756.610
Judicial review.
(1)(a) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, final
orders of the Public Utility Commission are subject to judicial review as
orders under the provisions of ORS 183.480 to 183.497.
(b) Binding
rulings issued under ORS 756.450 are subject to review in the Court of Appeals
in the manner provided in ORS 183.480 for the review of orders in contested
cases.
(2) ORS 183.482
(3) does not apply to judicial review of an order of the Public Utility
Commission. At any time after filing a petition for judicial review of a final
order of the commission in a contested case, the petitioner may apply to the
Court of Appeals for a stay of the order until the final disposition of the
appeal. The court may grant a stay for cause shown. As a condition of granting
a stay, the court may require a bond or other security, or impose such other
conditions as the court deems appropriate. A stay may be granted only after
notice to the commission and opportunity for hearing. Any bond required by the
court must be executed in favor of the commission for the benefit of interested
persons, and may be enforced by the commission or by any interested person.
(3) An order of
the Public Utility Commission related to the petition for a certificate of
public convenience and necessity under ORS 758.015, where the petitioner also
seeks approval from the Energy Facility Siting Council for the proposed
transmission line, is subject to judicial review as provided in ORS 758.017. [Amended
by 1971 c.655 §62; 2003 c.576 §559; 2005 c.638 §6; 2013 c.335 §4; 2017 c.312 §3]
PENALTIES
Notes of Decisions
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “561(rehear-ing and reconsideration); ORS 756.610 (judicial review), the order is presumptively valid during the challenge, ORS 756.”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 356 P.3d 216 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 756.610(1) (“[F]inal orders of the Public Utility Commission are subject to judicial review as orders in contested cases under the provisions of ORS 183.”
Appleton v. Oregon Iron & Steel Co., 366 P.2d 174 (Or. 1961).
· cites it 2× “ORS 756.610. In State v. Stone, 178 Or 268, 273 , 166 P2d 980 (1946), it was indicated that the section of the statute pertaining to criminal appeals was complete in itself and that while it might have been desirable to make the provisions of the criminal code similar to those…”
Util. Reform Proj. v. Oregon Pub. Util. Comm'n, 170 P.3d 1074 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“ORS 756.610. 3 HB 3220, which would have allowed utilities to structure rates to recover return on their investments in certain retired plants, was passed by the legislature, but was referred to the people.”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Sabin, 534 P.2d 984 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
“Pursuant to ORS 756.610 Oregon’s Public Utility Commissioner (hereafter “Commissioner”) appeals from a decree of the circuit court directing the entry of an order which would have the effect of increasing the annual intrastate revenues of Pacific Northwest *204 Bell Telephone…”
Util. Reform Proj. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 323 P.3d 430 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to ORS 756.610(1), petitioners Utility Reform Project and Ken Lewis (collectively referred to as URP) seek judicial review of an order of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) denying URP’s request under ORS 757.”
Publishers Paper Co. v. Davis, 559 P.2d 891 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“They appeal to this court pursuant to ORS 756.610 from an adverse decision affirming the commissioner’s order.”
Qwest Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 135 P.3d 321 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“First, the pole owner or the occupant may request a settlement conference before the Joint Use Association, an organization composed of representatives of pole owners, pole occupants, and government entities. OAR 860-028-0210. If the dispute is not settled as a result of the…”
Nw. Pub. Commc'ns Council ex rel. PSPs A to Z v. Qwest Corp., 379 P.3d 633 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Binding rulings provided by this section are subject to judicial review as orders in contested cases in the manner provided by ORS 756.610.” See also ORS 756.610(1) (“[F]inal orders of the Public Utility Commission are subject to judicial review as orders in contested cases…”
Nw. Nat. Gas Co. v. Oregon Pub. Util. Comm'n, 99 P.3d 292 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“After the PUC gave an unfavorable declaratory ruling, Northwest filed a complaint in Marion County Circuit Court to challenge that decision.”
Bekins Moving & Storage Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'r, 529 P.2d 413 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
“580 to set aside the Commissioner’s order, and having there been denied the relief sought, appealed to this court under ORS 756.610. The plaintiffs contend, (1) the Commissioner’s order does not contain adequate findings of fact, and (2) if the factual findings of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 756.610(1) — 13 cases
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“561(rehear-ing and reconsideration); ORS 756.610 (judicial review), the order is presumptively valid during the challenge, ORS 756.”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 356 P.3d 216 (Or. 2014).
“See ORS 756.610(1) (“[F]inal orders of the Public Utility Commission are subject to judicial review as orders in contested cases under the provisions of ORS 183.”
Util. Reform Proj. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 323 P.3d 430 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“Pursuant to ORS 756.610(1), petitioners Utility Reform Project and Ken Lewis (collectively referred to as URP) seek judicial review of an order of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) denying URP’s request under ORS 757.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 756.610(2) — 1 case
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“561(rehear-ing and reconsideration); ORS 756.610 (judicial review), the order is presumptively valid during the challenge, ORS 756.”
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.