Travis v. Strubel
242 P.3d 690
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Petitioner Travis sought a stalking protective order (SPO) against Respondent Strubel under ORS 163.732(1).
- Trial court briefly heard the SPO petition, with no counsel for either party, and found the statutory criteria met.
- Petitioner alleged multiple unwanted contacts, including looking in windows, workplace appearances, lawn mowing, and driveway talks.
- Evidence showed uncertainty about whether there were two or more unwanted contacts and whether they were known to be unwanted.
- Petitioner had warnings to avoid contact; one contact occurred after those warnings, but the record did not clearly establish coercion or alarm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Two or more unwanted contacts predicate SPO | Travis contends there were repeated unwanted contacts. | Strubel contends contacts were not proven or coercive. | SPO invalid; not proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or. 122 (2002) (requires two or more unwanted contacts with awareness of risk and disregard of it)
- State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (1993) (standard for reviewing factual findings on appeal)
- Jennings v. Gifford, 211 Or.App. 192 (2007) (speech-based contacts require heightened proof under Article I, section 8)
- Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485 (1968) (presumes disputed issue findings absent express trial court findings)