Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.650 (2026)

Form of order; modification of form of order by agency; finding of historical fact

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

183.650 Form of order; modification of form of order by agency; finding of historical fact. (1) In any contested case hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings, the administrative law judge shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties to the hearing a form of order, including recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. The administrative law judge shall also prepare and serve a proposed order in the manner provided by ORS 183.464 unless the agency or hearing is exempt from the requirements of ORS 183.464.

(2) If the administrative law judge assigned from the office will not enter the final order in a contested case proceeding, and the agency modifies the form of order issued by the administrative law judge in any substantial manner, the agency must identify the modifications and provide an explanation to the parties to the hearing as to why the agency made the modifications.

(3) An agency conducting a contested case hearing may modify a finding of historical fact made by the administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings only if the agency determines that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record that the finding was wrong. For the purposes of this section, an administrative law judge makes a finding of historical fact if the administrative law judge determines that an event did or did not occur in the past or that a circumstance or status did or did not exist either before the hearing or at the time of the hearing.

(4) Notwithstanding ORS 19.415 (3), if a party seeks judicial review of an agency’s modification of a finding of historical fact under subsection (3) of this section, the court shall make an independent finding of the fact in dispute by conducting a review de novo of the record viewed as a whole. If the court decides that the agency erred in modifying the finding of historical fact made by the administrative law judge, the court shall remand the matter to the agency for entry of an order consistent with the court’s judgment. [1999 c.849 §12; 2003 c.75 §11; 2009 c.231 §5; 2009 c.866 §7]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Corcoran v. Bd. of Nursing, 107 P.3d 627 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Corcoran v. Bd. of Nursing, 107 P.3d 627 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 34× “ORS 183.650 provides, in part: “(1) In any contested case hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings, the administrative law judge shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties to the hearing a form of order,…”

Becklin v. Bd. of Examiners for Eng'g & Land Surveying, 97 P.3d 1216 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 11× “According to petitioner, under ORS 183.650, an agency’s authority to modify a proposed order issued by an ALJ is limited to the authority to modify findings and conclusions initially made by the ALJ, as provided in subsection (3) of that statute; conversely, petitioner contends,…”

Bice v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 383 P.3d 913 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “” ORS 183.650 provides: “(1) In any contested case hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings, the administrative law judge shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties to the hearing a form of order, including…”

Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n v. Bergerson, 153 P.3d 84 (Or. 2007). · cites it 13× “Specifically, petitioner argues that the TSPC failed to identify and explain various substantial modifications that it made to the ALJ’s proposed order in its final order, thereby violating ORS 183.650. ORS 183.650 provides, in part: “(1) In any contested case hearing conducted…”

Weldon v. Bd. of Licensed Prof'l Counselors & Therapists, 337 P.3d 911 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 37× “Petitioner seeks judicial review of the board’s final order, contending, as noted above, that the board failed to comply with the provisions of ORS 183.650 in various ways when it modified the AL J’s proposed order.”

WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 342 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “Petitioner asserts that “the ALJ made several findings of fact regarding what ODFW’s advice required from the annual meetings and where the permit conditions failed to incorporate ODFW’s advice.”

Shicor v. Bd. of Speech Language Pathology & Audiology, 420 P.3d 638 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to ORS 183.650(3), an "agency conducting a contested case hearing may modify a finding of historical fact made by the administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings only if the agency determines that there is clear and convincing evidence…”

Talbott v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 317 P.3d 347 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “See ORS 183.650 (procedure for agency’s revision of a proposed order); OAR 137-003-0655 (governing amended proposed orders).”

Robin v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 421 P.3d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “" In her fourth assignment of error, petitioner contends that those changes to the proposed order were significant enough to trigger ORS 183.650(2), which provides that, if an agency "modifies the form of order issued by the administrative law judge in any substantial manner ,…”

Growing Green Panda v. Dept. of Human Servs., 461 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “” 3 This finding of fact, which the administrative law judge did not make, but petitioner argues was added by DHS pursuant to ORS 183.650(3), is disputed by petitioner.”

Moon v. Gov't Standards & Practices, 108 P.3d 112 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “3d 627 (2004) (explaining standard of review under ORS 183.650). Thus, ORS 183.650(4) is not applicable.”

Wheaton v. Kulongoski, 147 P.3d 1163 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “ORS 183.650(2). If the orders are adverse to petitioners, they will be entitled to seek judicial review by this court.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.650(1) — 1 case

Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n v. Bergerson, 153 P.3d 84 (Or. 2007). “Specifically, petitioner argues that the TSPC failed to identify and explain various substantial modifications that it made to the ALJ’s proposed order in its final order, thereby violating ORS 183.650. ORS 183.650 provides, in part: “(1) In any contested case hearing conducted…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.650(2) — 16 cases

Becklin v. Bd. of Examiners for Eng'g & Land Surveying, 97 P.3d 1216 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “According to petitioner, under ORS 183.650, an agency’s authority to modify a proposed order issued by an ALJ is limited to the authority to modify findings and conclusions initially made by the ALJ, as provided in subsection (3) of that statute; conversely, petitioner contends,…”

Robin v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 421 P.3d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “" In her fourth assignment of error, petitioner contends that those changes to the proposed order were significant enough to trigger ORS 183.650(2), which provides that, if an agency "modifies the form of order issued by the administrative law judge in any substantial manner ,…”

Bice v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 383 P.3d 913 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “” ORS 183.650 provides: “(1) In any contested case hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings, the administrative law judge shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties to the hearing a form of order, including…”

Wheaton v. Kulongoski, 147 P.3d 1163 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 183.650(2). If the orders are adverse to petitioners, they will be entitled to seek judicial review by this court.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.650(3) — 15 cases

Corcoran v. Bd. of Nursing, 107 P.3d 627 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “ORS 183.650 provides, in part: “(1) In any contested case hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings, the administrative law judge shall prepare and serve on the agency and all parties to the hearing a form of order,…”

WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 342 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Petitioner asserts that “the ALJ made several findings of fact regarding what ODFW’s advice required from the annual meetings and where the permit conditions failed to incorporate ODFW’s advice.”

Weldon v. Bd. of Licensed Prof'l Counselors & Therapists, 337 P.3d 911 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Petitioner seeks judicial review of the board’s final order, contending, as noted above, that the board failed to comply with the provisions of ORS 183.650 in various ways when it modified the AL J’s proposed order.”

Talbott v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'n, 317 P.3d 347 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “See ORS 183.650 (procedure for agency’s revision of a proposed order); OAR 137-003-0655 (governing amended proposed orders).”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.650(4) — 15 cases

Shicor v. Bd. of Speech Language Pathology & Audiology, 420 P.3d 638 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “Pursuant to ORS 183.650(3), an "agency conducting a contested case hearing may modify a finding of historical fact made by the administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings only if the agency determines that there is clear and convincing evidence…”

Growing Green Panda v. Dept. of Human Servs., 461 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “” 3 This finding of fact, which the administrative law judge did not make, but petitioner argues was added by DHS pursuant to ORS 183.650(3), is disputed by petitioner.”

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.