New Case Law – Definition of Abuse under Family Abuse Prevention Act

On August 10, 2011, the Oregon Court of Appeals decided Sacomano v. Burns.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision to continue a restraining order after a hearing. The court found that, although the respondent had sent the petitioner harassing text messages, and had threatened to expose damaging information about her to the public, he had not placed her in fear of imminent bodily injury, which is the standard under the Family Abuse Prevention Act.

 The entire opinion can be found here:

About Daniel Margolin

Daniel Margolin is a founding partner of Stephens & Margolin LLP and a Portland, Oregon native. His practice focuses on all aspects of family law litigation. Dan applies his litigation expertise to provide additional expertise when assisting clients with Family Law Appeals and Collaborative Divorce matters. To find out more or contact Daniel Margolin, visit Stephens & Margolin LLP
This entry was posted in Domestic Violence, Legal Developments, News. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to New Case Law – Definition of Abuse under Family Abuse Prevention Act

  1. There almost needs to be separate types of restraining orders – one type to protect from physical abuse and another type to protect from harassment like the kind suffered by petitioner in this case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *