State v. R. G.-R.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. R. G.-R.

395 P.3d 985, 286 Or. App. 299

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 14, 2017

Docket16CC04574; A162768

StatusPublished

This text of 395 P.3d 985 (State v. R. G.-R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. R. G.-R., 395 P.3d 985, 286 Or. App. 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a circuit court order committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130 (providing for involuntary commitment of “a person with mental illness”); ORS 426.005(f) (defining person with “mental illness”). Appellant asserts that the court erred by denying her motion to dismiss the case after she was detained on a physician’s hold for more than five judicial days without a hearing. See ORS 426.232 (a licensed practitioner may cause a person to be detained or hospitalized, but “under no circumstances may the person be held for longer than five judicial days”). The state concedes that the court erred. See State v. A. E. B., 196 Or App 634, 635, 106 P3d 647 (2004) (circuit court erred by denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss civil commitment case, where commitment hearing was not held within five judicial days of when the appellant was detained on a physician’s hold). We agree with the parties and, therefore, reverse.

■Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a circuit court order committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130 (providing for involuntary commitment of “a person with mental illness”); ORS 426.005(f) (defining person with “mental illness”). Appellant asserts that the court erred by denying her motion to dismiss the case after she was detained on a physician’s hold for more than five judicial days without a hearing. See ORS 426.232 (a licensed practitioner may cause a person to be detained or hospitalized, but “under no circumstances may the person be held for longer than five judicial days”). The state concedes that the court erred. See State v. A. E. B., 196 Or App 634, 635, 106 P3d 647 (2004) (circuit court erred by denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss civil commitment case, where commitment hearing was not held within five judicial days of when the appellant was detained on a physician’s hold). We agree with the parties and, therefore, reverse.

■Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 P.3d 985, 286 Or. App. 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-g-r-orctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack