Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jodene Michele MAJKA, Appellant, v. John Philip MAHER, Respondent.
Petitioner seeks reversal of the trial court's order vacating a restraining order obtained under the Family Abuse Prevention Act. ORS 107.700 to 107.732. ORS 107.710 provides that any person may seek relief in the form of a restraining order by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person was a victim of abuse committed by the respondent within 180 days of filing the petition and that the person is in imminent danger of abuse from the respondent. On de novo review, Strother and Strother, 130 Or.App. 624, 629, 883 P.2d 249 (1994), rev. den., 320 Or. 508, 888 P.2d 569 (1995), we conclude that petitioner is entitled to the relief provided under ORS 107.710 and reverse.
We find the following uncontroverted facts. Petitioner and respondent are former spouses. They were at the Multnomah County Courthouse for a child support hearing in May 2002. Despite past problems with confrontations after court hearings, the parties and petitioner's husband left the courtroom together at the conclusion of the hearing. Respondent then threatened petitioner and her husband, saying that he had found somebody to “take care” of them-implying that he had found somebody to kill them. A dispute broke out, and respondent pushed petitioner, causing her to fall to the ground. Petitioner received medical care and alleges that the injuries required neck surgery. Respondent was immediately arrested for assault. The next day, petitioner filed a petition under ORS 107.710 and obtained a restraining order. In addition to describing the above incident, the petition alleged that petitioner was in imminent danger of further abuse because of respondent's continued threats of harm. Respondent contested the order at a hearing under ORS 107.716 held in June 2002, and the trial court vacated the order.
Our review of the evidence at the hearing persuades us that petitioner has satisfied the requirements of the statute for the continuation of the order. A further discussion of the evidence would not benefit the bench or the bar.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate restraining order.
EDMONDS, P.J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 0205-64982; A118795.
Decided: February 18, 2004
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)