183.645
Request for change of administrative law judge; rules. (1) After assignment of an
administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct
a hearing on behalf of an agency, the chief administrative law judge shall
assign a different administrative law judge for the hearing upon receiving a
written request from any party in the contested case or from the agency. The
chief administrative law judge may by rule establish time limitations and
procedures for requests under this section.
(2) Only one
request for a change of assignment of administrative law judge under subsection
(1) of this section may be granted by the chief administrative law judge
without a showing of good cause. If a party or agency fails to make a request
under subsection (1) of this section within the time allowed, or if a party or
agency objects to an administrative law judge assigned after a request for a
different administrative law judge has been granted under subsection (1) of
this section, the chief administrative law judge shall assign a different
administrative law judge only upon a showing of good cause.
(3)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a different administrative law
judge may not be assigned for a hearing provided under ORS 813.410 or 813.440
on suspension of driving privileges, except upon a showing of good cause. [1999
c.849 §11; 2001 c.294 §8; 2003 c.75 §10]
Notes of Decisions
Pulito v. Bd. of Nursing, 468 P.3d 401 (Or. 2020).
· cites it 37× “Licensee argued that OAR 471-060-0005 is invalid because it fails to implement proper “time limitations” as directed by ORS 183.645. The initially assigned ALJ issued a proposed order revoking licensee’s nurse license, which the board adopted as its final order.”
Bianco v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 307 P.3d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
““(e) A request for a change of administrative law judge under ORS 183.645. “(f) The inability of the person’s attorney to appear due to the attorney’s illness, vacation or scheduling conflict arising from other court or administrative hearing appearances.”
Murphy v. Oregon Med. Bd., 344 Or. App. 319 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“The court concluded that the rule exceeded the scope of its authorizing statute, ORS 183.645, because the rule failed to include discernable time periods for parties to request a change from the assigned administrative law judge.”
Murphy v. Oregon Med. Bd., 344 Or. App. 319 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“The court concluded that the rule exceeded the scope of its authorizing statute, ORS 183.645, because the rule failed to include discernable time periods for parties to request a change from the assigned administrative law judge.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.645(1) — 1 case
Pulito v. Bd. of Nursing, 468 P.3d 401 (Or. 2020).
“Licensee argued that OAR 471-060-0005 is invalid because it fails to implement proper “time limitations” as directed by ORS 183.645. The initially assigned ALJ issued a proposed order revoking licensee’s nurse license, which the board adopted as its final order.”
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.