Restraining order
- service of order
- request for hearing
Source:
Section 107.718 — Restraining order; service of order; request for hearing, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors107.html
.
Notes of Decisions
This section is mandatory, not permissive, and court had non-discretionary duty to hold hearing on Petition for Restraining Order and to Prevent Abuse. State ex rel Marshall v. Hargreaves, 302 Or 1, 725 P2d 923 (1986)
“Molest” means to annoy, disturb or persecute, especially with injurious effect, and includes general harassment. State ex rel Emery v. Andisha, 105 Or App 473, 805 P2d 718 (1991)
“Menace” means to show intention to harm or to act in threatening manner. State ex rel Emery v. Andisha, 105 Or App 473, 805 P2d 718 (1991)
Party to hearing on relief granted by restraining order has right to call witnesses. Miller and Miller, 128 Or App 433, 875 P2d 1195 (1994)
Right to hearing contemplates both sworn testimony of parties and examination under oath of other witnesses on relevant matters. Nelson v. Nelson, 142 Or App 367, 921 P2d 412 (1996)
Return of service for restraining order is admissible under hearsay exception for official records. Frady v. Frady, 185 Or App 245, 58 P3d 849 (2002)
Existence of restraining order prohibiting petitioner from contacting respondent does not provide grounds for refusing to issue restraining order prohibiting respondent from contacting petitioner. Rosiles-Flores v. Browning, 208 Or App 600, 145 P3d 328 (2006)
Phrases “interfering with” and “interfere with” suggest behavior that constitutes direct interference with person protected by Family Abuse Prevention Act order. State v. Trivitt, 247 Or App 199, 268 P3d 765 (2011)
Where parties did not have opportunity to be heard on issues of law or fact related to relief available under subsection (1) of this section and court was not asked to make determination on those issues, hearing was not “held pursuant to” subsection (10) of this section and court lacked statutory authority to award attorney fees under ORS 107.716. Rhodes v. Gannon, 281 Or App 1, 381 P3d 869 (2016)
Where defendant boarded bus on which petitioner was riding and spoke to bus driver, who then spoke to petitioner while defendant waited outside bus and returned to defendant with message from petitioner, defendant’s conduct involved verbal contact with petitioner through third party sufficient to provide evidence of willful attempt to contact petitioner. State v. Harrison, 290 Or App 766, 417 P3d 513 (2018)
When determining if there is imminent danger of further abuse, court must consider if danger exists in near future, and must make determination based on totality of circumstances, because “imminent,” as used in this section, implies temporal limit. Buell v. Buell, 366 Or 553, 466 P3d 949 (2020)
Law Review Citations
33 WLR 971 (1997)