Cited by

d 502, 503 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that the district court abused its discretion by issuing an HRO “based solely on a two-sentence comment made to respondent on only one occasion”); Peterson, d at 765 (“It is conceivable that the cumulative effect of persistent, baseless attempts to peer inside a person’s veh

at 844; (“We note that comments that are merely inappropriate and argumentative are insufficient to rise to the level of harassment.”).

6, 2019), this court affirmed issuance of an HRO; this court reversed issuance o f an HRO.

See Peterson, (holding that the HRO was improperly issued upon only one incident of harassing conduct); see also Beach v. Jeschke , (holding that a “two -sentence statement, uttered on one occasion, does not meet the requirement of ‘repeated incidents’”).

According to him, his treatment of Nelson was “merely inappropriate and argumentative” and thus “insufficient to rise to the level of harassment.” d 502, 503 (Minn. App. 2002) () (dicta).

1(a); (“Because the district court iden tified only one incident of harassment, the findings are insufficient to support the restraining order.”); d 502, 503 (Minn. App. 2002) (fi nding that a district court a bused its discretion in granting an HRO “based on a single incident of wo rds”).

-46 (Minn. App. 2004) (reviewing HRO granted after contested hearing); (same).

See, -03 (Minn. App. 2002) (concluding that a single incident of words was insufficient to support the issuance of a harassment restraining order).

See Beach v. *763 Jeschke, -03 (Minn.App.2002) (reversing issuance of HRO where district court order “did not find that there had been any physical contact” and where single verbal threat did not constitute “repeated incidents” under second prong).