Administrative Procedures Act

ORS 183.484
Jurisdiction for review of orders other than contested cases

  • procedure
  • scope of court authority

(1)

Jurisdiction for judicial review of orders other than contested cases is conferred upon the Circuit Court for Marion County and upon the circuit court for the county in which the petitioner resides or has a principal business office. Proceedings for review under this section shall be instituted by filing a petition in the Circuit Court for Marion County or the circuit court for the county in which the petitioner resides or has a principal business office.

(2)

Petitions for review shall be filed within 60 days only following the date the order is served, or if a petition for reconsideration or rehearing has been filed, then within 60 days only following the date the order denying such petition 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 case 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).

(3)

The petition shall state the nature of the petitioner’s interest, the facts showing how the petitioner is adversely affected or aggrieved by the agency order and the ground or grounds upon which the petitioner contends the order should be reversed or remanded. The review shall proceed and be conducted by the court without a jury.

(4)

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, it 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.
(5)(a) 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, it shall:

(A)

Set aside or modify the order; or

(B)

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

(b)

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

(A)

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

(B)

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

(C)

Otherwise in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision.

(c)

The court shall set aside or remand the order if it 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.

(6)

In the case of reversal the court shall make special findings of fact based upon the evidence in the record and conclusions of law indicating clearly all aspects in which the agency’s order is erroneous. [1975 c.759 §16; 1979 c.284 §121; 1979 c.593 §25a; 1985 c.757 §3; 1999 c.113 §1]

Notes of Decisions

The circuit court has jurisdiction to hear a claim that the proceeding was a proper case for a contested case hearing but was not so conducted. Buena Dairy Associates v. State Dept. of Agriculture, 25 Or App 381, 549 P2d 689 (1976)

The circuit court has no jurisdiction to review agency orders that trigger the availability of a contested case hearing, and that are subject to modification in such an agency proceeding. Bay River v. Environmental Quality Comm., 26 Or App 717, 554 P2d 620 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Procedures for judicial review provided by this section are exclusive means for review of LCDC orders under ORS 197.251 acknowledging local comprehensive plans. Oregon Business Planning Council v. LCDC, 290 Or 741, 626 P2d 350 (1981)

Acknowledgment order was remanded where LUBA opinion construing Goal 5 became “officially stated agency position” when it was adopted by LCDC; County failed to cure deficiencies in plan as identified by LUBA and adopted by LCDC; and LCDC did not explain inconsistency between interpretation of Goal 5 in adopted LUBA opinion and its decision to acknowledge. Coats v. LCDC, 67 Or App 504, 679 P2d 898 (1984)

Environmental Quality Commission proceeding denying application for solid waste pollution control facility tax credit certificate is not contested case proceeding and therefore, jurisdiction for review is conferred on circuit court. Linnton Plywood Assoc. v. DEQ, 68 Or App 412, 681 P2d 1180 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Challenge to decision of Secretary of State regarding compliance with “one-subject rule” of Oregon Constitution must be filed within reasonable time period that commences upon approval of petition for ballot title. Ellis v. Roberts, 302 Or 6, 725 P2d 886 (1986)

State Health Planning and Development Agency decision that medical center proposal to convert acute care beds to skilled nursing facility beds was subject to certificate of need review was preliminary agency decision and not reviewable final order. Merle West Medical Center v. SHPDA, 94 Or App 148, 764 P2d 613 (1988)

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)

Substantial evidence supported order by Department of General Services that bidder on contract failed to meet Minority Business Enterprise and Women Business Enterprise subcontracting goals, and circuit court erred in applying de novo review standard. Keeton-King Construction v. State of Oregon, 105 Or App 41, 802 P2d 711 (1990), as modified by 106 Or App 663, 809 P2d 708 (1991)

Notice of rule change issued under ORS 183.355 is not “order” under ORS 183.310, and judicial review is not available under this section. Calif. Table Grape Comm’n v. Dept. of Human Res., 109 Or App 222, 818 P2d 983 (1991)

Reasonable time for filing preelection challenge may be less than 60 days in some circumstances. State ex rel Keisling v. Norblad, 317 Or 615, 860 P2d 241 (1993)

Reasonable time period for filing challenge based on single subject rule begins with certification of ballot title in case of initiative petition, or effective date of legislation ordering placement on ballot in case of referred measures. State ex rel Keisling v. Norblad, 317 Or 615, 860 P2d 241 (1993)

Legislature may specify reasonable period for filing constitutional challenges to time-sensitive legislation. State ex rel Keisling v. Norblad, 317 Or 615, 860 P2d 241 (1993)

Organization bringing action must itself be adversely affected or aggrieved by decision and may not assert standing based solely on its representation of other persons who have standing. Local No. 290 v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, 323 Or 559, 919 P2d 1168 (1996)

Circuit court acts as record-making court and is not confined to consideration of evidence relied upon by agency. Norden v. Water Resources Dept., 158 Or App 127, 973 P2d 910 (1999), aff’d329 Or 641, 996 P2d 958 (2000); Cervantes v. Dept. of Human Services, 295 Or App 691, 435 P3d 831 (2019)

Maximum time limit for preelection challenge to action or inaction of Secretary of State with respect to election laws is 60 days. Sizemore v. Keisling, 164 Or App 80, 990 P2d 351 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

Review conducted under authority of this section is premised on existence of final agency order; therefore process for challenging nonfinal order is by other means, such as seeking injunction. Oregon Health Care Association v. Health Division, 329 Or 480, 992 P2d 434 (1999)

Summary judgment is available in case challenging agency order under this section where parties agree or concede that record is sufficiently developed for court to conduct substantial evidence review, but summary judgment is not appropriate where party opposing summary judgment demonstrates factual dispute going to merits of challenged agency order. Cervantes v. Dept. of Human Services, 295 Or App 691, 435 P3d 831 (2019)

For purposes of determining date of service, “delivered” means delivered by means other than mail. V.G. v. Department of Human Services, Child Welfare Services, Children, Adults and Families, 302 Or App 804, 461 P3d 1104 (2020), Sup Ct review denied

Source

Last accessed
Mar. 11, 2023

REMOVE ADS