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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 670.280 (2026)

Denial, suspension or revocation of license based on criminal conviction; rebuttable presumption; denial of license or imposition of discipline for conduct substantially related to fitness and ability of applicant or licensee

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

      670.280 Denial, suspension or revocation of license based on criminal conviction; rebuttable presumption; denial of license or imposition of discipline for conduct substantially related to fitness and ability of applicant or licensee. (1) As used in this section:

      (a) “License” includes a registration, certification or permit.

      (b) “Licensee” includes a registrant or a holder of a certification or permit.

      (2) Except as provided in ORS 342.143 (3) or 342.175 (3), a licensing board, commission or agency may not deny, suspend or revoke an occupational or professional license solely for the reason that the applicant or licensee has been convicted of a crime, but it may consider the relationship of the facts which support the conviction and all intervening circumstances to the specific occupational or professional standards in determining the fitness of the person to receive or hold the license.

      (3) Except as provided in ORS 342.143 (3) and 342.175 (3), a licensing board, commission or agency may deny an occupational or professional license or impose discipline on a licensee based on conduct that is not undertaken directly in the course of the licensed activity, but that is substantially related to the fitness and ability of the applicant or licensee to engage in the activity for which the license is required. In determining whether the conduct is substantially related to the fitness and ability of the applicant or licensee to engage in the activity for which the license is required, the licensing board, commission or agency shall consider the relationship of the facts with respect to the conduct and all intervening circumstances to the specific occupational or professional standards.

      (4)(a) Prior to beginning an education, a training or an apprenticeship program for an occupational or professional license, a person who was convicted of a crime may petition a licensing board, commission or agency for a determination as to whether a criminal conviction will prevent the person from receiving an occupational or professional license. The licensing board, commission or agency may charge a reasonable fee to pay the costs of making the determination.

      (b) A determination from a licensing board, commission or agency that a criminal conviction will not prevent the person from obtaining an occupational or professional license may be rescinded if, at the time the person submits a complete application, the person:

      (A) Has allegations or charges pending in criminal court;

      (B) Has failed to disclose a previous criminal conviction;

      (C) Has been convicted of another crime during the period between the determination and the person’s submission of a completed application for an occupational or professional license; or

      (D) Has been convicted of a crime that, during the period between the determination and the person’s submission of a completed application for an occupational or professional license, became subject to a change in state or federal law that prohibits licensure for an occupational or professional license because of a conviction of that crime.

      (c) A licensing board, commission or agency shall reconsider a determination that a criminal conviction will prevent the person from obtaining an occupational or professional license if the person submits a completed application for an occupational or professional license.

      (d) A determination made under this subsection:

      (A) Shall be made by the same entity that reviews completed applications for an occupational or professional license for the licensing board, commission or agency;

      (B) Shall be subject to the same confidentiality requirements that are applicable to completed applications for an occupational or professional license for the licensing board, commission or agency; and

      (C) Is not considered a final determination of the licensing board, commission or agency.

      (e) Nothing in this subsection prohibits a licensing board, commission or agency from denying licensure for a reason other than conviction of a crime.

      (f) A licensing board, commission or agency may adopt rules necessary to implement the provisions of this subsection.

      (g) This subsection does not apply to the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training or to any regulation of psilocybin services. [1973 c.359 §1; 1991 c.662 §6a; 2003 c.749 §13; 2009 c.386 §5; 2021 c.2 §21; 2021 c.591 §17; 2024 c.70 §71; 2024 c.95 §44]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · 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 2× “140 provided: "(1) The board may discipline as provided in this section any person licensed to practice dentistry in this state for any of the following causes: "(a) Conviction of any offense for which the court could impose a punishment of imprisonment in a state or federal…”
Dearborn v. Real Est. Agency, 53 P.3d 436 (Or. 2002). · cites it 3× “It contends that the provision must be read in the context of ORS 670.280, which provides: *503 “Except as provided in ORS 342.”
State v. Burke, 818 P.2d 511 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “270, disqualification as a guardian or conservator can occur, ORS 126.050, credit union certificates of approval may not be issued, ORS 723.”
In Re Gortmaker, 782 P.2d 421 (Or. 1989). · cites it 2× “In support of his request, applicant cited ORS 670.280, which provides: “Notwithstanding any other law, no licensing board or agency shall deny, suspend or revoke an occupational or professional license or certification solely for the reason that the applicant or licensee has…”
Allied Structural v. CCB, 492 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 15× “992 if the board determines after notice and opportunity for hearing: “* * * * * “(i) Consistent with the provisions of ORS 670.280, that the licensee or applicant, or an owner or officer of the licensee or applicant has been convicted of one of the follow- ing crimes in this…”
Dearborn v. Real Est. Agency, 997 P.2d 239 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “th the language of the entire section, applying the familiar rule of statutory construction noscitur a sociis (associated words), it is our conclusion that the conduct referred to is limited to acts by the licensee in his capacity as a broker or salesman, excepting where the…”
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “140 in pertinent part provides: "(1) The board may discipline as provided in this section any person licensed to practice dentistry in this state for any of the following causes: "(a) Conviction of any offense for which the court could impose a punishment of imprisonment in a…”
MacKs v. Dep't of Educ., 250 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Second, she assigns error to the department’s decision to revoke, as opposed to suspend, her school bus driver’s certificate, arguing that the decision is inconsistent with OAR 581-053-0006(8)(c)(B) and ORS 670.280, which govern the department’s revocation authority.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 670.280(2) — 1 case
Allied Structural v. CCB, 492 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “992 if the board determines after notice and opportunity for hearing: “* * * * * “(i) Consistent with the provisions of ORS 670.280, that the licensee or applicant, or an owner or officer of the licensee or applicant has been convicted of one of the follow- ing crimes in this…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 670.280(3) — 2 cases
Allied Structural v. CCB, 492 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “992 if the board determines after notice and opportunity for hearing: “* * * * * “(i) Consistent with the provisions of ORS 670.280, that the licensee or applicant, or an owner or officer of the licensee or applicant has been convicted of one of the follow- ing crimes in this…”
MacKs v. Dep't of Educ., 250 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Second, she assigns error to the department’s decision to revoke, as opposed to suspend, her school bus driver’s certificate, arguing that the decision is inconsistent with OAR 581-053-0006(8)(c)(B) and ORS 670.280, which govern the department’s revocation authority.”
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.