L. M. B. v. Cohn

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Stalking Protective Order
  • Date Filed: 08-07-2019
  • Case #: A169440
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Shorr, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

To obtain an SPO against a person, a petitioner must demonstrate the factors under ORS 30.866(1) by a preponderance of the evidence; unless a respondent admits to a petitioner’s allegations, the factual allegations made in an SPO petition are not evidence. Falkenstein v. Falkenstein, 236 Or App 445, 449, 236 P3d 798 (2010).

Respondent appealed from a final stalking protective order (SPO) and judgment under ORS 30.866. Respondent assigned error to the trial court’s decision to enter the final SPO because Petitioner did not testify or offer any evidence against Respondent to support the entry of the SPO. On appeal, Respondent argued that there was insufficient evidence to support an SPO because Petitioner did not testify or offer any evidence in support of the SPO. To obtain an SPO against a person, a petitioner must demonstrate the factors under ORS 30.866(1) by a preponderance of the evidence; unless a respondent admits to a petitioner’s allegations, the factual allegations made in an SPO petition are not evidence. Falkenstein v. Falkenstein, 236 Or App 445, 449, 236 P3d 798 (2010). The Court held that the evidence in support of the SPO was legally insufficient, in light of the absence of any evidence in the record, that respondent’s contacts caused petitioner apprehension for her or anyone else’s personal safety.

Reversed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top