Hill v. Employment Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Hill v. Employment Division

758 P.2d 420, 92 Or. App. 357

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 3, 1988

DocketEAB 87 AB 985; CA A45311

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 758 P.2d 420 (Hill v. Employment Division) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Employment Division, 758 P.2d 420, 92 Or. App. 357 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board. Employer was not served with a copy of the petition for review and asserts that, as a consequence, we lack jurisdiction. ORS 183.482(2) provides:

“Copies of the petition shall be served * * * upon the agency, and all other parties of record in the agency proceeding.”

Whether the service requirement of ORS 183.482(2) is jurisdictional has never been decided. We hold that it is mandatory, but not jurisdictional. ORS 183.482(1) sets forth the jurisdictional requirements for review of a contested case. Failure to meet a requirement of ORS 183.482(2) may nonetheless result in dismissal of the petition. ORAP 12.05(2). Here, we decline to exercise our discretion to dismiss the petition. Employer does not contend that it was in any way prejudiced by petitioner’s failure to serve it with the petition.

We have fully reviewed petitioner’s arguments. They lack merit and do not require discussion.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board. Employer was not served with a copy of the petition for review and asserts that, as a consequence, we lack jurisdiction. ORS 183.482(2) provides:

“Copies of the petition shall be served * * * upon the agency, and all other parties of record in the agency proceeding.”

Whether the service requirement of ORS 183.482(2) is jurisdictional has never been decided. We hold that it is mandatory, but not jurisdictional. ORS 183.482(1) sets forth the jurisdictional requirements for review of a contested case. Failure to meet a requirement of ORS 183.482(2) may nonetheless result in dismissal of the petition. ORAP 12.05(2). Here, we decline to exercise our discretion to dismiss the petition. Employer does not contend that it was in any way prejudiced by petitioner’s failure to serve it with the petition.

We have fully reviewed petitioner’s arguments. They lack merit and do not require discussion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

758 P.2d 420, 92 Or. App. 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-employment-division-orctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack