Knopik v. Hahn
25 Neb. Ct. App. 157
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 14, 2016, an on‑the‑street confrontation occurred between neighbor Douglas D. Hahn and Abbie Knopik (and her fiancé Lance Greenwood) after Knopik’s unleashed dog approached Hahn’s leashed dog; the encounter lasted 10–20 minutes.
- Knopik testified Hahn yelled, leaned toward her, called her profane names, followed her, and made her fear for her and her child’s safety.
- Greenwood testified he intervened, Hahn charged, grabbed Greenwood’s sweatshirt, and punched him in the chest several times (photographs of injuries were not admitted).
- Knopik and Greenwood obtained ex parte harassment protection orders under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑311.09; the court later held a combined hearing where only petitioners testified.
- The district court found a statutory “course of conduct” and continued the ex parte orders for one year; Hahn appealed, arguing statutory requirements for harassment were not met.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the single short incident did not constitute the required knowing and willful “course of conduct” (stalking‑type behavior) under § 28‑311.02(2)(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conduct satisfied the statutory definition of a "course of conduct" for harassment protection orders | Knopik/Greenwood: the incident comprised a series of acts over a short period (10–20 minutes) evidencing a continuity of purpose, so it qualifies as a course of conduct | Hahn: the event was an isolated, one‑time incident; statutes target stalking/recurring conduct, not a single confrontation | Court held: Not a statutory "course of conduct"; one short incident insufficient for harassment protection order |
Key Cases Cited
- Richards v. McClure, 290 Neb. 124, 858 N.W.2d 841 (2015) (protection orders reviewed de novo and analogous to injunctions)
- Lopez Wilson, 262 Neb. 653, 634 N.W.2d 467 (2001) (harassment order appropriate after multiple harassment occasions)
- Glantz v. Daniel, 21 Neb. App. 89, 837 N.W.2d 563 (2013) (affirmed dismissal where insufficient evidence of intimidating course of conduct)
- Linda N. v. William N., 289 Neb. 607, 856 N.W.2d 436 (2014) (stalking defined by extensive, ongoing, escalating conduct showing intent to intimidate)
- Mahmood v. Mahmud, 279 Neb. 390, 778 N.W.2d 426 (2010) (reversed harassment order where statutory definition not satisfied)