Legal Opinion

K. H. v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 9, 2001No. 99DO0770ST; A108441PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*264KISTLER, J.

Respondent appeals from a permanent stalking protective order restraining him from contacting petitioner.1 Although respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of a stalking protective order, the scope of the order that the court entered is too broad. On de novo review, we modify the order and affirm it as modified.

In 1999, petitioner was a senior in high school. Her parents worked, and she would typically be alone at home until she left for school. On March 1, 1999, the telephone began to ring immediately after petitioner’s mother left for work. The first time petitioner answered,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. RangelOregon Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State v. MoyleOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Martin v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Shook v. AckertCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. K. H. v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  2. Lomax v. CarrCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  3. O'Neil v. GoldsmithCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API