163.763
Petition to circuit court for relief; burden of proof. (1) A person who has been
subjected to sexual abuse and who reasonably fears for the person’s physical
safety may petition the circuit court for a restraining order if:
(a) The person
and the respondent are not family or household members;
(b) The
respondent is at least 18 years of age; and
(c) The
respondent is not prohibited from contacting the person pursuant to a foreign
restraining order as defined in ORS 24.190, an order issued under ORS 30.866,
124.015, 124.020, 163.738 or 419B.845 or an order entered in a criminal action.
(2)(a) A petition
seeking relief under ORS 163.760 to 163.777 must be filed in the circuit court
for the county in which the petitioner or the respondent resides or in which
the abuse occurred. The petition may be filed, without the appointment of a
guardian ad litem, by a person who is at least 12 years of age or by a parent
or lawful guardian of a person who is under 18 years of age.
(b) The petition
must allege that:
(A) The
petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety with respect
to the respondent; and
(B) The
respondent subjected the petitioner to sexual abuse.
(c) The petition
must include allegations made under oath or affirmation or a declaration under
penalty of perjury.
(d) The
petitioner has the burden of proving a claim under ORS 163.760 to 163.777 by a
preponderance of the evidence. [2013 c.687 §2; 2015 c.121 §22; 2019 c.353 §1;
2024 c.42 §3]
Note: See note under 163.760.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2023 · leading case:
E. H. v. Byrne, 487 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
E. H. v. Byrne, 487 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 7× “See ORS 163.763 (petition procedure). Consistent with the statutory procedures, petitioner initially appeared ex parte, the trial court entered a SAPO, respondent con- tested the SAPO, and the trial court then held a noticed hearing, after which it continued the SAPO.”
C. J. v. Flores, 505 P.3d 500 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “After a contested hearing, the trial court continued the SAPO under ORS 163.763(2), finding that petitioner had been subject to sexual abuse by respondent and that she reasonably feared for her physical safety if a SAPO was not entered.”
State v. Person, 831 P.2d 700 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“Therefore, under the express terms of ORS 163.763(2), the court did not have the authority to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss and permit the case to go to trial.”
State v. Becker, 37 P.3d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“Defendant reasons that, because his silence did not unequivocally manifest an intention to surrender his previously *607 asserted right, the trial court was required to dismiss the indictment with prejudice based on the state’s violation of ORS 163.763(1). See State v. Waechter,…”
M. B. v. Clark, 326 Or. App. 840 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “The trial court found petitioner’s testimony to be credible, and explicitly found the testimony of respondent’s witness not to be credible.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.763(1) — 2 cases
State v. Becker, 37 P.3d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“Defendant reasons that, because his silence did not unequivocally manifest an intention to surrender his previously *607 asserted right, the trial court was required to dismiss the indictment with prejudice based on the state’s violation of ORS 163.763(1). See State v. Waechter,…”
E. H. v. Byrne, 487 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“See ORS 163.763 (petition procedure). Consistent with the statutory procedures, petitioner initially appeared ex parte, the trial court entered a SAPO, respondent con- tested the SAPO, and the trial court then held a noticed hearing, after which it continued the SAPO.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.763(1)(a) — 1 case
E. H. v. Byrne, 487 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“See ORS 163.763 (petition procedure). Consistent with the statutory procedures, petitioner initially appeared ex parte, the trial court entered a SAPO, respondent con- tested the SAPO, and the trial court then held a noticed hearing, after which it continued the SAPO.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.763(2) — 3 cases
State v. Person, 831 P.2d 700 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“Therefore, under the express terms of ORS 163.763(2), the court did not have the authority to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss and permit the case to go to trial.”
C. J. v. Flores, 505 P.3d 500 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“After a contested hearing, the trial court continued the SAPO under ORS 163.763(2), finding that petitioner had been subject to sexual abuse by respondent and that she reasonably feared for her physical safety if a SAPO was not entered.”
E. H. v. Byrne, 487 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“See ORS 163.763 (petition procedure). Consistent with the statutory procedures, petitioner initially appeared ex parte, the trial court entered a SAPO, respondent con- tested the SAPO, and the trial court then held a noticed hearing, after which it continued the SAPO.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.763(2)(b) — 2 cases
C. J. v. Flores, 505 P.3d 500 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“After a contested hearing, the trial court continued the SAPO under ORS 163.763(2), finding that petitioner had been subject to sexual abuse by respondent and that she reasonably feared for her physical safety if a SAPO was not entered.”
M. B. v. Clark, 326 Or. App. 840 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“The trial court found petitioner’s testimony to be credible, and explicitly found the testimony of respondent’s witness not to be credible.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.763(2)(b)(A) — 1 case
M. B. v. Clark, 326 Or. App. 840 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“The trial court found petitioner’s testimony to be credible, and explicitly found the testimony of respondent’s witness not to be credible.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.763(2)(b)(B) — 1 case
C. J. v. Flores, 505 P.3d 500 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“After a contested hearing, the trial court continued the SAPO under ORS 163.763(2), finding that petitioner had been subject to sexual abuse by respondent and that she reasonably feared for her physical safety if a SAPO was not entered.”
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.