A. A. R. v. Rustad

Court of Appeals of Oregon

A. A. R. v. Rustad

511 P.3d 88, 319 Or. App. 844

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 25, 2022

DocketA176455

StatusPublished

This text of 511 P.3d 88 (A. A. R. v. Rustad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. A. R. v. Rustad, 511 P.3d 88, 319 Or. App. 844 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Argued and submitted April 27, reversed May 25, 2022

A. A. R., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Alan Jay RUSTAD, Respondent-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 21PO05124; A176455 511 P3d 88

Amit K. Kapoor, Judge. George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant. No appearance for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and DeVore, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 319 Or App 844 (2022) 845

PER CURIAM Respondent appeals the trial court’s continuation of a restraining order issued against him under the Family Abuse Prevention Act, ORS 107.700 to 107.735. While work- ing from her marital home, petitioner was leading a video meeting with several colleagues when respondent, who was her father-in-law, interrupted the meeting by loudly mak- ing humiliating remarks about her at the screen and refus- ing to leave despite repeated requests from petitioner and her coworkers. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that while respondent’s behavior was reprehensible, the evidence was insufficient to establish that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.” ORS 107.716(3)(a)(C). Given that disposition, we need not reach respondent’s argument concerning how the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence relating to free speech, particularly, State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 977 P2d 379 (1999) applies, if at all, to the Family Abuse Prevention Act. Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Argued and submitted April 27, reversed May 25, 2022

A. A. R., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Alan Jay RUSTAD, Respondent-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 21PO05124; A176455 511 P3d 88

Amit K. Kapoor, Judge. George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant. No appearance for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and DeVore, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 319 Or App 844 (2022) 845

PER CURIAM Respondent appeals the trial court’s continuation of a restraining order issued against him under the Family Abuse Prevention Act, ORS 107.700 to 107.735. While work- ing from her marital home, petitioner was leading a video meeting with several colleagues when respondent, who was her father-in-law, interrupted the meeting by loudly mak- ing humiliating remarks about her at the screen and refus- ing to leave despite repeated requests from petitioner and her coworkers. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that while respondent’s behavior was reprehensible, the evidence was insufficient to establish that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.” ORS 107.716(3)(a)(C). Given that disposition, we need not reach respondent’s argument concerning how the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence relating to free speech, particularly, State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 977 P2d 379 (1999) applies, if at all, to the Family Abuse Prevention Act. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

511 P.3d 88, 319 Or. App. 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-a-r-v-rustad-orctapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack