Hubbell v. Sanders

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Law
  • Date Filed: 09-08-2011
  • Case #: A144732
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Brewer, C.J. for the Court; & Carson, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

To establish a restraining order under the Family Abuse and Prevention Act (FAA), a person must have sufficient evidence, subjectively or objectively, but evidence of future abuse and credible threat to physical safety must be present.

Sanders appealed a restraining order granted against him under the Family Abuse and Prevention Act (FAPA) for lack of sufficient evidence. The Court refused to review de novo Sanders’ case because respondent gave no compelling reason why this was necessary. Rather, the Court examined the record for evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s decision and to determine if Hubbell was in imminent danger. Hubbell reported being chased in her car by Sanders; others reported Sanders around her house, among others. Under FAPA, a “fear of imminent bodily injury” does not have to be physical contact or overt threats; fear may be subjective, but evidence of imminent further abuse and credible threat to physical safety must be present. In this case, the Court held that sufficient evidence existed to warrant a restraining order under FAPA. Affirmed.

Advanced Search