Administrative Procedures Act
Notice of right to hearing
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)
Attorney General Opinions
Intra-agency communications or communications with agency counsel as ex parte communications, (1980) Vol 40, p 321