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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.684 (2026)

Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.683

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

      657.684 Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.683. Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.683 shall be as provided for review of orders in contested cases in ORS chapter 183, except that the petition shall be filed within 20 days after the order is final. The Director of the Employment Department may file petition for judicial review in accordance with this section from decision of the administrative law judge. When judicial review is upon an assessment or assessments made pursuant to ORS 657.681 and the court determines the assessment or assessments are valid, judgment shall be given in favor of the director for the amount due as determined by the court. [1971 c.734 §100; 1999 c.849 §153; 2003 c.75 §106]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases, 1973–2016 · leading case: Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 77 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 77 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 24× “ORS 657.684 makes that point absolutely clear when it provides that either the employing unit or the Director may seek judicial review of the hearing officer's decision.”
Broadway Cab LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 364 P.3d 338 (Or. 2015). · cites it 2× “ORS 657.684. 11 Under that standard, we review *438 legal conclusions for errors of law, ORS 183.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 50 P.3d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “ORS 657.684 6 makes that point absolutely clear *486 when it provides that either the employing unit or the Director may seek judicial review of the hearing officer’s decision.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 111 P.3d 739 (Or. 2005). · cites it 8× “The court observed that the chief of the department’s hearings section, in collaboration with other department employees, had prepared the final order for the director’s signature, which, as noted, the director then had signed.”
Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't Tax Section, 379 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “482(8)(a); ORS 657.684 (providing for judicial review as in review of orders in contested cases in ORS chapter 183), and reverse the assessments.”
Avanti Press, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't Tax Section, 274 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ORS 657.684 (“Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.”
Portland Columbia Symphony v. Emp. Dep't, 310 P.3d 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “600(2)(a), and whether they “customarily engaged in an independently established business,” ORS 670.600 (2)(b). We likewise devote our analysis to the ALJ’s application of those two criteria, reviewing the order for errors of law and substantial reason.”
Compressed Pattern, LLC v. Emp. Dep't Tax Section, 293 P.3d 1053 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “See ORS 657.684 (“Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.”
Travel Networkers, LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 30 P.3d 416 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “ORS 657.684. 4 The 12th assignment of error states that the hearings officer erred in concluding that Travel Networkers failed to prove that one agent’s listed income should be corrected in the Department’s assessment.”
Petersen v. Emp. Dep't, 898 P.2d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “683(5); ORS 657.684. January 1, 1989 — October 3, 1989 Plaintiff first argues that the referee erred in affirming the assessment for the period January 1, 1989, through October 3, 1989, because he failed to apply the law applicable to that time period.”
Ponderosa Props., LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 325 P.3d 762 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Ponderosa also argues that the ALJ’s determination concerning whether the disputed individuals were “customarily engaged in an independent business” was not supported by substantial evidence and that the uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that additional individuals satisfied…”
KAIB'S ROVING v. Emp. Dept., 111 P.3d 739 (Or. 2005). · cites it 8× “The court observed that the chief of the department's hearings section, in collaboration with other department employees, had prepared the final order for the director's signature, which, as noted, the director then had signed.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
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.