Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
HF. v. Keith Wood
Date: 07-10-2026
Case Number: 25SK02946
Judge: Nickolas Brajcich
Court: Circuit Court, Columbia County, Oregon
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best St. Helen Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Andy Simrin
Description:
St. Helen, Oregon, family law lawyers represented the parties in a protective order case.
Reported by Kent Morlan
H.F. made application for a stalking protective order against Keith Woods pursuant to ORS 30.866(1).
The case involves an appeal against a general judgment issuing a Stalking Protective Order (SPO) under ORS 30.866(1), where the respondent argued that there were not two or more contacts meeting the statutory requirements for an SPO, and the court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the SPO issuance.
EVIDENCE LAW. STANDARD OF REVIEW. The court examined the trial court's find
The trial court was permitted to find that respondent recklessly disregarded the risk that swerving his vehicle toward petitioner would cause her objectively reasonable harm. See B. R. B. v. Sweeney, 336 Or.App. 203, 205, 561 P.3d 173 (2024) (finding that the respondent's apparent attempt to run over the petitioner should allow a trier of fact to find that the respondent "acted recklessly in disregarding the risk that his actions were unwanted"). However, respondent contends that other contacts were not sufficient, and accordingly that the trial court erred by stating there were "two or more" contacts sufficient to justify the SPO.
Reported by Kent Morlan
H.F. made application for a stalking protective order against Keith Woods pursuant to ORS 30.866(1).
The case involves an appeal against a general judgment issuing a Stalking Protective Order (SPO) under ORS 30.866(1), where the respondent argued that there were not two or more contacts meeting the statutory requirements for an SPO, and the court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the SPO issuance.
EVIDENCE LAW. STANDARD OF REVIEW. The court examined the trial court's find
The trial court was permitted to find that respondent recklessly disregarded the risk that swerving his vehicle toward petitioner would cause her objectively reasonable harm. See B. R. B. v. Sweeney, 336 Or.App. 203, 205, 561 P.3d 173 (2024) (finding that the respondent's apparent attempt to run over the petitioner should allow a trier of fact to find that the respondent "acted recklessly in disregarding the risk that his actions were unwanted"). However, respondent contends that other contacts were not sufficient, and accordingly that the trial court erred by stating there were "two or more" contacts sufficient to justify the SPO.
Outcome:
Protective order issued.
Affirmed
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of HF. v. Keith Wood?
The outcome was: Protective order issued. Affirmed
Which court heard HF. v. Keith Wood?
This case was heard in Circuit Court, Columbia County, Oregon, OR. The presiding judge was Nickolas Brajcich.
Who were the attorneys in HF. v. Keith Wood?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best St. Helen Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Andy Simrin.
When was HF. v. Keith Wood decided?
This case was decided on July 10, 2026.