Rosberg v. Rosberg, 916 N.W.2d 62

Paul A. Rosberg filed a petition and affidavit under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.09 seeking a harassment protection order against his wife, Kelly, alleging long-term misconduct including lies to authorities, interference with visitation, exposing children to a registered sex offender, disparagement, and an allegation she once tried to "plant guns" on him.
The district court initially dismissed the petition on November 14, 2016, as having "insufficient allegations" and as better addressed in pending domestic litigation; dismissal was without prejudice.
Rosberg requested a hearing and filed additional motions and exhibits. A hearing occurred on January 31, 2017; Rosberg presented an exhibit and argument, Kelly waived appearance, and the court took the matter under advisement.
The court denied reconsideration on February 28, 2017, stating it had reviewed the January 31 filings and argument and elected to stand on its November 14 dismissal.
Rosberg appealed pro se, arguing the court denied him a hearing and erred in finding insufficient allegations to support a harassment protection order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did court deny Rosberg a hearing on the harassment protection petition?	Rosberg: court "closed the door" and prevented him from presenting evidence; he was entitled to a hearing.	Court (and implicitly Kelly): court did hold a hearing (Jan 31) where Rosberg submitted exhibits and argued; initial dismissal without hearing does not preclude later consideration.	Court: No denial — Rosberg had opportunity to present exhibit and argument at the Jan 31 hearing; dismissal without a prior hearing is permissible under § 28-311.09.
Were the petition allegations sufficient to warrant a harassment protection order?	Rosberg: allegations and exhibits were sufficient to require a protection order or at least an evidentiary hearing.	Court/Kelly: allegations (lies, custody disputes, disparagement, exposure concerns) did not objectively show conduct that would seriously terrorize, threaten, or intimidate a reasonable victim under harassment statute.	Court: Allegations insufficient as a matter of law to meet objective statutory harassment standard; dismissal affirmed.

Mahmood v. Mahmud, 279 Neb. 390 (2010) (protection-order proceedings treated like injunctions; evidentiary hearing principles)
Richards v. McClure, 290 Neb. 124 (2015) (objective standard: ask whether reasonable victim would be seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated)
Glantz v. Daniel, 21 Neb. App. 89 (Neb. App. 2013) (application of objective construction to stalking/harassment statutes)
In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 273 Neb. 239 (2007) (supporting objective victim-experience standard)
Murphy v. Murphy, 237 Neb. 406 (1991) (in absence of bill of exceptions, appellate review limited to pleadings and transcript)
Van Etten v. Test, 64 Neb. 407 (1902) (trial court may summarily dismiss actions that do not state facts entitling relief)
Sarah K. v. Jonathan K., 23 Neb. App. 471 (Neb. App. 2016) (distinguishing domestic-abuse protection order statute requirement to schedule hearing)
Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76 (2018) (assignment-of-error and briefing requirements for appellate review)