Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.303

Effect of protest of further commitment; advice of court

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      426.303 Effect of protest of further commitment; advice of court. When the person protests a further period of commitment the Oregon Health Authority or facility designated in accordance with ORS 426.301 shall immediately notify the court and the court shall have the person brought before it and shall again advise the person that the authority or facility has requested that commitment be continued for an additional period of time and that if the person does not protest this commitment the commitment will be continued for an indefinite period of time up to 180 days. The person shall also be informed of the rights set forth in ORS 426.301. [1973 c.838 §16; 1975 c.690 §20; 2009 c.595 §419]

 

      426.305 [1955 c.522 §4; 1963 c.325 §5; repealed by 1965 c.628 §3]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: State v. C. E. W.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. C. E. W. (2026) orctapp · cites it 33× “Appellant raises a single assignment of error and asserts that the trial court plainly erred “by holding a recommitment hearing and recommitting [him] after not following ORS 426.303 by failing to inform the appellant of the procedural posture of the case and of his rights under…”
State v. I. H. (In re I. H.) (2019) orctapp · cites it 3× “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. Hitt (2002) orctapp “ORS 426.303. In his report submitted in support of continued commitment, Axer noted that appellant’s initial commitment occurred after he had “violated a restraining order and resisted arrest.”
State v. M. G. (In re M. G.) (2019) orctapp “ORS 426.303. After the hearing, the court must "determine whether the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment.”
State v. Linde (2002) orctapp “301(5); ORS 426.303. At the time of the further commitment hearing, appellant was 22 years old, had a history of substance abuse, and was diagnosed as having chronic paranoid schizophrenia.”
State v. Johansen (1993) orctapp · cites it 2× “" ORS 426.303. Upon the patient's request, the court must conduct a hearing de novo to determine whether the patient is still mentally ill and in need of further treatment.”
State v. T. W. (2019) orctapp “He assigns error to the trial court’s failure to advise him that the court would appoint a physician to examine him at court expense, as the court was required to do under ORS 426.303 and ORS 426.301(3)(h). He acknowledges that the assigned error is not preserved but contends…”
State v. T. Z. (2017) orctapp · cites it 2× “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 illness under the expanded criteria defining mental illness, ORS 426.”
State v. Z. W. Y. (2020) orctapp “301; ORS 426.303; ORS 426.307. In his sole assignment of error, appel- lant contends that the record does not contain legally suffi- cient evidence that he continues to be a person with men- tal illness and is in need of further treatment.”
State v. Montgomery (1997) orctapp “The state concedes that appellant was not advised of all of his rights pursuant to ORS 426.303 and that the failure to give the advice requires reversal.”
State v. H. H. J. (In re H. H. J.) (2019) orctapp · cites it 3× “3 Next, *202 ORS 426.303 provides that, when a person has protested a further period of commitment, "the Oregon Health Authority or facility designated in accordance with ORS 426.”
State v. J. J. S. (2025) orctapp “In his second through sixth assign- ments of error, appellant argues that reversal of the May 2024 recommitment judgment is required for several rea- sons. Specifically, he contends in his third assignment that the trial court erred by failing to advise him of the rights set out…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.