2015 ORS 183.410¹
Agency determination of applicability of rule or statute to petitioner
  • effect
  • judicial review

On petition of any interested person, any agency may in its discretion issue a declaratory ruling with respect to the applicability to any person, property, or state of facts of any rule or statute enforceable by it. A declaratory ruling is binding between the agency and the petitioner on the state of facts alleged, unless it is altered or set aside by a court. However, the agency may, where the ruling is adverse to the petitioner, review the ruling and alter it if requested by the petitioner. Binding rulings provided by this section are subject to review in the Court of Appeals in the manner provided in ORS 183.480 (Judicial review of agency orders) for the review of orders in contested cases. The Attorney General shall prescribe by rule the form for such petitions and the procedure for their submission, consideration and disposition. The petitioner shall have the right to submit briefs and present oral argument at any declaratory ruling proceeding held pursuant to this section. [1957 c.717 §7; 1971 c.734 §10; 1973 c.612 §5]

Notes of Decisions

An unambiguous regula­tion, like an unambiguous statute, should not be interpreted but should be enforced according to the clear language. Schoen v. Univ. of Ore., 21 Or App 494, 535 P2d 1378 (1975)

This sec­tion does not authorize the Court of Appeals to make a declara­tion ruling on a ques­tion that is not first passed upon by an administrative agency. Ore. State Employes Assn. v. State of Oregon, 21 Or App 567, 535 P2d 1385 (1975); Hopkins v. Dept. of Correc­tions, 127 Or App 210, 872 P2d 433 (1994)

This sec­tion gives Court of Appeals jurisdic­tion to review only binding declaratory rulings of agencies and therefore court may not review respondents denial of peti­tioners request for declaratory ruling. Fadeley v. Ore. Govt. Ethics Comm., 25 Or App 867, 551 P2d 496 (1976); United Brokers, Inc. v. Depart­ment of Agriculture, 68 Or App 44, 680 P2d 702 (1984)

A letter from the Employ­ment Rela­tions Board to the Court of Appeals provided insufficient basis for an excep­tion to the general rule that parties may not confer jurisdic­tion upon the court by stipula­tion. Lane Council of Govts. v. Lane Council of Govts. Employes Assn., 278 Or 335, 563 P2d 729 (1977)

Where peti­tion requesting Energy Facility Siting Council to take ac­tions re­gard­ing disposal of allegedly radioactive waste did not involve owner of landfill or party responsible for waste, raised complex factual issues, was not in form re­quired by Attorney General rules, was not treated by parties as request for declaratory ruling and Council could not grant en­force­­ment relief sought by peti­tioner, matter was not declaratory ruling pro­ceed­ing under this sec­tion. Forelaws on Board v. Energy Fac. Siting Council, 311 Or 350, 811 P2d 636 (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)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 183—Administrative Procedures Act; Legislative Review of Rules; Civil Penalties, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors183.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 183, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano183.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.