Verification.

- O.C.G.A. § 16-5-94(c) requires only that a stalking petition be verified before a temporary protective order may be issued, not that the petition itself be signed; where a verification signed by plaintiff accompanied a stalking petition, verifying that the contents of the petition were true and correct, defendant's argument that the petition was somehow defective was without merit. McKlin v. Ivory, 266 Ga. App. 298, 596 S.E.2d 673 (2004).

Stalking.

- Publishing or discussing the former love interest's medical condition with others was not stalking since it did not threaten the love interest or the love interest's family's safety; therefore, the prohibition in the protective order exceeded the statutory scope of authority. Collins v. Bazan, 256 Ga. App. 164, 568 S.E.2d 72 (2002).

Even though the appellee admitted to committing certain acts which satisfied some of the elements under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-90, based on a denial of the intent required under the statute, no abuse resulted in denying the appellant injunctive relief and setting the case for a bench trial. Anderson v. Mergenhagen, 283 Ga. App. 546, 642 S.E.2d 105 (2007).

Protective order banning defendant from home overbroad.

- In granting a neighbor a three-year protective order against the defendant under O.C.G.A. §§ 16-5-90 and16-5-94, the trial court exceeded the court's authority in banning the defendant from the defendant's residence for three years because this would prevent the defendant from going to the defendant's home even when the neighbor was not at the neighbor's home; the stalking statute protected people, not places. Bruno v. Light, 344 Ga. App. 799, 811 S.E.2d 500 (2018).

Protective order upheld.

- Issuance of the protective order underlying the appellant prisoner's conviction for aggravated stalking under the family violence act when the prisoner and the victim had never been married, were not living in the same house, and did not have children together, did not affect the court's jurisdiction since the order expressly provided that its violation would subject the prisoner to prosecution for aggravated stalking; the superior court judge had the authority to issue a protective order under the stalking statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-94, or the Georgia Family Violence Act, specifically O.C.G.A. § 19-13-2. Giles v. State, 257 Ga. App. 65, 570 S.E.2d 375 (2002).

Evidence that defendant, over the high school student's objections, repeatedly placed the student under surveillance, took pictures of the student, and shouted at the student was sufficient to show defendant was stalking the student and justified the entry of a protective order against defendant. Johnson v. Smith, 260 Ga. App. 722, 580 S.E.2d 674 (2003).

Evidence was sufficient under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-90 to support the entry of a stalking twelve-month protective order pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-5-94(d) against the defendant because the defendant contacted the victim via abusive emails numerous times and placed the victim under surveillance on several occasions without the victim's consent, and the frequency and nature of the defendant's contact and surveillance was such that the trial court could conclude that it was done for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the victim; there was also sufficient evidence that the contact and surveillance put the victim in reasonable fear for the victim's safety. Thornton v. Hemphill, 300 Ga. App. 647, 686 S.E.2d 263 (2009), cert. denied, No. S10C0413, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 342 (Ga. 2010).

Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in finding that the evidence supported the grant of a stalking protective order under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-94(d) against a neighbor who, among other conduct, discharged a weapon near the victims' house, attempted to run the victim off the road, and repeatedly drove by or stopped in front of the victims' house and stared at them. Garnsey v. Buice, 306 Ga. App. 565, 703 S.E.2d 28 (2010).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting applicant a stalking protective order under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-94(d) against a neighbor. The neighbor placed applicant, applicant's wife, and applicant's stepchild under surveillance, contacting them for the purpose of harassing and intimidating them over a three-week period by screaming physical threats and taking pictures of applicant's family from the road while they were on their front porch. The neighbor also swerved her vehicle at the applicant's stepchild in a manner that forced the stepchild's vehicle partially off the road. Elgin v. Swann, 315 Ga. App. 809, 728 S.E.2d 328 (2012).

Evidence insufficient for protective order.

- Because a fire chief's actions taken against certain fire department employees did not constitute stalking under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-90(a)(1), but were committed for the legitimate purpose of physical training, and arose during legitimate training activities, the issuance of a permanent restraining order against the fire chief for those activities amounted to an abuse of discretion. Pilcher v. Stribling, 282 Ga. 166, 647 S.E.2d 8 (2007).

Imposition of a stalking protective order against the former boyfriend was inappropriate under O.C.G.A. §§ 16-5-90(a)(1),16-5-94(e), and19-13-3(c) because the evidence admitted at the hearing was clearly insufficient to establish the necessary "pattern" of harassing and intimidating behavior against the former girlfriend. Even assuming that an incident in the parking lot constituted the requisite contact of an intimidating or harassing nature, the only other evidence presented was that the parties would sometimes be in the same place at the school, which was a place that both had the right to be. Ramsey v. Middleton, 310 Ga. App. 300, 713 S.E.2d 428 (2011).

Trial court abused the court's discretion by issuing a protective order against a lessee because a lessor did not meet the burden under O.C.G.A. §§ 16-5-94(e) and19-13-3(c) of showing that the lessee committed the offense of stalking, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-90(a)(1); other than the lessor's own testimony, the lessor offered no proof that the lessee and a former business associate were acting in concert against the lessor or that their alleged joint activities were of the type that would support a protective order based on the offense of stalking. Martin v. Woodyard, 313 Ga. App. 797, 723 S.E.2d 293 (2012).

Trial court's order continuing an ex parte temporary protective order against an ex-husband was reversed because the trial court lacked authority to extend the temporary protective order since the trial court failed to comply with the hearing requirements of O.C.G.A. § 19-13-3(c) in any substantive way as it questioned the ex-wife briefly, but the ex-wife was not sworn in as a witness, and the ex-husband did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the wife. White v. Raines, 331 Ga. App. 853, 771 S.E.2d 507 (2015).

Evidence insufficient for protective order protecting priest against parishioner.

- Trial court abused the court's discretion by granting a priest a stalking protective order against a former church organist as the priest never indicated fear for the priest's safety as a result of the former organist's disruptive and interfering behavior. Rather, the priest indicated weariness with regard to the former organist's behavior and that the behavior was interfering with the life of the parish, which was insufficient to justify the issuance of the protective order. Sinclair v. Daly, 295 Ga. App. 613, 672 S.E.2d 672 (2009).

Expiration of temporary order.

- Temporary protective order (TPO) issued under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-94 stood dismissed as a matter of law after 30 days without a hearing pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-13-3(c); after that date, the superior court lacked the power to enforce the TPO, as provided in O.C.G.A. § 19-13-4(d), or order the parties to comply with a settlement agreement. Although the parties allegedly agreed to continue the hearing, there was no showing in the record of such consent. Peebles v. Claxton, 326 Ga. App. 53, 755 S.E.2d 861 (2014).

Stalker who sent emails into Georgia from South Carolina not subject to jurisdiction.

- Trial court erred in denying a South Carolina resident's motion to set aside a stalking permanent protective order issued against the resident. The Georgia court did not have personal jurisdiction over the nonresident under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 for stalking because the resident did not, in sending harassing emails from South Carolina, engage in conduct in Georgia. Huggins v. Boyd, 304 Ga. App. 563, 697 S.E.2d 253 (2010).

Attorney's fees and mental health evaluation.

- Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a resident $4,000.00 in attorney fees and requiring the neighbor to undergo a mental health evaluation as part of a protective order entered in favor of the resident against the neighbor. De Louis v. Sheppard, 277 Ga. App. 768, 627 S.E.2d 846 (2006).

Judge who issues restraining order.

- Defendant's stalking convictions, based on violations of a permanent restraining order (PRO), were not invalid on grounds the PRO was issued by a magistrate judge, as the chief judge of superior court, as authorized by O.C.G.A. § 15-1-9.1(b)(2), had requested magistrates to assist the superior court by hearing petitions under the Georgia Stalking Statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-94. Seibert v. State, 294 Ga. App. 202, 670 S.E.2d 109 (2008).

Jury instruction erroneous.

- Defendant's conviction for violating a family violence protective order as a lesser included offense of aggravated stalking was reversed on appeal because the defendant was not indicted for the family violence protective order violation; thus, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the lesser offense. Edgecomb v. State, 319 Ga. App. 804, 738 S.E.2d 645 (2013).

Costs and attorney fees incurred in appellate proceeding recoverable.

- When the respondents appealed from stalking protective orders, the trial court did not err in granting the petitioners' motions for costs and attorney fees incurred in the appellate proceedings because nothing in the fee provision in O.C.G.A. § 16-5-94 expressly limited recovery of attorney fees to those incurred in trial court litigation; and making appellate fees compensable would further the purpose of the stalking act, which was to deter harassing and intimidating behavior and to protect victims from harm, by enabling a stalking victim to defend a protective order on appeal. Bishop v. Goins, 344 Ga. App. 174, 809 S.E.2d 280 (2017).

Attorney fees properly denied when no TPO issued.

- Given that the petition for a stalking temporary protective order (TPO) was dismissed before any order was entered, the trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in denying the respondent's motion for attorney fees under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-94(d). Durrance v. Schad, 345 Ga. App. 826, 815 S.E.2d 164 (2018).

Cited in Chan v. Ellis, 296 Ga. 838, 770 S.E.2d 851 (2015).

ALR.

- Validity, construction, and application of state civil stalking statutes, 14 A.L.R.7th 4.