Dunham v. Roer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding harassment statute requires “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser” (emphasis added)
• noting that the statute “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct”
• detailing statutorily required considerations that district courts must use when deciding whether to grant a HRO petition
• requiring such proof and noting that there must be “reasonable, rather than merely subjective, grounds to believe” harassment has occurred
• stating the government may “regulate conduct that is invasive of the privacy of another”
• affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant in malicious-prosecution case where plaintiff speculated charges were brought with malicious intent but did “not support that speculation with admissible evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).