Outlaw vs. In-Law Outlaw

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Volokh, E. (2026, October 8). Outlaw vs. In-Law Outlaw. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/10/08/outlaw-vs-in-law-outlaw/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

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 by AI on 2026-10-08, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

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 2026-11-03, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

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

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.
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
27
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
11%
3 of 27 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
not political
takes no side on a contested political question
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Crime & Law
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-10-08 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 1081 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
189 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 In May 2025, Harvard revoked Plaintiff's tenure and terminated her appointment with HBS.
🔮 The requirement would hold DSPs liable for their failure to adhere to state-set publication standards, not only "treat[ing] [them] as … publisher[s] or speaker[s]," but treating them as publishers subject to sweeping state controls.
🔮 From Sanchez v. Almond, decided Wednesday by Judge John McConnell (D.R.I.): Mr. Sanchez began working at the office of Rhode Island Governor Daniel J. McKee in May 2021 as a "constituent services" staffer.
🔮 Beauchamp believed that the post appeared to condone murder based on the victim's political viewpoints and statements and became concerned that this post and perception would reflect on GCAO in the public's eyes and thereby undermine the public's trust in GCAO's official duty to prosecute homicides without bias and without regard to a victim's views, statements, or affiliations.
2026-11-02 · assertive framing · Firing for "Rot in Hell Charlie Kirk" Post Upheld
🔮 Some excerpts from the long First Superseding Indictment in U.S. v. Hakim (E.D. Mich.), filed Oct. 21, alleging conspiracy to transmit threats in interstate commerce as well as, for two defendants, witness intimidation and destruction of property to prevent seizure (8 of the 12 defendants had originally been indicted in May); the targets included UM officials and businesses connected with them, as well as the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit:
🔮 Because "[t]he costs and efforts required to defend a lawsuit through [discovery] could chill free speech nearly as effectively as the absence of the actual malice standard altogether[,]" a public figure plaintiff must plausibly allege actual malice at the outset of the litigation.
🔮 The First Amendment forbids a State from using its investigative power that way, and I will not allow it while this case is pending.
🔮 The same logic could apply to nuns who had felt religious pressure to do the educational or nursing work that their order was known for, or to monks who had felt religious pressure to do agricultural work that supports the monastery.
2026-10-30 · assertive framing · Amicus Brief in OneTaste Criminal Prosecution
🔮 Before doing so, "he entered the coffee shop to purchase a cookie, which he hoped would be seen as a sign of goodwill."
🔮 While individuals who are the subjects of unwanted speech may be able to limit some speech directed to them, they cannot limit offensive speech about them directed to others.
Also by Eugene Volokh
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 189 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 ORG · 1× Westlaw ORG · 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