Action for issuance or violation of stalking protective order
- attorney fees
Source:
Section 30.866 — Action for issuance or violation of stalking protective order; attorney fees, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors030.html.
Notes of Decisions
Context of “personal safety” in statute and “danger” in ORS 163.730 definition of “alarm” clearly refers to concern over physical forms of harm and therefore terms are not vague. Delgado v. Souders, 146 Or App 580, 934 P2d 1132 (1997), aff’d 334 Or 122, 46 P3d 729 (2002)
Appellate review of protective order is de novo. Hanzo v. deParrie, 152 Or App 525, 953 P2d 1130 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
Where predicate contacts involve expression, order may issue only where expression or other associated conduct so unambiguously, unequivocally and specifically communicates determination to cause harm that objectively reasonable person in recipient’s situation would fear for personal safety or safety of household members. Hanzo v. deParrie, 152 Or App 525, 953 P2d 1130 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
“Contact” includes acts that, when learned of, give rise to unwanted relationship or association between petitioner and respondent. Boyd v. Essin, 170 Or App 509, 12 P3d 1003 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
“Intentionally,” “knowingly” and “recklessly” have meaning given those terms in Oregon Criminal Code. Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or 122, 46 P3d 729 (2002)
Procedure for issuance of stalking protective order is type historically exempted from right to jury trial and other constitutional safeguards for criminal prosecutions. Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or 122, 46 P3d 729 (2002)
Unless admitted by adverse party, factual allegations in petition do not constitute evidence in hearing for issuance of stalking protective order. Jones v. Lindsey, 193 Or App 674, 91 P3d 781 (2004)
Petitioner presented sufficient evidence to establish that petitioner’s subjective apprehension of physical safety was also objectively reasonable, when evidence showed that respondent was aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk that petitioner would not want respondent to make physical contact with petitioner and respondent chose to consciously and unreasonably disregard that risk. Retherford v. Wafula, 305 Or App 344, 471 P3d 786 (2020)
Law Review Citations
90 OLR 303 (2011)
Up to date