Legal Opinion

Plum v. Librande

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 30, 2015No. 14C10015; A157880PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Respondent appeals a final stalking protective order (SPO) and judgment, contending that the evidence was insufficient under ORS 30.866 for the SPO to issue. Specifically, he contends there was insufficient evidence that he had “engaged in two or more unwanted contacts [with petitioner], each of which [was] alarming or coercive” and that petitioner “was in fear of imminent danger.” Respondent, as appellant here, bears responsibility for providing an appellate record sufficient for us to determine whether the trial court erred as he claims. King City Realty v. Sunpace, 291 Or 573, 582, 633 P2d…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. King City Realty, Inc. v. Sunpace Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Russell v. Nikon, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  3. Russell v. Nikon, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  4. Barnett v. City of SalemCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. VandruffCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API