Goodness v. Beckham

How courts have described this case

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

• victim of initiating false report, ORS 162.375(1), is the public, not the person about whom the false report was initiated
• respondent’s e-mail threatened legal action, not imminent violence, and, therefore, was insufficient to support an SPO under Rangel
• the respondent’s repeated emails to the petitioner, including profanities and threats that “I’m going to get you back” and “you’re going to pay” were insufficient to meet the Rangel standard because they did not unequivocally threaten violence
• the respondent’s repeated emails to the petitioner, including profanities and threats that “I’m going to get you back” and “you’re going to pay” were insufficient to meet the Rangel standard because they did not unequivocally threaten violence
• emails from respondent to petitioner did not contain an “imminent threat” where respondent lived in California, did not know petitioner’s address, and there was no evidence that respondent intended to follow up the email statements with imminent unlawful acts (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).