Administrative Law Flashcards

The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test for determining what procedural due process is required weighs:

Answer: The private interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation under existing procedures, and the government's interest

Mathews v. Eldridge established a three-factor test: the private interest at stake, the risk of erroneous deprivation and value of additional safeguards, and the government's interest including administrative burden.

In an Oregon contested case hearing, which procedural right is a party generally entitled to under ORS 183.415?

Answer: The right to cross-examine witnesses who testify against them

ORS 183.415 entitles parties in contested case hearings to cross-examine witnesses, ensuring a meaningful opportunity to challenge adverse testimony.

Under the Oregon APA, which body typically serves as the factfinder in contested case proceedings?

Answer: The agency head or an administrative law judge from Oregon's Office of Administrative Hearings

Oregon centralized its ALJ function in the Office of Administrative Hearings, and contested cases are heard by the agency head or an assigned ALJ who serves as factfinder.

The constitutional requirement that an administrative adjudicator be free from bias and prejudgment is grounded in the:

Answer: Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

Due process requires a neutral and unbiased adjudicator; the Due Process Clause prohibits a decision-maker who has a direct financial or personal stake in the outcome.

When an administrative law judge issues a proposed order in an Oregon contested case, the agency head:

Answer: May adopt, modify, or reject the proposed order after reviewing the record

Under ORS 183.464, the agency head reviews the ALJ's proposed order and has authority to adopt, modify, or reject it based on the agency's review of the record.

A regulated party argues that an agency's enforcement proceeding violates due process because the same agency investigated and will adjudicate the case. Under Withrow v. Larkin, this combination of functions:

Answer: Is presumptively constitutional; actual bias or prejudgment must be affirmatively demonstrated to prevail

In Withrow v. Larkin, the Supreme Court held that combining investigative and adjudicative functions in one agency is not inherently unconstitutional; a party must show actual bias or prejudgment.

Under ORS 183.450, which type of evidence is admissible in an Oregon contested case hearing that would ordinarily be excluded in a civil court proceeding?

Answer: Hearsay evidence, if it has probative value and is the type of evidence reasonable persons rely on

ORS 183.450 allows hearsay in contested case hearings if it has probative value and is the kind of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in serious affairs.