455.045. Temporary relief available — ex parte orders. — Any ex parte order of protection granted pursuant to sections 455.010 to 455.085 shall be to protect the petitioner from domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault and may include:
(1) Restraining the respondent from committing or threatening to commit domestic violence, molesting, stalking, sexual assault, or disturbing the peace of the petitioner;
(2) Restraining the respondent from entering the premises of the dwelling unit of petitioner when the dwelling unit is:
(a) Jointly owned, leased or rented or jointly occupied by both parties; or
(b) Owned, leased, rented or occupied by petitioner individually; or
(c) Jointly owned, leased or rented by petitioner and a person other than respondent; provided, however, no spouse shall be denied relief pursuant to this section by reason of the absence of a property interest in the dwelling unit; or
(d) Jointly occupied by the petitioner and a person other than the respondent; provided that the respondent has no property interest in the dwelling unit;
(3) Restraining the respondent from communicating with the petitioner in any manner or through any medium;
(4) A temporary order of custody of minor children where appropriate;
(5) A temporary order of possession of pets where appropriate.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Williams v. Marsh, 626 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. 1982).
· cites it 16× “The statute makes criminal violation of the ex parte order of protection, § 455.045, RSMo 1980 Supp., of which the respondent has notice, and violation of a full order of protection.”
Haskett v. State, 152 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
“160; and violation of a protection order, Sections 455.045 and 455.085. Haskett was 40 years old at the time and had never before faced a criminal charge.”
State v. Kee, 956 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
“015, and violating an order of protection, §§ 455.045, 455.050, and *300 455.085.8. 1 Kee was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty years on the assault count and twenty years on the armed criminal action count,' and to six months jail time for violating the court order of…”
Grist v. Grist, 946 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
“RSMo §§ 455.045(8) and 455.050.3(l)-(2). Moreover, wife’s petition contained several allegations concerning husband’s abuse of son, in addition to her request for custody of the child.”
State v. Haynes, 17 S.W.3d 617 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
“1992), the defendant was convicted of the class A misdemeanor of violation of an ex parte order of protection and an ex parte order of child protection, in violation of §§ 455.045 and 455.085. Id. at 730. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the information charging him was…”
State v. Keith, 839 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “On March 1, 1991, an information was filed, against Garry Keith, in the Circuit Court of Vernon County, Missouri, Associate Division, which alleged as follows: The Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Vernon, State of Missouri, charges this Defendant: in violation of Sections…”
State v. Sanders, 842 S.W.2d 916 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
“In June of 1990, Victim obtained an order of protection against Defendant pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, § 455.045. On September 3, 1990 at 7:30 a.”
State v. Cooper, 871 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
“120, 1 and violation of an order of protection, § 455.045 and § 455.085, RSMo Supp.1991. He appeals only from the conviction of violation of the order of protection.”
Hopper v. Hopper, 854 S.W.2d 628 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “§ 455.045, RSMo 1986. Husband testified Wife’s petition forced him out of the home.”
State v. Barnhart, 213 S.W.3d 712 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Barnhart appeals his conviction for three counts of Violation of Adult Abuse Order in violation of sections 455.045, 455.050, and 455.085 RSMo.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 455.045(8) — 1 case
Grist v. Grist, 946 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
“RSMo §§ 455.045(8) and 455.050.3(l)-(2). Moreover, wife’s petition contained several allegations concerning husband’s abuse of son, in addition to her request for custody of the child.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.