Legal Opinion

O'Neil v. Goldsmith

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 3, 2001No. 99-5122; A111581Published

1Per curiam

The trial court issued a permanent stalking protective order (SPO), which prohibits defendant from engaging in any intentional, knowing, or reckless contact with petitioner. Defendant appeals, arguing that his conduct did not warrant issuing a SPO and alternatively that the SPO is too broad. We affirm without discussion the ruling that defendant’s conduct warranted issuing a SPO. We write only to address the scope of the order.

The SPO prohibits defendant from intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engaging in 11 defined types of contact with petitioner. Only one of those 11 defined contacts—…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. K. H. v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API