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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.486 (2026)

Form and scope of decision of reviewing court

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

      183.486 Form and scope of decision of reviewing court. (1) The reviewing court’s decision under ORS 183.482 or 183.484 may be mandatory, prohibitory, or declaratory in form, and it shall provide whatever relief is appropriate irrespective of the original form of the petition. The court may:

      (a) Order agency action required by law, order agency exercise of discretion when required by law, set aside agency action, remand the case for further agency proceedings or decide the rights, privileges, obligations, requirements or procedures at issue between the parties; and

      (b) Order such ancillary relief as the court finds necessary to redress the effects of official action wrongfully taken or withheld.

      (2) If the court sets aside agency action or remands the case to the agency for further proceedings, it may make such interlocutory order as the court finds necessary to preserve the interests of any party and the public pending further proceedings or agency action.

      (3) Unless the court finds a ground for setting aside, modifying, remanding, or ordering agency action or ancillary relief under a specified provision of this section, it shall affirm the agency action. [1979 c.593 §27]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 605 P.2d 273 (Or. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 605 P.2d 273 (Or. 1980). · cites it 4× “The latter restraint on over enthusiastic judicial review is reinforced in a new section, ORS 183.486, enjoining the reviewing court to affirm the agency action unless one of the specified grounds of error can be identified.”
Wallace v. State Ex Rel. Perb, 263 P.3d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “Therefore, the authority for plaintiff to obtain compensatory relief in the contested case proceeding would have to be found in the APA. In that respect, the APA gives a reviewing court in either a contested case proceeding or an other than contested case proceeding—the Court of…”
Burns v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 841 P.2d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 11× “300, or its suggestion that no kind of tort damages is available under ORS 183.486(1). NOTES [1] The question is not presented of whether an OTCA claim based on an agency order may be brought after APA review has been completed.”
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 316 P.3d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “075(4), (5), or (6) undercuts or affects the application of ORS 183.486 to this case — that is, nothing in those subsections indicates that ORS 183.”
Hay v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 719 P.2d 860 (Or. 1986). · cites it 2× “400, although the court of appeals could, if it invalidated the rule, enter a protective order under section 183.486(2) pending further agency proceedings.”
Norden v. State, Water Resources Dept., 996 P.2d 958 (Or. 2000). “See ORS 183.486(1) (circuit court decision “may be mandatory, prohibitory, or declaratory in form and it shall provide whatever relief is appropriate irrespective of the original form of the petition”).”
Pacificorp v. Dept. of Energy, 21 Or. Tax 116 (Or. T.C. 2013). · cites it 3× “484 or ORS 183.486. That fact is not, however, determinative.”
Teel Irrigation Dist. v. Water Resources Dep't, 898 P.2d 1344 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Because the trial court did not err in setting aside the May 1993 order, we next address the department's argument that an injunction is not an available remedy under the APA.”
Wallace v. State ex rel. Pub. Employees Ret. Bd. & Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 263 P.3d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “In that respect, the APA gives a reviewing court in either a contested case proceeding or an other than contested case proceeding — the Court of Appeals or the circuit court, respectively — authority to “[o]rder such ancillary relief as the court finds necessary to redress the…”
Owen v. Div. of State Lands, 76 P.3d 158 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Petitioners also seek ancillary relief under ORS 183.486(l)(b). On review for errors of law, ORS 183.”
Pen-Nor, Inc. v. Oregon Dep't of Higher Educ., 742 P.2d 643 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “We need not consider whether it might be entitled to pursue a declaratory judgment proceeding as a member of the class of MBE’s, because plaintiff, although it characterizes its complaint as a class action, raises no class action issues on appeal.”
Glover v. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div., 613 P.2d 495 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “484 may be mandatory, prohibitory, or declaratory in form, and it shall provide whatever relief is appropriate irrespective of the original form of the petition.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.486(1) — 5 cases
Norden v. State, Water Resources Dept., 996 P.2d 958 (Or. 2000). “See ORS 183.486(1) (circuit court decision “may be mandatory, prohibitory, or declaratory in form and it shall provide whatever relief is appropriate irrespective of the original form of the petition”).”
Burns v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 841 P.2d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “300, or its suggestion that no kind of tort damages is available under ORS 183.486(1). NOTES [1] The question is not presented of whether an OTCA claim based on an agency order may be brought after APA review has been completed.”
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 316 P.3d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “075(4), (5), or (6) undercuts or affects the application of ORS 183.486 to this case — that is, nothing in those subsections indicates that ORS 183.”
Lewis v. Beyer, 325 P.3d 59 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Archbold v. Div. of Child Support, 348 Or. App. 316 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.486(1)(a) — 1 case
Archbold v. Div. of Child Support, 348 Or. App. 316 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.486(1)(b) — 4 cases
Wallace v. State Ex Rel. Perb, 263 P.3d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Therefore, the authority for plaintiff to obtain compensatory relief in the contested case proceeding would have to be found in the APA. In that respect, the APA gives a reviewing court in either a contested case proceeding or an other than contested case proceeding—the Court of…”
Burns v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 841 P.2d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “300, or its suggestion that no kind of tort damages is available under ORS 183.486(1). NOTES [1] The question is not presented of whether an OTCA claim based on an agency order may be brought after APA review has been completed.”
Nw. & Intermountain Power Producers v. PGE, 480 P.3d 981 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Archbold v. Div. of Child Support, 348 Or. App. 316 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.486(2) — 2 cases
Hay v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 719 P.2d 860 (Or. 1986). “400, although the court of appeals could, if it invalidated the rule, enter a protective order under section 183.486(2) pending further agency proceedings.”
Nw. Title Loans, LLC v. Div. of Fin. & Corp. Sec., 42 P.3d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.486(3) — 1 case
Archbold v. Div. of Child Support, 348 Or. App. 316 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.486(l)(b) — 4 cases
Burns v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 841 P.2d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “300, or its suggestion that no kind of tort damages is available under ORS 183.486(1). NOTES [1] The question is not presented of whether an OTCA claim based on an agency order may be brought after APA review has been completed.”
Wallace v. State ex rel. Pub. Employees Ret. Bd. & Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 263 P.3d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “In that respect, the APA gives a reviewing court in either a contested case proceeding or an other than contested case proceeding — the Court of Appeals or the circuit court, respectively — authority to “[o]rder such ancillary relief as the court finds necessary to redress the…”
Owen v. Div. of State Lands, 76 P.3d 158 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “Petitioners also seek ancillary relief under ORS 183.486(l)(b). On review for errors of law, ORS 183.”
Pen-Nor, Inc. v. Oregon Dep't of Higher Educ., 742 P.2d 643 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “We need not consider whether it might be entitled to pursue a declaratory judgment proceeding as a member of the class of MBE’s, because plaintiff, although it characterizes its complaint as a class action, raises no class action issues on appeal.”
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.