Cited by

9 conduct” or “intent on the part of the harasser.” (quotations omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd.

To award an HRO, the district court must find both “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser” and “objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” (quotations omitted).

29, 2004); a de novo standard of 5 review to a district court’s conclusions of law, and an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court’s decision to issue an HRO based on a finding that a person has engaged in harassment, d 331, 338-39 (Minn. App. 2024), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

d 758, 761 (Minn. App. 2008).

29, 2004), a de novo standard of review to a district court’s conclusions of law, and an abuse-of -discretion standard of review to a district court’s decision to issue an HRO based on a finding that a person has engaged in harassment, 4 d 331, 338-39 (Minn. App. 2024), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

Appellant also contends that his conduct does not constitute harassment because the “content of the posts” show that he “lacked the intent to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of [r]espondent.” But section 609.748 requires “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser.” Dunham, d at 567 (emphasis added); (stating that to sustain an HRO petition, the petitioner must prove either “objective ly unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser” (em

Because Simpson does not support these assertions of error with adequate briefing, legal 6 “Ultimately, the issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”

“Ultimately, the issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”

“Credibility determinations are the province of the trier of fact.”

7 Further, as appellant points out, her actions do not constitute harassment because she “had no intent to harass [r]espondent.” Indeed, section 609.748 requires “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser.” Dunham, d at 567 (emphasis added); (stating that to sustain an HRO petition, the petitioner must prove either “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser” (emphasis added )).

“A district court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard is given to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses.”

28, 2006); d 758, 764 (Minn. App. 2008).

To award an HRO, the district court must find both an “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser” and “objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” (quotation omitted).

A petitioner must prove both “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser” and “an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” (quotation omitted); see also Kush, d at 845 (stating that the intent of the harasser may be determined using a subjective standard).

We review the district court’s interpretation of the HRO statute de novo, and will reverse the district court’s issuance of an HRO if it is not supported by sufficient evidence.

28, 2006); rev. denied (Minn. Sept.