Administrative Procedures Act

ORS 183.415
Notice of right to hearing


The Legislative Assembly finds that persons affected by actions taken by state agencies have a right to be informed of their rights and remedies with respect to the actions.


In a contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice, served personally or by registered or certified mail.


Notice under this section must include:


A statement of the party’s right to hearing, with a description of the procedure and time to request a hearing, or a statement of the time and place of the hearing;


A statement of the authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held;


A reference to the particular sections of the statutes and rules involved;


A short and plain statement of the matters asserted or charged;


A statement indicating whether and under what circumstances an order by default may be entered; and


A statement that active duty servicemembers have a right to stay proceedings under the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and may contact the Oregon State Bar or the Oregon Military Department for more information. The statement must include the toll-free telephone numbers for the Oregon State Bar and the Oregon Military Department and the Internet address for the United States Armed Forces Legal Assistance Legal Services Locator website. [1971 c.734 §13; 1979 c.593 §18; 1985 c.757 §1; 1997 c.837 §2; 1999 c.849 §§27,28; 2003 c.75 §29; 2007 c.288 §2; 2013 c.295 §3]

Notes of Decisions

This section requires record to include proposed findings of fact only when they are in fact made, but does not provide when they are required. Stanfill v. Real Estate Division, 35 Or App 549, 581 P2d 980 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Show cause order which did not notify doctor of statute, rule or other provision upon which proposed license revocation was based did not meet notice requirements of this section. Stalder v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 37 Or App 853, 588 P2d 659 (1978)

Quasi-judicial boundary commission proceeding denying petition to annex 88 acres to city was subject to contested case procedures under this section. Fosses v. Portland Area LGBC, 43 Or App 647, 603 P2d 1235 (1979)

Where Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Real Estate Commissioner's order suspending petitioner's real estate sales license, under this section petitioner was entitled, on reconsideration, to notice and opportunity to present argument on all issues involved. Hodges v. Real Estate Div., 45 Or App 753, 609 P2d 421 (1980)

Mailing of notice of hearing before Builders Board to petitioner's last known address did not constitute "reasonable notice" under this section where his certificate of registration with Builders Board had expired and he no longer had duty under [former] ORS 701.080 to notify Builders Board of address change. Marsh v. Builders Board, 54 Or App 242, 634 P2d 803 (1981)

Failure of hearings officer to assist petitioner in presenting evidence constitutes abuse of hearings officer's broad discretion in controlling hearing under this section and ORS 183.450. Berwick v. AFSD, 74 Or App 460, 703 P2d 994 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Proposed order was not required before final order was entered because deputy administrator reviewed entire record on reconsideration. Bob Wilkes Falling v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 108 Or App 453, 816 P2d 1172 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Once notice of right to appeal is given to all parties, personal service on all parties is not required at subsequent steps in proceeding. Lolley v. SAIF, 141 Or App 281, 917 P2d 1067 (1996)

Where agency has been notified that person is represented by counsel, in addition to required service on person, agency has duty to provide counsel with copies of all important communications with person. ETU, Inc. v. Environmental Quality Commission, 343 Or 57, 162 P3d 248 (2007)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Intra-agency communications or communications with agency counsel as ex parte communications, (1980) Vol 40, p 321

§§ 183.415 to 183.470

Law Review Citations

54 OLR 387 (1975)

§§ 183.413 to 183.470

Law Review Citations

70 OLR 176 (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