Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.700 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      107.700 Short title. ORS 107.700 to 107.735 shall be known and may be cited as the “Family Abuse Prevention Act.” [1977 c.845 §4; 1995 c.637 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 97 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: N. F. M. v. Khalidi, 503 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
N. F. M. v. Khalidi, 503 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “Additionally, respondent assigns error to the court’s award of petitioner’s attorney fees.”
State v. Copeland, 306 P.3d 610 (Or. 2013). · cites it 2× “See ORS 107.700 (“ORS 107.700 to 107.735 shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Family Abuse Prevention Act.”
Holbert v. Noon, 260 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “710(1) provides, as relevant: "Any person who has been the victim of abuse within the preceding 180 days may petition the circuit court for relief under ORS 107.700 to 107.735, if the person is in imminent danger of further abuse from the abuser.”
Hanzo v. dePARRIE, 953 P.2d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Here, two cases involving the Family Abuse Protection Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700 to ORS 107.732, are particularly enlightening as to the proper standard of review of civil SPOs issued pursuant to ORS 30.”
Patton v. Patton, 377 P.3d 657 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 2× “ORS 107.700 - 107.735. Respondent contends that petitioner failed to present any evidence to prove that petitioner had suffered abuse, was in imminent danger of further abuse, or that respondent presented a credible threat to petitioner’s safety to support the continuation of…”
M. A. B. v. Buell, 438 P.3d 465 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “In October of that year, petitioner sought and obtained a restraining order against respondent under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700 to 107.735. On respondent's appeal, we conclude that petitioner did not meet her burden of proving that she was in imminent…”
K. G. G. v. Lucarelli, 486 P.3d 860 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “After they sep- arated, petitioner obtained a FAPA restraining order against respondent, based on an incident of abuse on January 26, 2020.”
M. A. B. v. Buell, 466 P.3d 949 (Or. 2020). “Under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700 to 107.735, a petitioner may obtain a protective order by establishing, among other things, an “imminent danger of further abuse” by the respondent.”
Vanik-Burns v. Burns, 392 P.3d 386 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Petitioner obtained a temporary restraining order against respondent pursuant to the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700 to 107.735. After a contested hearing, the trial court continued the restraining order.”
State v. Gerhardt, 385 P.3d 1049 (Or. 2016). “The victim hired an attorney to help her enforce the no-contact order and to obtain a permanent protective order under the Family Abuse Prevention Act, ORS 107.700 to 107.735, incurring expenses of $1,880.”
J. K. v. Kargol, 435 P.3d 814 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “ORS 107.700 - 107.735. The court issued an ex parte FAPA order, and respondent requested a hearing, at which the court continued the restraining order.”
Nguyen v. Bui, 536 P.3d 482 (N.M. 2023). “710 (West 2015) (“Any person who has been the victim of abuse within the preceding 180 days may petition the circuit court for relief under ORS 107.700 to 107.735, if the person is in imminent danger of further abuse from the abuser.”
Show all 97 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.700(1)(c) — 1 case
M. A. B. v. Buell, 438 P.3d 465 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “In October of that year, petitioner sought and obtained a restraining order against respondent under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700 to 107.735. On respondent's appeal, we conclude that petitioner did not meet her burden of proving that she was in imminent…”
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.