Persons With Mental Illness

ORS 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 (Release of committed person) 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 (Release of committed person). [1973 c.838 §16; 1975 c.690 §20; 2009 c.595 §419]
§§ 426.301 to 426.307

Notes of Decisions

Where certificate of need for further treatment is filed prior to expiration of 180 days, passage of 180th day does not deprive court of jurisdiction. State v. G., 26 Or App 197, 552 P2d 574 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Further commitment certification process did not deprive patient of federal due process rights or rights under state constitution. State v. Johansen, 125 Or App 365, 866 P2d 470 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

§§ 426.005 to 426.395

Notes of Decisions

The doctor-patient privilege applies under these sections. State v. O'Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

Prior to commitment there must be evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is mentally ill as defined. State v. O'Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

The Oregon commitment statutes are not unconstitutional on the grounds of vagueness or as an invasion of privacy as protected by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. State v. O'Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

Oregon Constitution did not require jury in mental commitment hearings. State v. Mills, 36 Or App 727, 585 P2d 1143 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Alleged mentally ill person does not have right to remain silent in civil commitment proceeding. State v. Matthews, 46 Or App 757, 613 P2d 88 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

9 WLJ 63-85 (1973)

Chapter 426

Notes of Decisions

The entire statutory scheme of involuntary commitment provides adequate procedural safeguards which satisfies the requirements of due process and equal protection. Dietrich v. Brooks, 27 Or App 821, 558 P2d 357 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

County of residence paying mental commitment costs, (1979) Vol 40, p 147; civil commitment to Mental Health Division of person against whom criminal charges are pending, (1980) Vol 41, p 91

Law Review Citations

16 WLR 448 (1979)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021