Court of Appeals of Oregon· 9/27/2006

Habrat v. Milligan

Citations

145 P.3d 180
208 Or. App. 229
2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1480

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).

Judges: Edmonds, Brewer, Linder

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.