Summary
In Hill v. Employment Division, 92 Or.App. 357, 358, 758 P.2d 420 (1988), we held that the service requirement was “mandatory, but not jurisdictional.” Hill was decided 13 years before the legislature amended ORS 144.335(4), and its construction of an analogous service requirement in ORS 183.482(2) is relevant context in discerning the legislature's intent in amending ORS 144.335(4).
Summary of this case from Rivas-Valles v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionOpinion
EAB 87 AB 985; CA A45311
Submitted on record and briefs March 29, 1988
Affirmed August 3, 1988
Judicial Review from Employment Appeals Board.
Jesse Hill, Portland, filed the brief pro se.
David C. Gearing, Portland, filed the brief for respondent Condor Enterprises, Inc.
No appearance for respondent Employment Division.
Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Graber, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
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.