161.348
Judicial review.
(1) When a person over whom the Psychiatric Security Review Board exercises
jurisdiction under ORS 161.315 to 161.351 is adversely affected or aggrieved by
a final order of the board, the person is entitled to judicial review of the
final order. The person is entitled on judicial review to suitable counsel
possessing skills and experience commensurate with the nature and complexity of
the case. If the person is financially eligible, suitable counsel shall be
appointed by the reviewing court in the manner provided in ORS 138.500 (1). If
the person is financially eligible, the executive director of the Oregon Public
Defense Commission shall determine and pay, as provided in ORS 138.500, the
cost of briefs, any other expenses of the person necessary to the review and
compensation for counsel appointed for the person. The costs, expenses and
compensation so allowed shall be paid as provided in ORS 138.500.
(2) The order and
the proceedings underlying the order are subject to review by the Court of
Appeals upon petition to that court filed within 60 days of the order for which
review is sought. The board shall submit to the court the record of the
proceeding or, if the person agrees, a shortened record. The record may include
a certified true copy of a tape recording of the proceedings at a hearing in
accordance with ORS 161.346. A copy of the record transmitted shall be
delivered to the person by the board.
(3) The court may
affirm, reverse or remand the order on the same basis as provided in ORS
183.482 (8).
(4) The filing of
the petition does not stay the order of the board, but the board or the Court
of Appeals may order a stay upon application on such terms as are deemed
proper. [2011 c.708 §9; 2017 c.442 §8; 2023 c.281 §42; 2025 c.56 §12]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case:
Walters v. PSRB, 574 P.3d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Walters v. PSRB, 574 P.3d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” ORS 161.348(1). “We review agency 6 Dr. Mohandessi also reported that, when active, petitioner’s diagnoses do not make him a danger to others.”
Berman, No. 6:24-cv-01127 (D. Or. Nov. 3, 2025).
· cites it 2× “See ORS §§ 161.348 (allowing for judicial review of a final order of the PSRB in the Oregon Court of Appeals), 161.”
Burnard v. PSRB, 327 Or. App. 626 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Our analysis is therefore centered on whether substantial evi- dence and reasoning support the PSRB’s determination that petitioner could not be adequately controlled and treated in the community on conditional release and its denial of peti- tioner’s request for an evaluation…”
Walters v. PSRB, 341 Or. App. 41 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” ORS 161.348(1). “We review agency 6 Mohandessi also reported that, when active, petitioner’s diagnoses do not make him a danger to others.”
Rinne v. Matteucci, 521 P.3d 170 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Compare ORS 161.348 (judicial review) with ORS 34.”
Laing v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 300 P.3d 1247 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“385(9)(c) (2009), renumbered as ORS 161.348(3) (2011). For the reasons that follow, we agree with petitioner on that issue: PSRB unambiguously agreed to “accept the conditions set by [BOPPS] unless [petitioner’s] circumstances or behavior had substantially changed from the date…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.348(1): 2 cases
Walters v. PSRB, 574 P.3d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” ORS 161.348(1). “We review agency 6 Dr. Mohandessi also reported that, when active, petitioner’s diagnoses do not make him a danger to others.”
Walters v. PSRB, 341 Or. App. 41 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” ORS 161.348(1). “We review agency 6 Mohandessi also reported that, when active, petitioner’s diagnoses do not make him a danger to others.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.348(3): 2 cases
Burnard v. PSRB, 327 Or. App. 626 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Our analysis is therefore centered on whether substantial evi- dence and reasoning support the PSRB’s determination that petitioner could not be adequately controlled and treated in the community on conditional release and its denial of peti- tioner’s request for an evaluation…”
Laing v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 300 P.3d 1247 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“385(9)(c) (2009), renumbered as ORS 161.348(3) (2011). For the reasons that follow, we agree with petitioner on that issue: PSRB unambiguously agreed to “accept the conditions set by [BOPPS] unless [petitioner’s] circumstances or behavior had substantially changed from the date…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.