Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.185 (2026)

When prescriptions required

✓ current as of May 2026

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

475.185 When prescriptions required. (1)(a) Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner to an ultimate user, a controlled substance in Schedule II may not be dispensed without a written or electronically transmitted prescription of a practitioner.

(b) In emergency situations, as defined by rule of the State Board of Pharmacy, Schedule II drugs may be dispensed with an oral prescription of a practitioner, reduced promptly to writing and filed by the pharmacy. Such prescriptions shall be retained in conformity with the requirements of ORS 475.165.

(2) Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner to an ultimate user, a controlled substance included in Schedule III or IV may not be dispensed without a written, oral or electronically transmitted prescription of a practitioner. The prescription may not be filled or refilled more than six months after the date on which it was issued and a prescription authorized to be refilled may not be refilled more than five times. Additional quantities of the controlled substances listed in Schedule III or IV may be authorized by a practitioner only through issuance of a new prescription.

(3) Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner to an ultimate user, a controlled substance included in Schedule V that is a prescription drug may not be dispensed without a written, oral or electronically transmitted prescription of a practitioner. The prescription may not be filled or refilled more than six months after the date on which it was issued and a prescription authorized to be refilled may not be refilled more than five times. Additional quantities of the controlled substances listed in Schedule V may be authorized by a practitioner only through issuance of a new prescription.

(4) A controlled substance may not be delivered or dispensed other than for a medical purpose.

(5) Except in good faith and in the course of professional practice only, a practitioner or a pharmacist may not dispense controlled substances.

(6) Any oral or electronically transmitted prescription authorized by statute or rule must be stored by electronic means or reduced promptly to writing and filed by the pharmacy.

(7) Issuance, preparation, labeling, dispensing, recordkeeping and filing of prescriptions or medication orders must be in conformance with the requirements of the federal law and rules of the board. [1977 c.745 §14; 1979 c.777 §54; 1981 c.666 §7; 2001 c.623 §4; 2011 c.524 §3; 2014 c.55 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1983–1992 · leading case: State v. Lowry, 667 P.2d 996 (Or. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Lowry, 667 P.2d 996 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “[12] See, ORS 475.185(7). [13] Jail inventory searches and the doctrine of inevitable discovery were not briefed or argued.”

State v. Stanford, 786 P.2d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously found that he had violated ORS 475.185 and, therefore, lacked authority to modify his probation and abused its discretion by extending it, because he had not otherwise violated any condition of probation.”

State v. Stanford, 828 P.2d 459 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Similarly, our earlier decision expressly did not resolve the issue of whether defendant had violated ORS 475.185. Therefore, defendant is entitled to a hearing and a determination on that issue.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.185(3) — 1 case

State v. Stanford, 786 P.2d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously found that he had violated ORS 475.185 and, therefore, lacked authority to modify his probation and abused its discretion by extending it, because he had not otherwise violated any condition of probation.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.185(7) — 1 case

State v. Lowry, 667 P.2d 996 (Or. 1983). “[12] See, ORS 475.185(7). [13] Jail inventory searches and the doctrine of inevitable discovery were not briefed or argued.”

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.