Legal Opinion

Holbert v. Noon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 8, 2011No. 091449; A142678PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*330HASELTON, P. J.

Respondent in proceedings under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) appeals, challenging the trial court’s continuance of a FAPA restraining order pursuant to ORS 107.718. On appeal, as before the trial court, respondent invokes State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Dompeling, 171 Or App 692, 17 P3d 535 (2000), and contends that the evidence is insufficient under the standard of imminence that we endorsed in Dompeling to establish that respondent had “abuse[d]” petitioner within 180 days of the filing of her petition for a restraining order, ORS 107.718(1), by “[intentionally,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Stull v. HokeOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. B. B.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  4. State v. GarciasOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Lefebvre v. LefebvreCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. C. S.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  2. Poulalion v. LempeaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  3. Holbert v. NoonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  4. Michael Evans v. Multnomah CountyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API