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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.232 (2026)

Emergency admission; notice; limit of hold

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      426.232 Emergency admission; notice; limit of hold. (1) If a licensed independent practitioner believes a person who is brought to a hospital or nonhospital facility by a peace officer under ORS 426.228 or by an individual authorized under ORS 426.233, or believes a person who is at a hospital or nonhospital facility, is a danger to self or others and is in need of emergency care or treatment for mental illness, and the licensed independent practitioner is not related to the person by blood or marriage, the licensed independent practitioner may do one of the following:

      (a) Detain the person and cause the person to be admitted or, if the person is already admitted, cause the person to be retained in a hospital where the licensed independent practitioner has admitting privileges or is on staff.

      (b) Approve the person for emergency care or treatment at a nonhospital facility approved by the authority.

      (2) When approving a person for emergency care or treatment at a nonhospital facility under this section, the licensed independent practitioner shall notify immediately the community mental health program director in the county where the person was taken into custody and maintain the person, if the person is being held at a hospital, for as long as is feasible given the needs of the person for mental or physical health or safety. However, under no circumstances may the person be held for longer than five judicial days. [1993 c.484 §4; 1995 c.201 §3; 1997 c.531 §4; 2009 c.595 §404; 2013 c.360 §40; 2015 c.461 §13; 2025 c.559 §29]

 

      Note: See note under 426.228.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Mesch v. Unity Ctr. for Behavioral Health.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mesch v. Unity Ctr. for Behavioral Health (Or. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 63× “335(5) and con- clude that a decision—whether to detain or not to detain a person—based on the detention criteria in ORS 426.232 is an action that ORS 426.335(5) covers, and that the phrase “good faith, on probable cause” is a standard of honest, sub- jective belief, based on…”
State v. L.O.W. (In re L.O.W.), 424 P.3d 789 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 19× “On July 20, 2016, appellant was brought to Salem Hospital and was held there against her will under ORS 426.232, which allows "physician hold" at a hospital.”
State v. M. D. D., 523 P.3d 1152 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “120 relevant to this appeal provides: “(1) The time within which an act is to be done, as provided in the civil and criminal procedure statutes, is computed by excluding the first day and including the last day, unless the last day falls upon any legal holiday or on Saturday, in…”
State v. J. J. S. (In re J. J. S.), 444 P.3d 1141 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “Appellant's mental health providers placed her under a hospital hold on July 31, 2018, pursuant to ORS 426.232. 1 Four judicial days later, on August 6, 2018, the trial court issued an order setting the civil commitment hearing for the next day, August 7, the fifth judicial day…”
State v. Bradsteen, 106 P.3d 647 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “See ORS 426.232. At the end of that period, he was placed on a second hold for five days.”
State v. T. L., 346 Or. App. 414 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “See ORS 426.232 (allowing emergency holds of persons believed to be mentally ill when certain criteria are met).”
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “An individual so detained has the right to counsel. ORS 426.100(2)(c); ORS 426.”
State v. C. P., 486 P.3d 845 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “We held that the second hold violated ORS 426.232(2) and ORS 426.095(2), and that violation required dismissal of the case.”
Jensen v. Lane Cnty., 222 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 2000). “ORS 426.232, 426.234 . . . if the physician, hospital or judge acts in good faith, on probable cause and without malice.”
State v. D. A., 495 P.3d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “Rather, appellant argues that he could not be held under ORS 426.232 for more than five judicial days following the initial hold, notwithstanding any subsequent hold issued under the same statute for dif- ferent conduct.”
State v. J. O. B. (In re J. O. B.), 436 P.3d 91 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “095(2)(a) in reversing a commitment order because the hearing was held more than *92 five days after the appellant was taken involuntarily into custody for mental health treatment). The court denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that the court's unavailability was good…”
Maltais v. PeaceHealth, 532 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Rijken, 300 Or 706 , 717 P2d 140 (1986), and ORS 426.232, plaintiffs also argue that defendants have a statutory duty to protect the public from persons with mental illness who are dangerous to others.”
Show all 61 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.232(1) — 6 cases
Mesch v. Unity Ctr. for Behavioral Health (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “335(5) and con- clude that a decision—whether to detain or not to detain a person—based on the detention criteria in ORS 426.232 is an action that ORS 426.335(5) covers, and that the phrase “good faith, on probable cause” is a standard of honest, sub- jective belief, based on…”
State v. M. D. D., 523 P.3d 1152 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “120 relevant to this appeal provides: “(1) The time within which an act is to be done, as provided in the civil and criminal procedure statutes, is computed by excluding the first day and including the last day, unless the last day falls upon any legal holiday or on Saturday, in…”
State v. T. L., 346 Or. App. 414 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “See ORS 426.232 (allowing emergency holds of persons believed to be mentally ill when certain criteria are met).”
State v. De Aubre, 937 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. D. A., 495 P.3d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Rather, appellant argues that he could not be held under ORS 426.232 for more than five judicial days following the initial hold, notwithstanding any subsequent hold issued under the same statute for dif- ferent conduct.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.232(1)(a) — 3 cases
Mesch v. Unity Ctr. for Behavioral Health (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “335(5) and con- clude that a decision—whether to detain or not to detain a person—based on the detention criteria in ORS 426.232 is an action that ORS 426.335(5) covers, and that the phrase “good faith, on probable cause” is a standard of honest, sub- jective belief, based on…”
State v. N. R., 333 Or. App. 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. L. W., 333 Or. App. 633 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.232(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. D. A., 495 P.3d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Rather, appellant argues that he could not be held under ORS 426.232 for more than five judicial days following the initial hold, notwithstanding any subsequent hold issued under the same statute for dif- ferent conduct.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.232(2) — 38 cases
State v. L.O.W. (In re L.O.W.), 424 P.3d 789 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “On July 20, 2016, appellant was brought to Salem Hospital and was held there against her will under ORS 426.232, which allows "physician hold" at a hospital.”
State v. M. D. D., 523 P.3d 1152 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “120 relevant to this appeal provides: “(1) The time within which an act is to be done, as provided in the civil and criminal procedure statutes, is computed by excluding the first day and including the last day, unless the last day falls upon any legal holiday or on Saturday, in…”
State v. J. J. S. (In re J. J. S.), 444 P.3d 1141 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “Appellant's mental health providers placed her under a hospital hold on July 31, 2018, pursuant to ORS 426.232. 1 Four judicial days later, on August 6, 2018, the trial court issued an order setting the civil commitment hearing for the next day, August 7, the fifth judicial day…”
State v. C. P., 486 P.3d 845 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “We held that the second hold violated ORS 426.232(2) and ORS 426.095(2), and that violation required dismissal of the case.”
State v. Bradsteen, 106 P.3d 647 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “See ORS 426.232. At the end of that period, he was placed on a second hold for five days.”
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.