426.301
Release of committed person; certification of continued mental illness;
content; service of certificate; period of further commitment; effect of
failure to protest further commitment.
(1) At the end of the 180-day period of commitment, any person whose status has
not been changed to voluntary shall be released unless the Oregon Health
Authority certifies to the court in the county where the treating facility is
located that the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of
further treatment. The authority, pursuant to its rules, may delegate to the
director of the treating facility the responsibility for making the
certification. The director of the treating facility shall consult with the
community mental health program director of the county of residence prior to
making the certification. If the certification is made, the person will not be
released, but the director of the treating facility shall immediately issue a
copy of the certification to the person and to the community mental health
program director of the county of residence.
(2) The
certification must advise the person of all the following:
(a) That the
authority or facility has requested that commitment be continued for an
additional period of time.
(b) That the
person may consult with legal counsel and that legal counsel will be provided
for the person without cost if the person is unable to afford legal counsel.
(c) That the
person may protest this further period of commitment within 14 days, and if the
person does not protest the further commitment, commitment will be continued
for an indefinite period of time up to 180 days.
(d) That if the
person does protest a further period of commitment, the person is entitled to a
hearing before the court on whether commitment should be continued.
(e) That the
person may protest either orally or in writing by signing the form accompanying
the certification.
(f) That the
person is entitled to have a physician or other qualified professional as
recommended by the authority, other than a member of the staff at the facility
where the person is confined, examine the person and report to the court the
results of the examination.
(g) That the
person may subpoena witnesses and offer evidence on behalf of the person at the
hearing.
(h) That if the
person is without funds to retain legal counsel or an examining physician or
qualified professional as recommended by the authority, the court will appoint
legal counsel, a physician or other qualified professional.
(3) Nothing in
subsection (2) of this section requires the giving of the warning under ORS
426.123.
(4)(a) The
director of the facility where the person is confined or the director’s
designee shall personally serve the copy of the certification on the person.
(b) The director
of the facility shall file the certification with the court and inform the
court in writing that service has been made and the date thereof.
(5)(a) When
serving the certification upon the person, the authority shall read and deliver
the certification to the person and ask whether the person protests a further
period of commitment.
(b) The person
may protest further commitment either orally or by signing a simple protest
form to be given to the person with the certification.
(c) If the person
does not protest a further period of commitment within 14 days after receiving
service of the certification, the authority or facility shall so notify the
court.
(6) Upon
receiving the notification under subsection (5)(c) of this section that the
person does not protest the further period of commitment, the court shall,
without further hearing, order the commitment of the person for an additional
indefinite period of time up to 180 days. [1973 c.838 §15; 1975 c.690 §19; 1987
c.903 §32; 2001 c.962 §60; 2009 c.595 §418; 2013 c.360 §54; 2025 c.559 §13]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
43
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 70× “[1] Since then, she has been recommitted under ORS 426.301 to successive 180-day terms. On March 20, 1991, the trial court again ordered her committed for an additional 180-day period.”
State v. M. G. (In re M. G.), 440 P.3d 123 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “Nonetheless, the Oregon Health Authority sought to continue appellant's commitment, pursuant to ORS 426.301, due to concerns that appellant would discontinue his medications if released to an unsupervised setting.”
State v. Hitt, 41 P.3d 434 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Andrew Axer, director of Hugo Hills, certified the need for appellant’s further commitment pursuant to ORS 426.301, and appellant protested that certification and requested a hearing.”
State v. Linde, 41 P.3d 440 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “3 On October 11, 2000, appellant was served with a certificate for continuation of commitment pursuant to ORS 426.301. That certificate was signed by Dr.”
State v. I. H. (In re I. H.), 433 P.3d 508 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “See ORS 426.301 ; ORS 426.303. In his only assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him as required by ORS 426.”
State v. Hilliard, 98 P.3d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “]” The judgment in the present case was entered on April 8, 2003. Thus, the question is whether clear and convincing evidence supports a conclusion that appellant, “[w]ithin the previous three years, has twice been placed in a hospital or approved inpatient facility by…”
State v. C. E. W., 347 Or. App. 811 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 34× “303 by failing to inform the appellant of the procedural posture of the case and of his rights under ORS 426.301.” First, appellant argues that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure under ORS 426.”
State v. M. A. B., 157 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “ORS 426.301 - 426.307. He asserts that (1) the trial court improperly, on its own motion, admitted into evidence the precommitment investigation report pertaining to his original commitment and cross-examined him on the basis of that report and (2) the state failed to prove, by…”
State v. S. T. (In re S.T.), 432 P.3d 378 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“307(6) ; ORS 426.301. ORS 426.005(1)(f) describes three circumstances in which an individual may be deemed a "[p]erson with mental illness" for purposes of the commitment statutes.”
State v. T. Z., 401 P.3d 1265 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “In this civil commitment case, appellant challenges a trial court order that continued her commitment under ORS 426.301 and ORS 426.303 (providing for further commitment and a hearing if the continued commitment is contested) on the basis that she is still a person with a mental…”
Dietrich v. Brooks, 558 P.2d 357 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“Further, where limited confinement is initiated by judicial procedure, it is within the discretion of the legislature to prefer the process of returning appellant to the hospital upon sworn complaints and medical judgment, to a process which interjects yet another adversarial…”
State v. H. H. J. (In re H. H. J.), 436 P.3d 75 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 9× “303 provides that, when a person has protested a further period of commitment, "the Oregon Health Authority or facility designated in accordance with ORS 426.301 *77 shall immediately notify the court and the court shall have the person brought before it and shall again advise…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(1) — 14 cases
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“[1] Since then, she has been recommitted under ORS 426.301 to successive 180-day terms. On March 20, 1991, the trial court again ordered her committed for an additional 180-day period.”
State v. M. G. (In re M. G.), 440 P.3d 123 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Nonetheless, the Oregon Health Authority sought to continue appellant's commitment, pursuant to ORS 426.301, due to concerns that appellant would discontinue his medications if released to an unsupervised setting.”
State v. M. A. B., 157 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“ORS 426.301 - 426.307. He asserts that (1) the trial court improperly, on its own motion, admitted into evidence the precommitment investigation report pertaining to his original commitment and cross-examined him on the basis of that report and (2) the state failed to prove, by…”
State v. Hilliard, 98 P.3d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“]” The judgment in the present case was entered on April 8, 2003. Thus, the question is whether clear and convincing evidence supports a conclusion that appellant, “[w]ithin the previous three years, has twice been placed in a hospital or approved inpatient facility by…”
State v. T. Z., 401 P.3d 1265 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“In this civil commitment case, appellant challenges a trial court order that continued her commitment under ORS 426.301 and ORS 426.303 (providing for further commitment and a hearing if the continued commitment is contested) on the basis that she is still a person with a mental…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(1)(a)(C) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(2) — 5 cases
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“[1] Since then, she has been recommitted under ORS 426.301 to successive 180-day terms. On March 20, 1991, the trial court again ordered her committed for an additional 180-day period.”
State v. T. Z., 401 P.3d 1265 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“In this civil commitment case, appellant challenges a trial court order that continued her commitment under ORS 426.301 and ORS 426.303 (providing for further commitment and a hearing if the continued commitment is contested) on the basis that she is still a person with a mental…”
State v. C. E. W., 347 Or. App. 811 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“303 by failing to inform the appellant of the procedural posture of the case and of his rights under ORS 426.301.” First, appellant argues that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure under ORS 426.”
State v. H. H. J. (In re H. H. J.), 436 P.3d 75 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“303 provides that, when a person has protested a further period of commitment, "the Oregon Health Authority or facility designated in accordance with ORS 426.301 *77 shall immediately notify the court and the court shall have the person brought before it and shall again advise…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(2)(f) — 1 case
State v. C. E. W., 347 Or. App. 811 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“303 by failing to inform the appellant of the procedural posture of the case and of his rights under ORS 426.301.” First, appellant argues that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure under ORS 426.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(3) — 7 cases
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“[1] Since then, she has been recommitted under ORS 426.301 to successive 180-day terms. On March 20, 1991, the trial court again ordered her committed for an additional 180-day period.”
State v. I. H. (In re I. H.), 433 P.3d 508 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“See ORS 426.301 ; ORS 426.303. In his only assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him as required by ORS 426.”
State v. H. H. J. (In re H. H. J.), 436 P.3d 75 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“303 provides that, when a person has protested a further period of commitment, "the Oregon Health Authority or facility designated in accordance with ORS 426.301 *77 shall immediately notify the court and the court shall have the person brought before it and shall again advise…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(3)(c) — 3 cases
State v. T. Z., 401 P.3d 1265 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“In this civil commitment case, appellant challenges a trial court order that continued her commitment under ORS 426.301 and ORS 426.303 (providing for further commitment and a hearing if the continued commitment is contested) on the basis that she is still a person with a mental…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(3)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(3)(e) — 1 case
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“[1] Since then, she has been recommitted under ORS 426.301 to successive 180-day terms. On March 20, 1991, the trial court again ordered her committed for an additional 180-day period.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(3)(f) — 1 case
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“[1] Since then, she has been recommitted under ORS 426.301 to successive 180-day terms. On March 20, 1991, the trial court again ordered her committed for an additional 180-day period.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(3)(g) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(3)(h) — 3 cases
State v. C. E. W., 347 Or. App. 811 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“303 by failing to inform the appellant of the procedural posture of the case and of his rights under ORS 426.301.” First, appellant argues that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure under ORS 426.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(4) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(5) — 5 cases
State v. M. G. (In re M. G.), 440 P.3d 123 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Nonetheless, the Oregon Health Authority sought to continue appellant's commitment, pursuant to ORS 426.301, due to concerns that appellant would discontinue his medications if released to an unsupervised setting.”
State v. Linde, 41 P.3d 440 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“3 On October 11, 2000, appellant was served with a certificate for continuation of commitment pursuant to ORS 426.301. That certificate was signed by Dr.”
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“[1] Since then, she has been recommitted under ORS 426.301 to successive 180-day terms. On March 20, 1991, the trial court again ordered her committed for an additional 180-day period.”
State v. C. E. W., 347 Or. App. 811 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“303 by failing to inform the appellant of the procedural posture of the case and of his rights under ORS 426.301.” First, appellant argues that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure under ORS 426.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.301(f) — 1 case
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“[1] Since then, she has been recommitted under ORS 426.301 to successive 180-day terms. On March 20, 1991, the trial court again ordered her committed for an additional 180-day period.”
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.