Outlaw vs. In-Law Outlaw

Read the original at Reason ↗
Reason · collected 2026-10-08 · by Eugene Volokh

Quick Summary

In 2017, an Oregon woman sued her ex-husband and his mother, both named Outlaw, for wrongful use of civil proceedings after the mother obtained a restraining order against her. The mother-in-law alleged verbal abuse and property damage by the plaintiff but later admitted to maintaining residency in Georgia rather than claiming disability status as required under Oregon law. Judge Katharine von Ter Stegge ruled that the case could proceed, finding no probable cause for the original restraining order due to misrepresented information about residence and disability.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-10-08, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

AI analysis runs on qwen2.5:14b, locally

Story summary

In April 2017, a mother-in-law visited her son's home to provide emotional support to him and his wife. By June 2017, the couple filed for divorce and a Temporary Protective Order of Restraint against each other. Soon after, in July 2017, the mother-in-law filed an EPPDAPA (Elderly Person or Person with Disability) Petition against her daughter-in-law, alleging verbal abuse, theft of property, and causing disturbance through late-night laundry use. The case was decided by Judge Katharine von Ter Stegge in 2019 but the decision was only recently posted on Westlaw.

Written for “Outlaw Feud” on 2026-10-08, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
This article does not take a side on a contested political question, so it has no leaning score. That is an answer rather than a gap: a match report or a rescue can be warmly or critically written without being left or right, and scoring it anyway is how approval of a subject gets recorded as a political position.
No political leaning scored for article 66337 · logged 2026-10-08

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
27
claim-shaped sentences
Uncertain
11%
3 of 27 hedged
Leaning
not political
takes no side on a contested political question
Correction & hedging signals
66.2
corrections and hedging in what we collected; not a measure of accuracy
Outlets on this story
1
Crime & Law
Narrative spread
1
articles carrying this framing
Analyzed 2026-10-08 · how these are computed

Story

📰 Outlaw Feud
Crime & Law · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Compared with similar articles

Nothing to compare against. No article is close enough to this one for the pipeline to have linked or judged the pair.

Publisher

Reason · 620 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)
2026-10-02
Would a Firing Squad Have Been More 'Humane' for Christa Pike?
2026-09-26
"I Will Not Stand for Being Jerked Around … by Any Lawyer Who Practices Before Me"
2026-09-18
New Article: Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections: Bringing Clarity To The Necessary and Proper Clause
2026-09-05
Lawyers' Responsibility for Hallucinations in Briefs That They Sign

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
125 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 In her deposition, [mother-in-law] explained her eye condition as one that could be corrected with reading glasses; she further explained that it made it hard for her to make jewelry, but that she made jewelry more as a hobby and did not support herself by making jewelry.
2026-10-08 · assertive framing · Outlaw vs. In-Law Outlaw
🔮 He will speak about his experience, and his approach to liberty, both in his time as a lawyer and in his time as a judge.
🔮 The requirements of paragraph a. shall not apply if compliance would impose an operational or financial burden on the state or local entity and their employees.
🔮 And, if the decision endures, it will likely be followed by many other such decisions.
🔮 Since 2020, the Department has also collected the names of individual foreign donors while stating that it would not publish them.
🔮 When officers told him he would need to move, Geri refused and threatened to throw one of his explosive devices into the street to demonstrate its destructive power.
🔮 Here's an excerpt from the discussion of why Matar was acting sufficiently under the direction of a foreign terrorist organization (which is required under the relevant federal statute) rather than just independently—if he had been acting independently, that would have still been attempted murder punishable under state law, but likely not a violation of these statutes:
🔮 Because in the late 1800s, "race" was understood to include what today might refer to "ethnicity" (e.g., German, Arab, Jewish), the Court concluded that § 1981 extends to such discrimination based on ethnicity.
🔮 Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From yesterday's Blackman v. Substack, Inc., by California Court of Appeal Justices Tracie Brown and Danny Chou and Marin County Judge Andrew Sweet: "'[I]f a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order.'"
Also by Eugene Volokh
Open Thread
2026-10-08 · Reason
Open Thread
2026-10-07 · Reason
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 125 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

EPPDAPA Georgia Ore. Cir. Ct. a Temporary Protective Order of Restraint the Restraining Order

Subjects

Georgia GPE · 3× Outlaw PERSON · 3× EPPDAPA ORG · 2× Katharine von Ter Stegge PERSON · 1× Multnomah County GPE · 1× Ore. Cir. Ct. ORG · 1× Portland GPE · 1× Westlaw PERSON · 1×

Narrative

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From Outlaw v. Outlaw, decided in 2019 by Judge Katharine von Ter Stegge (Ore. Cir. Ct.) but just posted on Westlaw; the lawsuit was brought by a woman against her ex-husband and her ex-mother-in-law, all with the last name Outlaw: In April 2017, [mother-in-law] arrived at [the then-wife-and-husband's home] in order to provide emotional support to [husband]. In June 2017, [husband] filed Petitions for Dissolution of Marriage and a Temporary Protective Order of Restraint against Plaintiff.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-10-08
🔮 In her deposition, [mother-in-law] explained her eye condition as one that could be corrected with reading glasses; she further explained that it made it hard for her to make jewelry, but that she made jewelry more as a hobby and did not support herself by making jewelry.
2026-10-08 · Reason
Outlaw vs. In-Law Outlaw · assertive framing

Claims (27 extracted, 3 hedged)

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From Outlaw v. Outlaw, decided in 2019 by Judge Katharine von Ter Stegge (Ore. Cir. Ct.) but just posted on Westlaw; the lawsuit was brought by a woman against her ex-husband and her ex-mother-in-law, all with the last name Outlaw: In April 2017, [mother-in-law] arrived at [the then-wife-and-husband's home] in order to provide emotional support to [husband]. In June 2017, [husband] filed Petitions for Dissolution of Marriage and a Temporary Protective Order of Restraint against Plaintiff. asserted
husband → decide → Plaintiff
Plaintiff then filed a Motion requesting exclusive use of the [home]. asserted
Plaintiff → file → ]
On approximately July 14, 2017, Defendant [mother-in-law filed a Petition for Restraining Order to Prevent Abuse of Elderly Person or Person with Disability ("EPPDAPA Petition") against Plaintiff as the Respondent. asserted
Defendant → file → Respondent
The EPPDAPA Petition included allegations that Plaintiff verbally abused [mother-in-law], stole her property, and antagonized her through late-night use of laundry machines adjacent to her living quarters, including allegations that Plaintiff ran the dryer with sneakers in it during sleeping hours. asserted
Plaintiff → include → hours
[Mother-in-law] also alleged that Plaintiff rendered the bathroom she was using non-operational by forcefully removing pipes, the toilet, and the door to the bathroom. asserted
she → allege → bathroom
On July 21, the EPPDAPA Petition was granted on a temporary basis pending a contested hearing. asserted
Petition → grant → hearing
The resulting EPPDAPA restraining order ("Restraining Order") contained various restrictions on Plaintiff. asserted
order → result → Plaintiff
Plaintiff was restricted from being within 150 feet of [mother-in-law] or making any contact with her. asserted
Plaintiff → restrict → her
Plaintiff was also ordered to move from the Hassalo House and to remain at least 150 feet away from it. asserted
Plaintiff → order → it
Plaintiff was served with the Restraining Order and left the house immediately. asserted
Plaintiff → serve → house
On August 10, 2017, in an attempt to resolve their differences, Plaintiff and [mother-in-law] entered into a Mutual No-Contact Agreement ("MNCA") and the Restraining Order was dismissed. asserted
Order → resolve → Agreement
No contested hearing on Defendant [mother-in-law's] allegations ever occurred in the EPPDAPA case…. asserted
hearing → contest → case
The ex-wife sued for various torts related to alleged wrongful use of civil proceedings, and the court allowed the case to go forward. asserted
case → sue → proceedings
An excerpt: [One] element of wrongful use of a civil proceeding is the absence of probable cause to prosecute the action. asserted
element → prosecute → action
Plaintiff alleges that [mother-in-law] intentionally misrepresented information on the EPPDAPA petition, most critically her status as a disabled person and that she is a resident of Multnomah County within the meaning of the EPPDAPA statutes. asserted
she → allege → statutes
Plaintiff also denies certain factual allegations of abuse in the EPPDAPA Petition…. asserted
Plaintiff → deny → Petition
At her deposition, Defendant [mother-in-law] testified that she maintained a residence in Georgia where her husband continued to reside and where she planned to return, she had a Georgia driver's license, and paid taxes and received her mail in Georgia. asserted
she → testify → Georgia
She also testified that she has no ownership or legal claim as a tenant to the house her son and daughter-in-law lived in in Portland. uncertain
son → testify → Portland
Plaintiff also alleges that [mother-in-law] was not disabled within the meaning of the EPPDAPA Statute. asserted
mother → allege → Statute
The EPPDAPA Statute defines a "'person with a disability' as a person with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities." asserted
that → define → activities
"Major life activities" includes but is not limited to caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working. asserted
activities → include → tasks
Plaintiff asserts that [mother-in-law's] stated disability, macular degeneration, does not "substantially limit her from one or more of her major life activities." asserted
disability → assert → activities
In her deposition, [mother-in-law] explained her eye condition as one that could be corrected with reading glasses; she further explained that it made it hard for her to make jewelry, but that she made jewelry more as a hobby and did not support herself by making jewelry. uncertain
she → explain → jewelry
In her deposition, [mother-in-law] conceded that she never called police or DHS about Plaintiff. asserted
she → concede → Plaintiff
At this point in the anti-SLAPP inquiry, Plaintiff must only produce enough evidence to establish a prima facie case. asserted
Plaintiff → produce → case
Plaintiff has met this burden because a reasonable trier of fact could find that [mother-in-law] lacked probable cause if she was not a resident of Multnomah County or disabled within the meaning of the EPPDAPA process or if the allegations made in the EPPDAPA Petition were false. uncertain
allegations → meet → Petition
The case went on for several months longer, but then was terminated; I assume from the record that it was as a result of a settlement. asserted
it → go → settlement
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support