Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.220 (2026)

Voluntary admission; leave of absence

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      426.220 Voluntary admission; leave of absence. (1) Pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by the Oregon Health Authority, the superintendent of any state hospital for the treatment and care of persons with mental illness may admit and hospitalize therein as a patient, any person who may have a nervous disorder or a mental illness, and who voluntarily has made written application for such admission. No person under the age of 18 years shall be admitted as a patient to any such state hospital. Except when a period of longer hospitalization has been imposed as a condition of admission, pursuant to rules and regulations of the authority, no person voluntarily admitted to any state hospital shall be detained therein more than 72 hours after the person has given notice in writing of a desire to be discharged therefrom.

      (2) Any person voluntarily admitted to a state hospital pursuant to this section may upon application and notice to the superintendent of the hospital concerned, be granted a temporary leave of absence from the hospital if such leave, in the opinion of the superintendent, will not interfere with the successful treatment or examination of the applicant for leave. [Amended by 1953 c.127 §2; 1963 c.325 §3; 1967 c.371 §1; 1969 c.273 §1; 2007 c.70 §205; 2009 c.595 §399; 2025 c.175 §2]

 

      426.222 [1953 c.597 §1; 1961 c.385 §1; 1969 c.391 §3; 1969 c.638 §4; repealed by 1975 c.690 §28]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1977–1979 · leading case: Pyle v. Brooks, 570 P.2d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pyle v. Brooks, 570 P.2d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 20× “Brooks' actions in admitting and hospitalizing petitioner were void ab initio because the Mental Health Division neglected to promulgate rules and regulations.”
Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). “43A, § 184 (1971); Ore. Rev. Stat. §426.220 (1) (1977); Pa. Stat.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.220(1): 1 case
Pyle v. Brooks, 570 P.2d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “Brooks' actions in admitting and hospitalizing petitioner were void ab initio because the Mental Health Division neglected to promulgate rules and regulations.”
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.