Case ID: or-app_92/html/0357-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Submitted on record and briefs March 29,
    affirmed August 3, 1988
    HILL, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION et al, Respondents.
    
    (EAB 87 AB 985; CA A45311)
    758 P2d 420
    Jesse Hill, Portland, filed the brief pro se.
    
    David C. Gearing, Portland, filed the brief for respondent Condor Enterprises, Inc.
    No appearance for respondent Employment Division.
    Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Graber, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board. Employer was not served with a copy of the petition for review and asserts that, as a consequence, we lack jurisdiction. ORS 183.482(2) provides:

“Copies of the petition shall be served * * * upon the agency, and all other parties of record in the agency proceeding.”

Whether the service requirement of ORS 183.482(2) is jurisdictional has never been decided. We hold that it is mandatory, but not jurisdictional. ORS 183.482(1) sets forth the jurisdictional requirements for review of a contested case. Failure to meet a requirement of ORS 183.482(2) may nonetheless result in dismissal of the petition. ORAP 12.05(2). Here, we decline to exercise our discretion to dismiss the petition. Employer does not contend that it was in any way prejudiced by petitioner’s failure to serve it with the petition.

We have fully reviewed petitioner’s arguments. They lack merit and do not require discussion.

Affirmed.