ORS 183.482
Jurisdiction for review of contested cases

  • procedure
  • scope of court authority


Jurisdiction for judicial review of contested cases is conferred upon the Court of Appeals. Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the Court of Appeals. The petition shall be filed within 60 days only following the date the order upon which the petition is based is served unless otherwise provided by statute. If a petition for rehearing has been filed, then the petition for review shall be filed within 60 days only following the date the order denying the petition for rehearing is served. If the agency does not otherwise act, a petition for rehearing or reconsideration shall be deemed denied the 60th day following the date the petition was filed, and in such cases, petition for judicial review shall be filed within 60 days only following such date. Date of service shall be the date on which the agency delivered or mailed its order in accordance with ORS 183.470 (Orders in contested cases).


The petition shall state the nature of the order the petitioner desires reviewed, and shall state whether the petitioner was a party to the administrative proceeding, was denied status as a party or is seeking judicial review as a person adversely affected or aggrieved by the agency order. In the latter case, the petitioner shall, by supporting affidavit, state the facts showing how the petitioner is adversely affected or aggrieved by the agency order. Before deciding the issues raised by the petition for review, the Court of Appeals shall decide, from facts set forth in the affidavit, whether or not the petitioner is entitled to petition as an adversely affected or an aggrieved person. Copies of the petition shall be served by registered or certified mail upon the agency, and all other parties of record in the agency proceeding.


Intentionally left blank —Ed.


The filing of the petition shall not stay enforcement of the agency order, but the agency may do so upon a showing of:


Irreparable injury to the petitioner; and


A colorable claim of error in the order.


When a petitioner makes the showing required by paragraph (a) of this subsection, the agency shall grant the stay unless the agency determines that substantial public harm will result if the order is stayed. If the agency denies the stay, the denial shall be in writing and shall specifically state the substantial public harm that would result from the granting of the stay.


When the agency grants a stay, the agency may impose such reasonable conditions as the giving of a bond, irrevocable letter of credit or other undertaking and that the petitioner file all documents necessary to bring the matter to issue before the Court of Appeals within specified reasonable periods of time.


Agency denial of a motion for stay is subject to review by the Court of Appeals under such rules as the court may establish.


Within 30 days after service of the petition, or within such further time as the court may allow, the agency shall transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review, but, by stipulation of all parties to the review proceeding, the record may be shortened. Any party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be taxed by the court for the additional costs. The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record when deemed desirable. Except as specifically provided in this subsection, the cost of the record shall not be taxed to the petitioner or any intervening party. However, the court may tax such costs and the cost of agency transcription of record to a party filing a frivolous petition for review.


If, on review of a contested case, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good and substantial reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency, the court may order that the additional evidence be taken before the agency upon such conditions as the court deems proper. The agency may modify its findings and order by reason of the additional evidence and shall, within a time to be fixed by the court, file with the reviewing court, to become a part of the record, the additional evidence, together with any modifications or new findings or orders, or its certificate that the agency elects to stand on its original findings and order, as the case may be.


At any time subsequent to the filing of the petition for review and prior to the date set for hearing the agency may withdraw its order for purposes of reconsideration. If an agency withdraws an order for purposes of reconsideration, the agency shall, within such time as the court may allow, affirm, modify or reverse its order. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the agency action after withdrawal for purposes of reconsideration, the petitioner may refile the petition for review and the review shall proceed upon the revised order. An amended petition for review shall not be required if the agency, on reconsideration, affirms the order or modifies the order with only minor changes. If an agency withdraws an order for purposes of reconsideration and modifies or reverses the order in favor of the petitioner, the court shall allow the petitioner costs, but not attorney fees, to be paid from funds available to the agency.


Review of a contested case shall be confined to the record, and the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to any issue of fact or agency discretion. In the case of disputed allegations of irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record which, if proved, would warrant reversal or remand, the Court of Appeals may refer the allegations to a master appointed by the court to take evidence and make findings of fact upon them. The court shall remand the order for further agency action if the court finds that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed procedure, including a failure by the presiding officer to comply with the requirements of ORS 183.417 (Procedure in contested case hearing) (8).


Intentionally left blank —Ed.


The court may affirm, reverse or remand the order. If the court finds that the agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law and that a correct interpretation compels a particular action, the court shall:


Set aside or modify the order; or


Remand the case to the agency for further action under a correct interpretation of the provision of law.


The court shall remand the order to the agency if the court finds the agency’s exercise of discretion to be:


Outside the range of discretion delegated to the agency by law;


Inconsistent with an agency rule, an officially stated agency position, or a prior agency practice, if the inconsistency is not explained by the agency; or


Otherwise in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision.


The court shall set aside or remand the order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding. [1975 c.759 §15; 1977 c.798 §4; 1979 c.593 §24; 1985 c.757 §2; 1989 c.453 §1; 1991 c.331 §44; 2007 c.659 §§2,5]

Source: Section 183.482 — Jurisdiction for review of contested cases; procedure; scope of court authority, https://www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/bills_laws/ors/ors183.­html.

See also annotations under ORS 183.480 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

Under former similar statute (ORS 183.470)

In cases where evidence not included in the findings of fact is uncontroverted remand to the referee to make findings of fact is unnecessary and the reviewing court has the power to consider such evidence in its opinion. Michelet v. Morgan, 11 Or App 79, 501 P2d 984 (1972)

Right to judicial review of an administrative hearing was an adequate remedy at law, so mandamus would not be to quash service in that hearing. Phillips v. Layman, 15 Or App 107, 514 P2d 1352 (1973)

Court was unable to review contested case arising under ORS chapter 471 in the absence of appropriate administrative rules and standards. Sun Ray Drive-in Dairy, Inc. v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 16 Or App 63, 517 P2d 289 (1973)

Whether an administrative hearing should or should not have been a contested case is a question properly reviewed by the circuit court. Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Mid-Willamette Air Pollution Authority, 16 Or App 638, 519 P2d 1271 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Failure to cite in the order revoking petitioner’s liquor license the administrative regulation upon which it was based was more than an error in procedure and required that the proceeding be remanded. Haviland Hotels v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 20 Or App 110, 530 P2d 1259 (1975)

Designation by the Public Employe Relations Board of an appropriate bargaining unit is not a “final order” so as to be subject to appeal. Klamath County v. Laborers Intl. Union of No. Am., 21 Or App 281, 534 P2d 1169 (1975)

Petitioner’s objections to the limited scope of the hearing did not and could not enlarge the scope of the hearing and revitalize contentions that were already waived by previous failure to make a request for a hearing thereon. Whitmire v. Ore. State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 21 Or App 139, 533 P2d 1375 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

In general

Appeal procedures established by Administrative Procedures Act were sufficient to sustain delegation of legislative authority made by [former] ORS 487.475, notwithstanding that rule promulgated pursuant to that section did not provide appeal safeguards. Bercot v. Oregon Transportation Commission, 31 Or App 449, 570 P2d 1195 (1977)

Notice to physician, stating that hearing was to consider revocation of his license on grounds that he had “consistently prescribed dangerous drugs” where they were not medically indicated, was sufficient to properly inform him of nature of proceeding against him, notwithstanding that notice failed to make reference to particular sections of statutes as required by ORS 183.415. Bennett v. Board of Medical Examiners, 31 Or App 467, 570 P2d 986 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Upon appeal, court does not weigh evidence to assess its degree of persuasiveness, but only examines record for existence of substantial evidence. Burton v. Board of Dental Examiners, 31 Or App 1045, 571 P2d 1295 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

An intervenor in an action under the energy facility siting act, ORS 469.300 to 469.570 and 469.992, has standing to seek judicial review of the agency action on any issue presented, subject to the requirements of this section as long as he can show he was adversely affected or aggrieved. Marbet v. Portland General Electric, 277 Or 447, 561 P2d 154 (1977)

Court of Appeals reviews only for errors of law and substantial evidence and does not perform administrative agency’s role of weighing evidence. Dach v. Employment Division, 32 Or App 433, 574 P2d 684 (1978)

In contested case appeal arising under [former] ORS 197.310, sole remedy is direct appeal to Court of Appeals, and thus circuit court did not have jurisdiction to review, in declaratory judgment proceedings, LCDC orders issued with respect to review proceeding conducted pursuant to [former] ORS 197.300. Marion Cty. v. State ex rel LCDC v. 1000 Friends, 35 Or App 443, 582 P2d 17 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Record did not establish that employer’s substantial rights were prejudiced by referee’s refusal to allow employer to call claimant as witness or cross-examine her beyond scope of direct examination where employer failed to object or show what evidence it would elicit if unlimited examination were allowed. Pac. N.W. Bell v. Emp. Div., 37 Or App 843, 588 P2d 654 (1978)

Meaningful review of Board of Medical Examiner’s order revoking physician’s license was not possible where order lacked explanation of principles and reasoning employed in reaching conclusion that probation condition had been violated. Stalder v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 37 Or App 853, 588 P2d 659 (1978)

Employment Relations Board’s determination that dismissal of employee for insubordination was in good faith and for cause was not supported by findings of fact on issue of good faith of officials responsible for transfer order. Ashman v. Children’s Services Division, 37 Or App 865, 588 P2d 665 (1978)

Where there was some testimony that petitioner was retarded and aggressive, there was substantial evidence to support finding that he was suffering from mental disease or defect and was dangerous to himself and others. Valleur v. Psychiatric Review Board, 43 Or App 843, 604 P2d 439 (1979)

Under ORS 657.176, it was Employment Division’s responsibility to develop criteria for “good cause” to leave employment, subject to review under this section whether its assessment of kinds of reasons that are “good cause” is “unlawful in substance.” McPherson v. Employment Division, 285 Or 541, 591 P2d 1381 (1979)

Where dismissed teacher filed appeal more than 60 days after service of Fair Dismissal Appeals Board’s order affirming school district’s dismissal, but within 60 days after denial of petition for reconsideration or rehearing by board, appeal was timely filed under this section. Vorm v. School Dist. No. 40, 45 Or App 225, 608 P2d 193 (1980)

Where Board of Dental Examiners “erroneously interpreted a provision of law” in revoking dentist’s license, error could not be cured on remand and this section required that board’s order be reversed. Megdal v. Board of Dental Examiners, 288 Or 293, 605 P2d 273 (1980)

This section does not contemplate that court on judicial review of one agency’s final order consider whether another agency acted improperly or erroneously interpreted the law. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. Health Div., 289 Or 417, 614 P2d 1151 (1980)

Where agency withdraws order for reconsideration but fails to issue new order, appellate court may reinstate original order for purpose of conducting review. Van Gordon v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 52 Or App 749, 629 P2d 848 (1981)

Proceedings for acknowledgment of local comprehensive plans are not contested cases subject to review under this section. Oregon Business Planning Council v. LCDC, 290 Or 741, 626 P2d 350 (1981)

Where agency must draw inferences, appellate review examines whether agency has stated facts and rational basis for drawing inference. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or 266, 639 P2d 90 (1981)

Aggrieved party may appeal state agency’s action to Court of Appeals pursuant to this section and ORS 183.480, even though agency action is land use decision but aspects of decision in which “agency is required to apply the goals” are within exclusive jurisdiction of LUBA and will not be reviewed in first instance by Court of Appeals. Kalmiopsis Audubon Soc. v. Division of State Lands, 66 Or App 810, 676 P2d 885 (1984)

Order of Employment Appeals Board that claimants were not entitled to receive unemployment benefits because unemployment was “due to labor dispute” was not supported by substantial evidence. Cropley v. Employment Division, 72 Or App 93, 694 P2d 1025 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

In case before Employment Appeals Board, it was question of law whether petitioner’s work was “subject employment.” White v. Employment Division, 72 Or App 163, 694 P2d 1009 (1985), as modified by 77 Or App 35, 711 P2d 196 (1985)

Requirement for remand where exercise of discretion is inconsistent with rule, officially stated agency policy or prior practice does not require agencies to support consistency of rulings with substantial evidence in record, but requires only that appellate court remand order upon clear showing of unexplained inconsistency. Assoc. of Engineering Employes v. Dept. of Trans., 72 Or App 371, 695 P2d 961 (1985)

Where, after petition for judicial review was filed, and agency issued order granting reconsideration but not expressly withdrawing prior order, petitioner was not required to file amended petition for review and Court of Appeals had jurisdiction of case. Fischer v. SAIF, 76 Or App 656, 711 P2d 162 (1985)

Agency’s failure to follow contested case procedures requires remand where its order did not make clear what were findings of fact based on evidence and what were conclusions of law. C&C Construction v. Senior Services Division, 82 Or App 682, 728 P2d 962 (1986)

Energy Facility Siting Council order determining that council lacks authority to require site certificate in particular case is, in effect, “rejection” of application for certificate, and Supreme Court has jurisdiction, under statute, for direct review. Forelaws on Board v. Energy Fac. Siting Council, 303 Or 541, 738 P2d 973 (1987)

Substantial evidence supported Employment Appeals Board finding that work period missed by employee on Saturday was informal arrangement and not mandatory overtime and EAB could properly find that absences were “isolated instances of poor judgment” or “good faith errors.” Mail-Well Envelope Co. v. Emp. Div., 98 Or App 271, 779 P2d 178 (1989)

Where hearings officer relied solely on one statement of petitioner while ignoring several other statements that petitioner made to contrary, decision that petitioner was employable was unreasonable and not supported by substantial evidence. Matney v. Adult and Family Services Division, 99 Or App 513, 783 P2d 528 (1989)

Where referee ruled that employer had not shown “good cause” to justify untimely filing of medical report, referee acted within delegated range of discretion. Parkview Nursing Home v. Griggs, 100 Or App 659, 788 P2d 472 (1990)

Finding that employer would not allow claimant to continue to work is not supported by substantial evidence because fact that claimant agreed to termination date undermines evidence. J.R. Simplot Co. v. Employment Div., 102 Or App 523, 795 P2d 579 (1990)

In cases where evidence is rejected or disregarded by referee and such action purports to be based on facts, it is appropriate for reviewing court to examine whether referee’s decision to disregard or discount evidence in record is supported by substantial evidence not whether substantial evidence supports claimant’s claim. Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 787 P2d 884 (1990)

Where Board of Parole overrode one of two minimum sentences but refused to consider evidence in mitigation on basis that it “was not directly related to the circumstances surrounding the crime,” board erred and refusal was inconsistent with board rules. Calderon-Pacheco v. Board of Parole, 309 Or 454, 788 P2d 1001 (1990)

To recover costs when agency withdraws order, party must show some modification or reversal of order in party’s favor, not just that order was withdrawn. Kilham Stationery v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 109 Or App 545, 820 P2d 842 (1991)

Employment Relations Board correctly interpreted provisions of collective bargaining agreement and substantial evidence supported board’s conclusions that: 1) employee’s dismissal was based on course of conduct; 2) employee was given progressive discipline; and 3) disciplinary notices sent to employee complied with provisions of collective bargaining agreement. OSEA v. Rainier School Dist. No. 13, 311 Or 188, 808 P2d 83 (1991)

Hearsay evidence alone, even if inadmissible in civil or criminal trial, is not incapable of being “substantial evidence” under this section. Reguero v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm., 312 Or 402, 822 P2d 1171 (1991)

In assessing whether hearsay evidence constitutes substantial evidence, case-specific inquiry is necessary to determine circumstances that include: 1) alternatives to relying on hearsay; 2) importance of hearsay to outcome; 3) existence of supporting or opposing evidence; 4) impact of inability to cross-examine; and 5) consequences of decision. Reguero v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm., 312 Or 402, 822 P2d 1171 (1991)

If petition for judicial review is filed and agency withdraws order and issues order on reconsideration, petitioner need not file amended petition for judicial review if changes to original order were minor. Nida v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 112 Or App 1, 826 P2d 1045 (1992)

Court of Appeals does not have authority to remand case without also reversing decision of Workers’ Compensation Board where corrected interpretation of law does not compel a particular action. SAIF Corporation v. Basham, 112 Or App 6, 827 P2d 204 (1992)

When basic facts established nurse suffered from personality and sexual disorders and nurse no longer sought treatment for disorder, Board of Nursing could reasonably deduce ultimate fact that nurse would likely invade privacy and offend dignity of patients. Miller v. Board of Nursing, 115 Or App 84, 836 P2d 749 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Where Office of Health Policy (OHP) found that hospital MRI project did not exceed statutorily imposed financial threshold requiring certificate of need, OHP made no decision subject to provisions for judicial review of contested case. Mercy Medical Center v. Office of Health Policy, 121 Or App 587, 855 P2d 1156 (1993)

Costs recoverable by petitioner include prevailing party fee under ORS 20.190. Voelz Oil v. Oregon State Fire Marshal, 138 Or App 100, 907 P2d 251 (1995)

In determining whether it has jurisdiction, Court of Appeals must consider any attachments to notice or petition and give party filing notice or petition benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from notice or petition or from attachments. Ososke v. DMV, 320 Or 657, 891 P2d 633 (1995)

Agency expertise does not merit granting of deference in reviewing decision for substantial evidence. Drew v. PSRB, 322 Or 491, 909 P2d 1211 (1996)

Agency that is not required to make findings of fact must still include some explanation connecting evidence in record with result reached by agency. Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147, 957 P2d 1210 (1998)

Review conducted under authority of this section is premised on existence of final agency order; therefore process for challenging nonfinal order is through circuit court action. Oregon Health Care Association v. Health Division, 329 Or 480, 992 P2d 434 (1999)

Requirement that petitioner recite basis for standing has no application to petitions challenging validity of administrative rule. Lovelace v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 183 Or App 283, 51 P3d 1269 (2002)

“Showing” of irreparable injury means demonstration that irreparable injury is at least probable if stay is denied. Arlington School District No. 3 v. Arlington Education Association, 184 Or App 97, 55 P3d 546 (2002)

“Irreparable injury” means injury that cannot reasonably be remedied in court of law. Arlington School District No. 3 v. Arlington Education Association, 184 Or App 97, 55 P3d 546 (2002)

“Colorable claim of error” means claim of error that is substantial and nonfrivolous or seemingly valid, genuine or plausible. Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer School District, 185 Or App 649, 60 P3d 1126 (2003)

Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision’s reliance on psychologists’ written reports would permit reasonable person to make same finding that board made regarding present severe emotional disturbance. Mendacino v. Board of Parole, 287 Or App 822, 404 P3d 1048 (2017), Sup Ct review denied

Because emergency license suspension hearing had less consequence than permanent license suspension, first hearing did not provide accused “full and fair opportunity to be heard” to enable hearings board to apply claim preclusion and issue summary determination against accused over accused’s request for new contested case hearing. Miller v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 289 Or App 34, 407 P3d 935 (2017)

Order was not supported by substantial reason when agency merely stated facts and resulting legal conclusions without providing reasoning demonstrating how agency arrived at those conclusions. Lockett v. Teacher Stds. & Practices Comm’n, 289 Or App 593, 412 P3d 229 (2017)

Although Oregon Medical Board did not specifically explain why it declined to impose lesser sanction of license suspension suggested by licensee, board’s choice to impose sanction of license revocation was clear and reasonable where board expressed fundamental concern that licensee’s willful violations of board’s interim suspension order demonstrated licensee’s unwillingness to allow board to monitor licensee’s medical practice. Sachdev v. Oregon Medical Board, 312 Or App 392, 494 P3d 1018 (2021), Sup Ct review denied

COMPLETED CITATIONS: Butler v. Ins. Dept., 6 Or App 241, 487 P2d 103 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

Under former similar statute (ORS 183.480)

10 WLJ 373 (1974); 67 OLR 864 (1988)

Definitions for chapter
Application of provisions of chapter to certain agencies
Delegation of rulemaking authority to named officer or employee
Description of organization
Policy statement
Policy statement
Cost of compliance effect on small businesses
Procedure for agency adoption of federal rules
Model rules of procedure
Filing and taking effect of rules
Publication of rules and orders
Publication of administrative rules in electronic form
Distribution of published rules
Petitions requesting adoption of rules
Judicial determination of validity of rule
Agency report to Legislative Assembly regarding temporary rules
Agency review of rules
Small Business Rules Advisory Committee
Agency determination of applicability of rule or statute to petitioner
Delegation of final order authority
Notice to parties before hearing of rights and procedure
Notice of right to hearing
Procedure in contested case hearing
Depositions or subpoena of material witness
Hearing on refusal to renew license
Period allowed to request hearing for license refusal on grounds other than test or inspection results
Subpoenas in contested cases
Subpoena by agency or attorney of record of party when agency not subject to ORS 183.440
Evidence in contested cases
Representation of agencies at contested case hearings
Representation of Oregon Health Authority and Department of Human Services at contested case hearings
Representation of persons other than agencies participating in contested case hearings
Nonattorney and out-of-state attorney representation of parties in certain contested case hearings
Representation of home care worker by labor union representative
Examination of evidence by agency
Agency statement of ex parte communications
Proposed order by hearing officer
Orders in contested cases
Preservation of orders in electronic format
Judicial review of agency orders
Jurisdiction for review of contested cases
Jurisdiction for review of orders other than contested cases
Decision of court on review of contested case
Form and scope of decision of reviewing court
Agency may be compelled to act
Awarding costs and attorney fees when finding for petitioner
Authority of agencies to use alternative means of dispute resolution
Housing cost impact statement required for certain proposed rules
Housing cost impact statement described
Effect of failure to prepare housing cost impact statement
Reduction of economic impact on small business
Office of Administrative Hearings
Chief administrative law judge
Administrative law judges
Contract administrative law judges
Assignment of administrative law judges
Model rules of procedure
Agencies required to use administrative law judges from Office of Administrative Hearings
Use of Office of Administrative Hearings by exempt agencies and by political subdivisions
Request for change of administrative law judge
Form of order
Office of Administrative Hearings Operating Account
Estimates of office expenses
Alternative dispute resolution
Standards and training program
Ex parte communications
Office of Administrative Hearings Oversight Committee
Permits subject to ORS 183.702
Statement of criteria and procedures for evaluating permit application
Extended term for renewed licenses
Definitions for ORS 183.710 to 183.730
Submission of adopted rule to Legislative Counsel required
Procedure for review of agency rule
Required agency response to Legislative Counsel determination
Designation of interim committees for purposes of considering rule reports
Review of rule by Oregon Sunshine Committee
Civil penalty procedures
State agency required to prepare public writings in readable form
Green check means up to date. Up to date