Court of Appeals of Washington· 9/11/2000

State v. Noah

Citations

103 Wash. App. 29

How courts have described this case

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

stating that an antiharassment order that “proscribes what would otherwise be constitutionally protected conduct” will be upheld if the “restrictions . . . are valid time, place, and manner restrictions.”
stating that an antiharassment order that “proscribes what would otherwise be constitutionally protected conduct” will be upheld if the “restrictions . . . are valid time, place, and manner restrictions.”
declining to consider a challenge to an antiharassment order’s no contact zone distance because “the antiharassment order has long since expired.”
affirming a protection order based on Noah’s conduct, including calling the protected party and his landlord and entering the protected party’s office to talk with his clients without permission
rejecting claim that antiharassment order imposed unconstitutional prior restraint of speech
judicial enforcement of a voluntary settlement agreement prohibiting public criticism of certain type of psychological therapy was not state action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Appelwick

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.