2017 ORS 34.020¹
Who may obtain review
  • intermediate orders reviewable

Except for a proceeding resulting in a land use decision or limited land use decision as defined in ORS 197.015 (Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325), for which review is provided in ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) to 197.845 (Stay of decision being reviewed), or an expedited land division as described in ORS 197.360 (“Expedited land division” defined), for which review is provided in ORS 197.375 (Appeal of decision on application for expedited land division) (8), any party to any process or proceeding before or by any inferior court, officer, or tribunal may have the decision or determination thereof reviewed for errors, as provided in ORS 34.010 (Former writ of certiorari as writ of review) to 34.100 (Power of court on review), and not otherwise. Upon a review, the court may review any intermediate order involving the merits and necessarily affecting the decision or determination sought to be reviewed. [Amended by 1979 c.772 §8; 1981 c.748 §38; 1983 c.827 §42; 1991 c.817 §18; 1995 c.595 §21]

Notes of Decisions

District court is “inferior court” within meaning of this sec­tion, and writ of review is available to review its decisions. Hoffman v. French, 287 Or 323, 599 P2d 452 (1979)

School board’s nonrenewal of proba­tionary teacher under ORS 342.835 (Probationary teacher) was pro­ceed­ing in which board was re­quired to make “decision or determina­tion” within meaning of this sec­tion. Henthorn v. Grand Prairie School Dist., 287 Or 683, 601 P2d 1243 (1979)

Denial of claim for tax refund by board of county com­mis­sioners was “process or pro­ceed­ing” under this sec­tion and was reviewable under writ of review. Rosboro Lumber Co. v. Heine, 289 Or 909, 618 P2d 960 (1980)

Where rights and responsibilities of manage­ment employe at community college were controlled by terms of his contract and college’s Administrative Policy Handbook, decision to terminate employe by district board was “decision or determina­tion” within meaning of this sec­tion. Cole v. Chemeketa Comm. College, 58 Or App 77, 647 P2d 935 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Circuit court lacked jurisdic­tion over writ of review under this sec­tion because local govern­ment’s decisions that plaintiff failed to es­tab­lish nonconforming use and vested right to nonconforming use were “land use decisions,” reviewable exclusively by the Land Use Board of Appeals. Turner v. Lane County, 63 Or App 611, 665 P2d 370 (1983)

When defendant city had adopted resolu­tion providing that three percent “shall be computed on and added to the cumulative assessable costs of construc­tion, engineering, advertising and warrant interest to arrive at a total assessable amount,” ordinance did nothing that directly affected plaintiff; only sub­se­quent assess­ment ordinances directly affected plaintiff, and those could be attacked by writ of review. Diversified Properties, Inc. v. City of Springfield, 86 Or App 325, 738 P2d 1010 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Mayor’s imposi­tion of sanc­tion on police of­fi­cer for violating police bureau order was quasi-judicial act, and trial court had writ of review jurisdic­tion. Koch v. City of Portland, 306 Or 444, 760 P2d 252 (1988)

Under this sec­tion writ of review is exclusive method of seeking judicial review of police chief’s order which terminated employ­ment of two police of­fi­cers. Decker v. Clark, 95 Or App 320, 769 P2d 228 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Where ac­tion seeks to enforce rights arising from terms of contract rather than from extra-contractual source, ac­tion may be brought in contract even though remedy might otherwise be available through writ of review. Cloyd v. Lebanon School District 16C, 161 Or App 572, 985 P2d 232 (1999)

Plaintiff’s pursuit of contractually conferred administrative remedy does not prevent plaintiff from sub­se­quently bringing suit based on contract rather than pursuing writ of review. Gibson v. Douglas County, 197 Or App 204, 106 P3d 151 (2005)

Notes of Decisions

The circuit court lacked jurisdic­tion to issue a writ of review concerning district court order denying defendant’s mo­tion for leave to withdraw his guilty plea in a crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ing. Humphreys v. State of Oregon, 19 Or App 630, 528 P2d 1094 (1974)

Court may join two writs that arise out of same transac­tion. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Approval of tentative plan under subdivision ordinance is final order reviewable in writ of review pro­ceed­ing. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Order which is not ap­pealable is not subject to review by writ of review. Botteron v. Carter, 33 Or App 417, 576 P2d 828 (1978)

Where rights and responsibilities of manage­ment employe at community college were controlled by terms of his contract and college’s Administrative Policy Handbook, remedy for termina­tion was limited to writ of review, since district board’s termina­tion decision was “decision or determina­tion” under ORS 34.020 (Who may obtain review) in exercise of its authority under ORS 341.290 (General powers). Cole v. Chemeketa Comm. College, 58 Or App 77, 647 P2d 935 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

In absence of statutory basis by which judge could compel nonparty to crim­i­nal case to grant access to nonparty’s home to attorneys for crim­i­nal defendant, peremptory writ issued. State ex rel Beach v. Norblad, 308 Or 429, 781 P2d 349 (1989)

Availability of writ of review does not preclude ac­tion based on common law tort of wrongful discharge. Shockey v. City of Portland, 313 Or 414, 837 P2d 505 (1992)

Where peti­tion for writ of review has been timely filed but peti­tioner has not taken addi­tional steps necessary to obtain and serve writ, court retains jurisdic­tion but lacks authority to proceed further on peti­tion. Spivak v. Marriott, 213 Or App 1, 159 P3d 1192 (2007)

Final Decision By Inferior Tribunal Precludes Related Claim If

1) claimant was party to tribunal pro­ceed­ing that adjudicated effect of facts common to related claim; and 2) related claim would involve reviewing correctness of tribunal decision under ORS 34.040 (When allowed) standards. Spivak v. Marriott, 213 Or App 1, 159 P3d 1192 (2007)

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 95, 96 (1973); 10 WLJ 359, 374-384 (1974); 54 OLR 396-401 (1975); 15 EL 243 (1985)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 34—Writs, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors034.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 34, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano034.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.