Source: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/183.480
Timestamp: 2017-03-26 20:56:36
Document Index: 306413862

Matched Legal Cases: ['§12', '§1', '§18', '§14', '§23', '§901', '§4', '§5', '§11']

ORS 183.480 - Judicial review of agency orders - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes
Section 183.480
183.480¹
(1) Except as provided in ORS 183.417 (Procedure in contested case hearing) (3)(b), any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final order, whether such order is affirmative or negative in form. A petition for rehearing or reconsideration need not be filed as a condition of judicial review unless specifically otherwise provided by statute or agency rule.
(2) Judicial review of final orders of agencies shall be solely as provided by ORS 183.482 (Jurisdiction for review of contested cases), 183.484 (Jurisdiction for review of orders other than contested cases), 183.490 (Agency may be compelled to act) and 183.500 (Appeals).
(3) No action or suit shall be maintained as to the validity of any agency order except a final order as provided in this section and ORS 183.482 (Jurisdiction for review of contested cases), 183.484 (Jurisdiction for review of orders other than contested cases), 183.490 (Agency may be compelled to act) and 183.500 (Appeals) or except upon showing that the agency is proceeding without probable cause, or that the party will suffer substantial and irreparable harm if interlocutory relief is not granted.
(4) Judicial review of orders issued pursuant to ORS 813.410 (Suspension upon receipt of police report on implied consent test) shall be as provided by ORS 813.410 (Suspension upon receipt of police report on implied consent test). [1957 c.717 §12; 1963 c.449 §1; 1971 c.734 §18; 1975 c.759 §14; 1979 c.593 §23; 1983 c.338 §901; 1985 c.757 §4; 1997 c.837 §5; 2007 c.288 §11]
The penalty imposed was set aside because the com­mis­sioner's findings and conclusions were incomplete and thus unlawful in substance. Vincent v. Real Estate Div., 24 Or App 913, 548 P2d 180 (1976)
An intervenor in an ac­tion under the energy facility siting statutes, ORS 469.300 (Definitions) to 469.570 and 469.992 (Civil penalties), 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)
In a pro­ceed­ing before the Employ­ment Rela­tions Board to certify a bargaining unit under ORS 243.650 (Definitions for ORS 243.650 to 243.782), an order by the board denying a mo­tion to dismiss the pro­ceed­ing on the ground that the employer is not a "public employer" under this sec­tion and holding that it is such an employer, is not a "final order" ap­pealable under the terms of this sec­tion. Lane Council of Govts. v. Lane Council of Govts. Employes Assn., 277 Or 631, 561 P2d 1012 (1977), as modified by, 278 Or 335, 563 P2d 729 (1977)
Employ­ment Rela­tions Board order dismissing objec­tions to con­duct of substitute teachers' representa­tion elec­tion that preceded certifica­tion order was not final order subject to review under this sec­tion. Eugene School District v. Substitute Teacher Organiza­tion, 31 Or App 1255, 572 P2d 650 (1977)
Board order, which defined appropriate bargaining unit and di­rected representa­tion elec­tion for city police pursuant to ORS 243.650 (Definitions for ORS 243.650 to 243.782) et seq., was not "final order" subject to judicial review. City of Hermiston v. Employ­ment Rela­tions Board, 280 Or 291, 570 P2d 663 (1977)
Where Employ­ment Rela­tions Board determined that proposed bargaining unit was inappropriate, this was a final order and ap­pealable. OSEA v. Deschutes County, 40 Or App 371, 595 P2d 501 (1979)
Agency order which left nothing more for applicant or agency to do was final order under this sec­tion and was not rendered less final by recogni­tion in order that peti­tioners might reapply or ask for reconsidera­tion based on submission of addi­tional data. Land Reclama­tion v. DEQ, 292 Or 104, 636 P2d 933 (1981)
County and its tax assessor have standing, under this sec­tion, to seek review of state historic preserva­tion of­fi­cer's decision freezing assessed value of prop­erty designated as historic under ORS 358.475 (Policy) to 358.565 (State Historic Preservation Officer). Multnomah County v. Talbot, 56 Or App 235, 641 P2d 617 (1982), aff'd 294 Or 478, 657 P2d 684 (1983)
Where school district employees were determined to be in bargaining unit at time of its recogni­tion by school district and no new negotia­tions were re­quired as to them, Employ­ment Rela­tions Board clarifica­tion order was not "tentative or preliminary" declara­tion and was final order and ap­pealable. Reynolds School Dist. v. OSEA, 58 Or App 609, 650 P2d 119 (1982)
Aggrieved party may ap­peal state agency's ac­tion to Court of Appeals pursuant to this sec­tion and ORS 183.482 (Jurisdiction for review of contested cases), 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)
ERB order designating Division of State Lands Employes' Associa­tion as appropriate bargaining unit was not "final order," because that determina­tion must be followed by elec­tion. DSLEA v. Division of State Lands, 72 Or App 559, 696 P2d 578 (1985)
Appeal of contested case concerning state institu­tion reimburse­ment and pursuant to this sec­tion was subject to more specific statute, [former] ORS 179.650, which grants judicial review of order to circuit court rather than Court of Appeals. Pioneer Trust Bank v. Mental Health Division, 87 Or App 132, 742 P2d 51 (1987)
Peti­tioner, nonprofit animal protec­tion organiza­tion, is not "aggrieved" and lacked standing because peti­tioner did not show one or more of three factors necessary for per­son to be "aggrieved." People for the Ethical Treat­ment of Animals v. Institu­tional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Oregon, 312 Or 95, 817 P2d 1299 (1991)
Court applica­tion of crim­i­nal law defini­tion of "probable cause" rather than statutory defini­tion set forth in ORS 244.260 (Complaint and adjudicatory process) was error. Brian v. Oregon Govern­ment Ethics Commission, 126 Or App 358, 868 P2d 1359 (1994), aff'd 320 Or 676, 891 P2d 649 (1995)
Whether Children's Services Division followed proper pro­ce­dure in making child place­ment decision was distinct issue from merits of place­ment decision and therefore was reviewable by circuit court. Adams v. CSD, 131 Or App 396, 886 P2d 19 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Aggrieved per­sons having standing to peti­tion for court review of administrative aspects of adop­tion denial were not re­quired to also have standing under ORS 109.119 (Rights of person who establishes emotional ties creating child-parent relationship or ongoing personal relationship). State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Rivers, 131 Or App 512, 886 P2d 1024 (1994)
Enforce­ment of order is ac­tion taken with "probable cause" even if that order being enforced is erroneous. Hermiston Irriga­tion Dist. v. Water Resources Dept. 131 Or App 596, 886 P2d 1092 (1994)
Non-agency party has standing to seek judicial review regardless of whether party seeks different ultimate outcome. Brian v. Oregon Govern­ment Ethics Commission, 319 Or 151, 874 P2d 1294 (1994)
Legal expenses, per­sonal and emo­­tion­al distress and damage to reputa­tion are not "substantial and irreparable harm" justifying interlocutory relief. Anderson v. Public Employes Retire­ment Board, 134 Or App 422, 895 P2d 1377 (1995), Sup Ct review denied
For contested and noncontested cases, claim that agency is pro­ceed­ing without cause or that irreparable harm will result from nonfinal order must be resolved through injunctive process or other power of circuit court. Oregon Health Care Associa­tion v. Health Division, 329 Or 480, 992 P2d 434 (1999)
If agency pro­ceed­ing is based on interpreta­tion of agency rule, court evalua­tion of whether agency is pro­ceed­ing without probable cause is subject to deference ordinarily given to plausible interpreta­tion of rule by agency. Oregon Restaurant Services, Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery, 199 Or App 545, 112 P3d 398 (2005), Sup Ct review denied
54 OLR 416-427 (1975)
58.460 Appeal from Secretary of State’s refusal to file docu­ment
116.253 Recovery of escheated prop­erty
342.180 Appeal
454.635 Notice of viola­tion
466.295 Examina­tion of applica­tions
480.660 Notice of viola­tion
508.762 Review of denial of sea urchin permit renewal or transfer
508.796 Review of permit denial
508.825 Review of permit denial
508.941 Review of eligibility determina­tions
508.960 Review of permit denial
554.017 Appeal from Secretary of State’s refusal to file docu­ment