365 P.3d 1169
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Petitioner sought a restraining order against respondent, his former landlord, under the Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act (EPPDAPA).
- Petitioner had disabilities and alleged abuse within 180 days, with immediate danger of further abuse.
- An ex parte hearing granted the restraining order after findings of abuse and danger; respondent was restrained from abuse and contact, within 300 feet of petitioner’s residence.
- A subsequent hearing, contested by petitioner pro se, occurred in October 2013; petitioner testified about disabilities and alleged abuse and claimed a witness would corroborate him.
- Petitioner stated he had an audio/video record supporting his claims, but he could not present it due to computer problems and the files no longer existed.
- Petitioner sought to call a witness; the court denied a continuance, citing limited time and needing to finish other cases, and ultimately dismissed the restraining order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of a continuance to present a sole witness was an abuse of discretion | Petitioner needed the witness to meet his burden of proof under EPPDAPA. | Court had limited time and must proceed to finish other cases; continuance unnecessary. | Yes; denial was an abuse of discretion; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Casciato v. Oregon Liquor Control Com., 181 Or 707 (1947) (discretionary decisions must align with reason and evidence)
- State v. Hickey, 79 Or App 200 (1986) (denial of continuance evaluated by case-specific circumstances)
- Howell-Hooyman and Hooyman, 113 Or App 548 (1992) (trial court may control evidence and cross-examination; complete presentation required)
- Hemingway and Mauer, 247 Or App 603 (2012) (fundamentally fair hearing requires opportunity to present evidence)
- Dickson and Dickson, 262 Or App 451 (2014) (appellate review of continuance decisions)