2007 ORS 183.415¹
Notice of right to hearing

(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that persons affected by actions taken by state agencies have a right to be informed of their rights and remedies with respect to the actions.

(2) In a contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice, served personally or by registered or certified mail.

(3) Notice under this section must include:

(a) A statement of the party’s right to hearing, with a description of the procedure and time to request a hearing, or a statement of the time and place of the hearing;

(b) A statement of the authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held;

(c) A reference to the particular sections of the statutes and rules involved;

(d) A short and plain statement of the matters asserted or charged; and

(e) A statement indicating whether and under what circumstances an order by default may be entered. [1971 c.734 §13; 1979 c.593 §18; 1985 c.757 §1; 1997 c.837 §2; 1999 c.849 §§27,28; 2003 c.75 §29; 2007 c.288 §2]

Note: See note under 183.417 (Procedure in contested case hearing).

Notes of Decisions

This sec­tion requires record to include proposed findings of fact only when they are in fact made, but does not provide when they are re­quired. Stanfill v. Real Estate Division, 35 Or App 549, 581 P2d 980 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Show cause order which did not notify doctor of statute, rule or other pro­vi­sion upon which proposed license revoca­tion was based did not meet notice require­ments of this sec­tion. Stalder v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 37 Or App 853, 588 P2d 659 (1978)

Quasi-judicial boundary com­mis­sion pro­ceed­ing denying peti­tion to annex 88 acres to city was subject to contested case pro­ce­dures under this sec­tion. Fosses v. Portland Area LGBC, 43 Or App 647, 603 P2d 1235 (1979)

Where Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Real Estate Commissioner's order suspending peti­tioner's real estate sales license, under this sec­tion peti­tioner was entitled, on reconsidera­tion, to notice and opportunity to present argu­ment on all issues involved. Hodges v. Real Estate Div., 45 Or App 753, 609 P2d 421 (1980)

Mailing of notice of hearing before Builders Board to peti­tioner's last known address did not constitute "reasonable notice" under this sec­tion where his certificate of registra­tion with Builders Board had expired and he no longer had duty under ORS 701.080 to notify Builders Board of address change. Marsh v. Builders Board, 54 Or App 242, 634 P2d 803 (1981)

Failure of hearings of­fi­cer to assist peti­tioner in presenting evidence constitutes abuse of hearings of­fi­cer's broad discre­tion in controlling hearing under this sec­tion and ORS 183.450 (Evidence in contested cases). Berwick v. AFSD, 74 Or App 460, 703 P2d 994 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Proposed order was not re­quired before final order was entered because deputy administrator reviewed entire record on reconsidera­tion. Bob Wilkes Falling v. Na­tional Council on Comp. Ins., 108 Or App 453, 816 P2d 1172 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Once notice of right to ap­peal is given to all parties, per­sonal service on all parties is not re­quired at sub­se­quent steps in pro­ceed­ing. Lolley v. SAIF, 141 Or App 281, 917 P2d 1067 (1996)

Where agency has been notified that per­son is represented by counsel, in addi­tion to re­quired service on per­son, agency has duty to provide counsel with copies of all important communica­tions with per­son. ETU, Inc. v. Environ­mental Quality Commission, 343 Or 57, 162 P3d 248 (2007)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Intra-agency communica­tions or communica­tions with agency counsel as ex parte communica­tions, (1980) Vol 40, p 321

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 ORS 471.295 (1) (renumbered ORS 471.313 (Grounds for refusing to issue license) (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 employee's 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. Children's Services Division, 39 Or App 819, 593 P2d 1262 (1979), aff'd 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/­183.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 183, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­183ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
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.