Courtemanche v. Milligan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a civil harassment order was inappropriate, but noting “[w]e do not, of course, condone [the defendant’s] conduct,” which was “persistent to the point of being obsessive—and, in some instances, can be most charitably characterized as strange, boorish, and offensive”
• Reversing SPO but stating, “We do not, of course, condone respondent’s conduct,” which was “persistent to the point of being obsessive—and, in some instances, can be most charitably characterized as strange, boorish, and offensive.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).