Case Name: In the Matter of Audrey HARRIS, Respondent, v. OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1996-12-24
Citations: 145 Or. App. 477
Docket Number: 16-95-00611; CA A88926
Parties: In the Matter of Audrey HARRIS, Respondent, v. OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Appellant.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 145
Pages: 477–478

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted October 17,
reversed and remanded with instructions December 24, 1996
In the Matter of Audrey HARRIS, Respondent, v. OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Appellant.
(16-95-00611; CA A88926)
930 P2d 873
Pamela G. Wood, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief were Theodore Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
No appearance by respondent.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant, Oregon State Board of Higher Education (the Board), appeals a circuit court judgment reversing the Board's order that held that plaintiff did not meet the residency requirements that would qualify her for the tuition rates of an Oregon resident at the University of Oregon. We reverse.
The circuit court's review was for substantial evidence and errors of law, ORS 183.484, and we review the circuit court's decision to determine whether it properly applied its standard of review. United Citizens v. Oregon Environmental Quality Comm., 104 Or App 51, 799 P2d 665 (1990), rev den 311 Or 151 (1991).
On review, we agree with the Board that the trial court overstepped its permissible scope of review under ORS 183.484(4)(c) by substituting its judgment for that of the Board. The Board found that petitioner's evidence failed to rebut the presumption that she was in Oregon primarily for educational purposes and the trial court reversed on the ground that it was not similarly persuaded. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's findings. The trial court's contrary determination otherwise was error.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate Board's order.