Legal Opinion

Hannemann v. Anderson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 11, 2012No. 09AB0515AB; A147165PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHadlock, J.

Respondent appeals the trial court’s continuation of a restraining order that petitioner obtained against him under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700 to 107.735. Respondent asserts that petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to support continuation of the order. For the reasons set out below, we reverse.

Although we have discretion to review this case de novo, ORS 19.415(3)(b), we decline to do so, as we do not view this as an exceptional case. See ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (“The Court of Appeals will exercise its discretion to try the cause anew on the record or to make one…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lefebvre v. LefebvreCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  2. Fielder v. FielderCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  3. State v. MacNabCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  4. Hubbell v. SandersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  5. Maffey v. MuchkaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Department of Human Services v. J. B. V.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  2. Valenti v. AckleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  3. M. A. B. v. BuellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  4. Poulalion v. LempeaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  5. Daley v. DaleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016

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

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

Powered by the Exa API