Case Name: WESNER, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1976-06-21
Citations: 25 Or. App. 837
Docket Number: CA 5715
Parties: WESNER, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Respondent.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Fort and Thornton, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 25
Pages: 837–839

Head Matter:
Argued May 26,
appeal dismissed June 21, 1976
WESNER, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Respondent.
(CA 5715)
551 P2d 124
Robert E. Nelson, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Richardson, Murphy & Nelson, Portland.
Al J. Laue, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and W. Michael Gillette, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Fort and Thornton, Judges.
THORNTON, J.

Opinion:
THORNTON, J.
Petitioner, a student at Oregon State University, appeals from the decision of the Permanent Administrative Review Committee of the State System of Higher Education which ruled that he was not entitled to resident student tuition rates for the 1975-76 school year.
We must first determine whether this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. As we have often stated, direct judicial review of administrative action by this court is authorized only when the proceeding below was a "contested case hearing." ORS 183.482(1); N. W. Envir. Def. v. Air Poll. Auth., 16 Or App 638, 519 P2d 1271, Sup Ct review denied (1974); Herron v. Employment Div., 24 Or App 531, 546 P2d 789 (1976); Solomon v. State Land Board, 25 Or App 311, 548 P2d 1335 (1976).
In N. W. Envir. Def. v. Air Poll. Auth., supra at 640, n 1, we defined a "contested case hearing" as
" 'a¿versary' or 'trial-type' administrative hearings [which] are conducted like trials with sworn testimony, subpoena power, cross-examination, application of the rules of evidence, etc. "
Petitioner's position on appeal is in part that the proceeding before the Permanent Administrative Review Committee was inadequate in that witnesses were not sworn and that no transcript was prepared. Petitioner is in essence admitting that he did not receive a contested case hearing below and arguing that he should have. Such an argument should be addressed to the circuit court as our court is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal unless the proceeding below was a contested case hearing; it is not sufficient that the proceeding should have been a contested case hearing.
Appeal dismissed.