Habrat v. Milligan

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding petitioner’s alarm was objectively rea- sonable, where, among other facts, petitioner was informed by respondent’s girl- friend that she feared personal harm from him
• considering the effect of unwanted contacts in the context of the respondent’s persistent overtures and “directive and demanding style of interaction”
• considering the effect of unwanted contacts in the context of the respondent’s persistent overtures and “directive and demanding style of interaction”
• affirming entry of an SPO, in part, because the respondent — who had made “persistent and inappropriate sexual overtures” towards petitioner— repeatedly parked in front of the petitioner’s workplace “for protracted periods of time” and directed “menacing glares” at her
• contacts that do not otherwise qualify for the purposes of an SPO “nevertheless, are relevant context for respondent’s nonexpressive contacts with petitioner”
• although speech that is not a threat cannot be a “contact,” it can provide context for nonexpressive contacts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).