Notes of Decisions
Findings of fact by the agency were mere summaries of the evidence and, therefore, deficient. Graham v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 20 Or App 97, 530 P2d 858 (1975)
Agencys order was insufficient for judicial review. Crumpton v. Dept. of Water Resources, 28 Or App 423, 559 P2d 927 (1977)
Boards Order Was Insufficient for Review for Failure to State
facts found to be true, principles of law controlling decision, and rational relationship between facts and conclusions. Reynolds School District v. Martin, 30 Or App 39, 566 P2d 196 (1977)
Fact that Commissions final order lacked explanation of why petitioners license was revoked did not render order invalid, for choice by Commission of whether to revoke, suspend, etc., was neither finding of fact nor conclusion of law within meaning of this section. Marys Fine Food, Inc. v. OLCC, 30 Or App 435, 567 P2d 146 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Order of Medical Examiners Board did not meet requirements of this section where it failed to state basic facts found to be true, did not set forth any recognizable ultimate facts or specify which of probation conditions was found to have been violated, and lacked explanation of principles and reasoning employed in reaching conclusion. Stalder v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 37 Or App 853, 588 P2d 659 (1978)
Failure by a referee to make findings of fact under this section rendered order incomplete and therefore insufficient. Cascade Forest Products v. Accident Prevention Division, 60 Or App 255, 653 P2d 574 (1982)
Citation of statutes under which order may be appealed must include citation of statutes both for appeals to LUBA and for appeals to Court of Appeals. Kalmiopsis Audubon Soc. v. Division of State Lands, 66 Or App 810, 676 P2d 885 (1984)
Agency order which failed to demonstrate rational nexus between findings of fact and conclusions of law was reversed and remanded. Carr v. AFSD, 66 Or App 830, 676 P2d 359 (1984)
Employment Appeals Boards failure to make findings of fact concerning petitioners contention that there were valid medical reasons for his tardiness rendered insufficient and incomplete its order affirming denial of unemployment compensation. Propst v. Employment Division, 72 Or App 275, 696 P2d 4 (1985)
Order denying hearing request is final order requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law. Hartwick v. AFSD, 73 Or App 104, 698 P2d 59 (1985)
Employment Appeals Boards failure to make findings of fact concerning petitioners contention that he quit work because cumulative effect on him of harassment and work-related grievances made continued employment intolerable, rendered its findings incomplete and insufficient to support its order denying petitioner unemployment benefits. Hannah v. Employment Division, 83 Or App 104, 730 P2d 600 (1986)
Where property tax refund was intercepted by respondent to recover costs previously awarded in unemployment compensation proceeding and petitioner filed petition for review more than 60 days after original order but less than 60 days after amended order, amended order superseded and replaced original order so petition was timely. Callahan v. Employment Division, 97 Or App 234, 776 P2d 21 (1989)
Where Employment Appeals Board failed to make findings of fact as to which act of misconduct was reason for claimants termination, conclusion that claimant was discharged for isolated instance of poor judgment is not rationally connected to factual findings. Jackson County v. Employment Div., 99 Or App 719, 784 P2d 119 (1989)
Administrative Proceeding Can Have Issue Preclusive Effect In Later Proceeding If
issue is identical, was actually litigated and was essential to final administrative decision on merits; party sought to be precluded had full and fair opportunity to be heard and is same party or in privity with party to administrative proceeding; and proceeding was type to which court will give preclusive effect. Nelson v. Emerald Peoples Utility District, 318 Or 99, 862 P2d 1293 (1993); Hickey v. Settlemier, 318 Or 196, 864 P2d 372 (1993)
Final order includes written findings of fact, conclusions of law, reasoning and result constituting final written expression of agency action regardless of how material is labeled. Brian v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 319 Or 151, 874 P2d 1294 (1994)
Completed Citations
Butler v. Ins. Dept., 6 Or App 241, 487 P2d 103 (1971), Sup Ct review denied
Atty. Gen. Opinions
Oregons Commission for Child Care not required to make formal findings concerning available child care information and referral services in communities when awarding grants, (1989) Vol 46, p 133
Law Review Citations
54 OLR 387 (1975)
Law Review Citations
70 OLR 176 (1991)
See annotations under ORS chapter 183.
Chapter 183
Notes of Decisions
A legislative delegation of power in terms as broad as those used in [former] ORS 471.295 (1) places upon the administrative agency a responsibility to establish standards by which the law is to be applied. Sun Ray Drive-in Dairy, Inc. v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 16 Or App 63, 517 P2d 289 (1973)
Administrative regulation providing that failure to perform responsibilities adequately was a ground for employees dismissal. Palen v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 18 Or App 442, 525 P2d 1047 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
Where it was determined that agency invalidly terminated substantive policy, trial court did not have authority to order agency to resume policy in absence of validly adopted agency rule. Burke v. Childrens Services Division, 39 Or App 819, 593 P2d 1262 (1979), affd 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)
Trending factors published by the Department of Revenue and used to appraise property for purposes of property taxation are not rules within the meaning of this chapter. Borden Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 286 Or 567, 595 P2d 1372 (1979)
Appellate court may review proceeding meeting definition of contested case whether or not proceeding was formal administrative hearing. Patton v. State Bd. of Higher Ed., 293 Or 363, 647 P2d 931 (1982)
Circuit court could not entertain action for declaratory judgment directed at PERS, because PERS is subject to APA, which provides exclusive method for review of its actions. FOPPO v. County of Marion, 93 Or App 93, 760 P2d 1353 (1988), Sup Ct review denied
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)
Preponderance of evidence standard applies where initial license application is denied based on willful fraud. Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy, 130 Or App 374, 882 P2d 606 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Completed Citations
Wright v. Bateson, 5 Or App 628, 485 P2d 641 (1971), Sup Ct review denied, cert. denied, 405 US 930 (1972)
Atty. Gen. Opinions
State Speed Control Board subject to Administrative Procedures Act, (1974) Vol 36, p 1024; proxy voting at board meeting, (1974) Vol 36, p 1064; student conduct proceedings as contested cases, (1976) Vol 37, p 1461; rulemaking authority of Statewide Health Coordinating Council and of Certificate of Need Appeals Board, (1977) Vol 38, p 1229; Oregon Medical Insurance Pool is fundamentally private-sector body, under virtually total private control, created by state to fulfill public purpose and is not state agency or public body subject to Administrative Procedures Act (APA), (1989) Vol 46, p 155
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 245 (1971); 53 OLR 364, 365 (1974); 10 WLJ 373, 420 (1974); 13 WLJ 499, 517, 525, 537 (1977); 57 OLR 334 (1978); 22 WLR 355 (1986); 36 WLR 219 (2000)
