Murphy v. Reynolds

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an injunction for pro tection against repeat violence should not have been entered because no competent substantial evidence linked the respondent to the cyberstalking incidents
• finding appeal of an expired injunction against repeat violence was not moot “because collateral legal consequences flowing from such an injunction outlast the injunction itself”
• “ ‘Harassment’ is a ‘course of conduct directed to a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress ... and serves no legitimate purpose.’ ‘Cyberstalking’ entails harassment by means of electronic communications.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).