Administrative Procedures Act

ORS 183.410
Agency determination of applicability of rule or statute to petitioner

  • effect
  • judicial review

On petition of any interested person, any agency may in its discretion issue a declaratory ruling with respect to the applicability to any person, property, or state of facts of any rule or statute enforceable by it. A declaratory ruling is binding between the agency and the petitioner on the state of facts alleged, unless it is altered or set aside by a court. However, the agency may, where the ruling is adverse to the petitioner, review the ruling and alter it if requested by the petitioner. Binding rulings provided by this section are subject to review in the Court of Appeals in the manner provided in ORS 183.480 (Judicial review of agency orders) for the review of orders in contested cases. The Attorney General shall prescribe by rule the form for such petitions and the procedure for their submission, consideration and disposition. The petitioner shall have the right to submit briefs and present oral argument at any declaratory ruling proceeding held pursuant to this section. [1957 c.717 §7; 1971 c.734 §10; 1973 c.612 §5]

Notes of Decisions

An unambiguous regulation, like an unambiguous statute, should not be interpreted but should be enforced according to the clear language. Schoen v. Univ. of Ore., 21 Or App 494, 535 P2d 1378 (1975)

This section does not authorize the Court of Appeals to make a declaration ruling on a question that is not first passed upon by an administrative agency. Ore. State Employes Assn. v. State of Oregon, 21 Or App 567, 535 P2d 1385 (1975); Hopkins v. Dept. of Corrections, 127 Or App 210, 872 P2d 433 (1994)

This section gives Court of Appeals jurisdiction to review only binding declaratory rulings of agencies and therefore court may not review respondent's denial of petitioner's request for declaratory ruling. Fadeley v. Ore. Govt. Ethics Comm., 25 Or App 867, 551 P2d 496 (1976); United Brokers, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 68 Or App 44, 680 P2d 702 (1984)

A letter from the Employment Relations Board to the Court of Appeals provided insufficient basis for an exception to the general rule that parties may not confer jurisdiction upon the court by stipulation. Lane Council of Govts. v. Lane Council of Govts. Employes Assn., 278 Or 335, 563 P2d 729 (1977)

Where petition requesting Energy Facility Siting Council to take actions regarding disposal of allegedly radioactive waste did not involve owner of landfill or party responsible for waste, raised complex factual issues, was not in form required by Attorney General rules, was not treated by parties as request for declaratory ruling and Council could not grant enforcement relief sought by petitioner, matter was not declaratory ruling proceeding under this section. Forelaws on Board v. Energy Fac. Siting Council, 311 Or 350, 811 P2d 636 (1991)

§§ 183.310 to 183.550

See annotations under ORS chapter 183.

Chapter 183

Notes of Decisions

A legislative delegation of power in terms as broad as those used in [former] ORS 471.295 (1) places upon the administrative agency a responsibility to establish standards by which the law is to be applied. Sun Ray Drive-in Dairy, Inc. v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 16 Or App 63, 517 P2d 289 (1973)

Administrative regulation providing that failure to perform responsibilities adequately was a ground for employee's dismissal. Palen v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 18 Or App 442, 525 P2d 1047 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Where it was determined that agency invalidly terminated substantive policy, trial court did not have authority to order agency to resume policy in absence of validly adopted agency rule. Burke v. Children's Services Division, 39 Or App 819, 593 P2d 1262 (1979), aff'd 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)

"Trending factors" published by the Department of Revenue and used to appraise property for purposes of property taxation are not "rules" within the meaning of this chapter. Borden Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 286 Or 567, 595 P2d 1372 (1979)

Appellate court may review proceeding meeting definition of contested case whether or not proceeding was formal administrative hearing. Patton v. State Bd. of Higher Ed., 293 Or 363, 647 P2d 931 (1982)

Circuit court could not entertain action for declaratory judgment directed at PERS, because PERS is subject to APA, which provides exclusive method for review of its actions. FOPPO v. County of Marion, 93 Or App 93, 760 P2d 1353 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Board of Education approval of textbook for use in state public schools was not "rule," but was "order in other than contested case," and jurisdiction for judicial review is in circuit court. Oregon Env. Council v. Oregon State Bd. of Ed., 307 Or 30, 761 P2d 1322 (1988)

Preponderance of evidence standard applies where initial license application is denied based on willful fraud. Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy, 130 Or App 374, 882 P2d 606 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Completed Citations

Wright v. Bateson, 5 Or App 628, 485 P2d 641 (1971), Sup Ct review denied, cert. denied, 405 US 930 (1972)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

State Speed Control Board subject to Administrative Procedures Act, (1974) Vol 36, p 1024; proxy voting at board meeting, (1974) Vol 36, p 1064; student conduct proceedings as "contested cases," (1976) Vol 37, p 1461; rulemaking authority of Statewide Health Coordinating Council and of Certificate of Need Appeals Board, (1977) Vol 38, p 1229; Oregon Medical Insurance Pool is fundamentally private-sector body, under virtually total private control, created by state to fulfill public purpose and is not state agency or public body subject to Administrative Procedures Act (APA), (1989) Vol 46, p 155

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 245 (1971); 53 OLR 364, 365 (1974); 10 WLJ 373, 420 (1974); 13 WLJ 499, 517, 525, 537 (1977); 57 OLR 334 (1978); 22 WLR 355 (1986); 36 WLR 219 (2000)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021