2015 ORS 183.470¹
Orders in contested cases

In a contested case:

(1) Every order adverse to a party to the proceeding shall be in writing or stated in the record and may be accompanied by an opinion.

(2) A final order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings of fact shall consist of a concise statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings as to each contested issue of fact and as to each ultimate fact required to support the agencys order.

(3) The agency shall notify the parties to a proceeding of a final order by delivering or mailing a copy of the order and any accompanying findings and conclusions to each party or, if applicable, the partys attorney of record.

(4) Every final order shall include a citation of the statutes under which the order may be appealed. [1957 c.717 §11; 1971 c.734 §17; 1979 c.593 §22]

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Fact that Commissions final order lacked explana­tion of why peti­tioners license was revoked did not render order invalid, for choice by Commission of whether to revoke, suspend, etc., was neither finding of fact nor conclusion of law within meaning of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)


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.