Knopik v. Hahn
25 Neb. 157
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Oct 14, 2016, an on-street confrontation occurred between Douglas D. Hahn and neighbors Abbie Knopik and Lance Greenwood after Knopik’s new dog, off-leash, approached Hahn’s leashed dog; the encounter lasted about 10–20 minutes.
- Knopik testified Hahn yelled at her, followed her onto the property, used profanity, and threatened legal action; Greenwood intervened and testified Hahn grabbed his sweatshirt and punched him in the chest multiple times leaving bruises.
- Knopik (also on behalf of her child) and Greenwood filed petitions for harassment protection orders under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.09; ex parte orders were entered and later continued after a hearing.
- At the combined hearing Hahn offered no testimony or evidence; only Knopik and Greenwood testified; no exhibits were admitted.
- The district court found a prima facie case and held Hahn’s conduct constituted a “course of conduct” and continued the ex parte harassment protection orders for 1 year.
- On appeal the Nebraska Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the facts established the statutory definition of a harassing “course of conduct” and reversed, directing vacation of the protection orders for insufficient evidence of harassment/stalking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence showed a statutory “course of conduct” (harassment) under § 28-311.02(2)(b) | Knopik/Greenwood: the incident comprised a series of acts over a short period showing continuity of purpose and thus qualifies as a course of conduct | Hahn: this was a single, isolated incident of short duration and not the type of repeated/stalking conduct the statute requires | Court: Reversed — the single 10–20 minute incident did not meet the statutory “course of conduct” standard; orders vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Richards v. McClure, 290 Neb. 124 (discussing de novo review of protection orders)
- Glantz v. Daniel, 21 Neb. App. 89 (affirming dismissal where evidence failed to show intimidating course of conduct)
- State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline v. Lopez Wilson, 262 Neb. 653 (harassment protection appropriate after multiple occasions of harassment)
- Yancer v. Kaufman, 22 Neb. App. 320 (protection order granted for continual harassing conduct)
- Mahmood v. Mahmud, 279 Neb. 390 (reversal where evidence insufficient for statutory harassment)
- Linda N. v. William N., 289 Neb. 607 (stalking defined by extensive, ongoing, escalating conduct)