases

Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 716 P.2d 724 (Or. 1986).

Adams v. Oregon State Child.'s Servs. Div., 886 P.2d 19 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Lazaro v. State, 941 P.2d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Williams v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 806 P.2d 1161 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(4)(b)(C) — 1 case

Cooper v. Eugene Sch. Dist. No. 4J, 723 P.2d 298 (Or. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(4)(c) — 8 cases

G.A.S.P. v. Env't Quality Comm'n, 108 P.3d 95 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Petitioners sought judicial review of EQC’s order in the Multnomah County Circuit Court under ORS 183.484, which provides for judicial review of final orders in other than contested cases.”

Brown v. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div., 705 P.2d 236 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

Norden v. State, 973 P.2d 910 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

In Re Harris v. Oregon State Bd. of Higher Educ., 930 P.2d 873 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(5) — 42 cases

Kasliner v. Dept. of Human Servs., 330 Or. App. 85 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “, 329 Or 641, 649 , 996 P2d 958 (2000) (interpreting ORS 183.484). Moreover, ORS 183.484(6) “contemplates * * * [that the circuit court will make] findings of fact based on that record when it reverses the agency.”

Riverkeepers v. Oregon Dep't of Env't Quality, 230 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Powell v. Bunn, 142 P.3d 1054 (Or. 2006).

Powell v. Bunn, 108 P.3d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “ORS 183.484. The superintendent declined to proceed further on petitioners' complaint of discrimination on the ground that there was no substantial evidence that the district's policy of permitting the Boy Scouts of America to make presentations to students during school hours…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(5)(a) — 33 cases

Middleton v. Dep't of Human Servs., 183 P.3d 1041 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

E. Oregon Mining Ass'n v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 376 P.3d 288 (Or. 2016).

Hoekstre v. State Ex Rel. Dlcd, 278 P.3d 123 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(5)(a)(B) — 2 cases

Ericsson v. State, 285 P.3d 722 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Richardson v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 292 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(5)(b) — 7 cases

Ericsson v. State, 285 P.3d 722 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Middleton v. Dep't of Human Servs., 183 P.3d 1041 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(5)(b)(A) — 2 cases

Kasliner v. Dept. of Human Servs. (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(5)(b)(B) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(5)(b)(C) — 1 case

Canby Manor Estates, LLC v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 251 P.3d 214 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(5)(c) — 28 cases

Powell v. Bunn, 59 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(6) — 2 cases

Kasliner v. Dept. of Human Servs. (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(7) — 1 case

Employers Ins. of Wausau v. RM Hardy & Co., 963 P.2d 97 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(8) — 1 case

Castro v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 220 P.3d 772 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(8)(a) — 5 cases

Carrillo v. SAIF, 484 P.3d 398 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Goodman-Herron v. SAIF Corp., 950 P.2d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Double K Kleaning Serv., Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 82 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).

Hiner v. Crawford Health & Rehab., 961 P.2d 283 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. D & H Logging, Inc., 979 P.2d 297 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(8)(b)(B) — 1 case

Blue Iguana, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 310 P.3d 720 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484(8)(c) — 3 cases

Johnson v. Emp. Dep't, 74 P.3d 1159 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

Scherzinger v. Portland Custodians Civil Serv. Bd., 149 P.3d 142 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Hiner v. Crawford Health & Rehab., 961 P.2d 283 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

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.