Van Hoesen v. Williams
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, P. J.
Respondent appeals from a stalking protective order (SPO) issued pursuant to ORS 30.866, contending that the trial court erred in concluding that she committed the requisite “repeated and unwanted” contacts within two years preceding the filing of the petition. We agree with respondent that the evidence is not sufficient to support the issuance of the SPO, and, therefore, we reverse.
Respondent has not requested de novo review, and we do not view this as an “exceptional case” in which de novo review would be appropriate. ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (“The Court of Appeals will exercise its discretion to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Christensen v. CarterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
- Reitz v. ErazoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
- Travis v. StrubelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- Blastic v. HolmCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- King v. W. T. F.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
- J. C. R. v. McNultyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020