MATLOCK V. WEETS 531 N.W.2d 118 (1995) CASE BRIEF

MATLOCK V. WEETS

531 N.W.2d 118 (1995)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Weets (D), ex-boyfriend, sought review of a decision of the Iowa District Court, which issued a temporary and permanent injunction against D and held that he was in contempt for violation of the temporary injunction that required him to stay away from Matlock (P) his ex-girlfriend.

FACTS: P and D began dating in October 1991. The relationship lasted only four to five weeks before P broke it off. On March 30, 1993, approximately seventeen months after she terminated the relationship, P petitioned for an injunction to enjoin D from following her, being in the vicinity of her home or her place of employment, or from contacting her in any manner. Submitted with the petition was a sixteen-page affidavit. Shortly after P ended the relationship D began to noticeably approach, follow, and watch her. D continued to call her and leave presents for her on the back step of her house. She asked him to stop. He then began sending her cards and letters. In January 1992 he also began jogging by her house. In February 1992 D brought some Valentine's Day gifts to P's house. He entered the house uninvited, walked over to the kitchen table and laid the gifts down. P's mother was at home alone at the time. She was startled and frightened by his entering the house. In February or March of 1992 D began frequently showing up at various places on P's way to work, her way home for lunch, her way back to work, and her way home from work. This was especially unusual because P's route varied each day of the week. D's frequent presence along P's route during these times required a thorough knowledge of the details of her schedule. The frequent contacts were also suspicious because although P had known D before they began dating, she had never seen him anywhere other than at the bar he owned. D passed by P's house and also followed her car and passed her at high rates of speed. P got another creepy letter and she eventually contacted the Scott County Attorney. The county attorney spoke with D, who was a former client, and told him to stop; but he was concerned that D knew just how far he could go and would not stop. He also told P he was concerned that D would show up at her doorstep and try to commit suicide in front of her because he had attempted a similar act in the past. The court granted a temporary injunction based on the petition and affidavit. The court then issued a permanent injunction after a hearing citing D for violation of the temporary injunction. D was sentenced to fifteen consecutive days of incarceration. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner