Holbert and Noon

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Family Abuse Prevention Act
  • Date Filed: 09-08-2011
  • Case #: A142678
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Haselton, P.J. for the Court; & Carson, S.J.; Armstrong, J., dissenting
  • Full Text Opinion

For a restraining order, the imminence requirement of abuse is met when the threatened injury is part of the respondent’s pattern of threatening behavior and articulated to be near at hand, impending or menacingly near.

Noon appealed the trial court’s continuance of a restraining order granted according to ORS 107.718, the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). Noon argued that the evidence was insufficient to show “abuse”—that he “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly plac[ed] [Holbert] in fear of imminent bodily injury.” Absent the requisite request for de novo review, the Court of Appeals reviewed the matter to determine whether any evidence supported the trial court’s FAPA restraining order. Finding evidence that Noon repeatedly threatened to kill Holbert and made additional threatening comments that suggested he intended to do so imminently, the Court found there was evidence for the trial court to hold that the statutory definition of abuse had been met. Affirmed.

Advanced Search