Orders in contested cases
Source:
Section 183.470 — Orders in contested cases, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors183.html.
Notes of Decisions
Findings of fact by the agency were mere summaries of the evidence and, therefore, deficient. Graham v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 20 Or App 97, 530 P2d 858 (1975)
Agency’s order was insufficient for judicial review. Crumpton v. Dept. of Water Resources, 28 Or App 423, 559 P2d 927 (1977)
Board’s order was insufficient for review for failure to state: facts found to be true, principles of law controlling decision, and rational relationship between facts and conclusions. Reynolds School District v. Martin, 30 Or App 39, 566 P2d 196 (1977)
Fact that Commission’s final order lacked explanation of why petitioner’s license was revoked did not render order invalid, for choice by Commission of whether to revoke, suspend, etc., was neither “finding of fact” nor “conclusion of law” within meaning of this section. Mary’s Fine Food, Inc. v. OLCC, 30 Or App 435, 567 P2d 146 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Order of Medical Examiners Board did not meet requirements of this section where it failed to state basic facts found to be true, did not set forth any recognizable ultimate facts or specify which of probation conditions was found to have been violated, and lacked explanation of principles and reasoning employed in reaching conclusion. Stalder v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 37 Or App 853, 588 P2d 659 (1978)
Failure by a referee to make findings of fact under this section rendered order incomplete and therefore insufficient. Cascade Forest Products v. Accident Prevention Division, 60 Or App 255, 653 P2d 574 (1982)
Citation of statutes under which order may be appealed must include citation of statutes both for appeals to LUBA and for appeals to Court of Appeals. Kalmiopsis Audubon Soc. v. Division of State Lands, 66 Or App 810, 676 P2d 885 (1984)
Agency order which failed to demonstrate rational nexus between findings of fact and conclusions of law was reversed and remanded. Carr v. AFSD, 66 Or App 830, 676 P2d 359 (1984)
Employment Appeals Board’s failure to make findings of fact concerning petitioner’s contention that there were valid medical reasons for his tardiness rendered insufficient and incomplete its order affirming denial of unemployment compensation. Propst v. Employment Division, 72 Or App 275, 696 P2d 4 (1985)
Order denying hearing request is final order requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law. Hartwick v. AFSD, 73 Or App 104, 698 P2d 59 (1985)
Employment Appeals Board’s failure to make findings of fact concerning petitioner’s contention that he quit work because cumulative effect on him of harassment and work-related grievances made continued employment intolerable, rendered its findings incomplete and insufficient to support its order denying petitioner unemployment benefits. Hannah v. Employment Division, 83 Or App 104, 730 P2d 600 (1986)
Where property tax refund was intercepted by respondent to recover costs previously awarded in unemployment compensation proceeding and petitioner filed petition for review more than 60 days after original order but less than 60 days after amended order, amended order superseded and replaced original order so petition was timely. Callahan v. Employment Division, 97 Or App 234, 776 P2d 21 (1989)
Where Employment Appeals Board failed to make findings of fact as to which act of misconduct was reason for claimant’s termination, conclusion that claimant was discharged for isolated instance of poor judgment is not rationally connected to factual findings. Jackson County v. Employment Div., 99 Or App 719, 784 P2d 119 (1989)
Administrative proceeding can have issue preclusive effect in later proceeding if: issue is identical, was actually litigated and was essential to final administrative decision on merits; party sought to be precluded had full and fair opportunity to be heard and is same party or in privity with party to administrative proceeding; and proceeding was type to which court will give preclusive effect. Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility District, 318 Or 99, 862 P2d 1293 (1993); Hickey v. Settlemier, 318 Or 196, 864 P2d 372 (1993)
“Final order” includes written findings of fact, conclusions of law, reasoning and result constituting final written expression of agency action regardless of how material is labeled. Brian v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 319 Or 151, 874 P2d 1294 (1994)
Facts determined in contested case order from emergency suspension hearing cannot be adopted via application of issue preclusion in subsequent license revocation hearing over accused’s request for new hearing. Miller v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 289 Or App 34, 407 P3d 935 (2017)
COMPLETED CITATIONS: Butler v. Ins. Dept., 6 Or App 241, 487 P2d 103 (1971), Sup Ct review denied
Attorney General Opinions
Oregon’s Commission for Child Care not required to make “formal” findings concerning available child care information and referral services in communities when awarding grants, (1989) Vol 46, p 133
Up to date