In Outlaw v. Outlaw, an Oregon circuit judge allowed a woman to sue her ex-husband and former mother-in-law for wrongful use of civil proceedings after the mother-in-law obtained a temporary restraining order under the state's elder-abuse statute. The order barred the ex-wife from coming within 150 feet of the mother-in-law and forced her to move out of the home. It was later dismissed when the two women signed a mutual no-contact agreement, and no contested hearing on the abuse allegations ever took place.
The ex-wife argued that the mother-in-law misrepresented key facts in her petition, including her status as a disabled person and a Multnomah County resident. At deposition, the mother-in-law testified that she maintained her primary residence in Georgia, had no legal tenancy claim to the Portland house, and that her macular degeneration could be corrected with reading glasses. She also conceded she never called police or adult protective services about the ex-wife.
At the anti-SLAPP stage, the court held that a reasonable trier of fact could find a lack of probable cause if the mother-in-law was not actually a resident or disabled under the statute, or if her allegations were false. The case continued for several months before terminating, presumably by settlement. The ruling is notable because it lets an abuse-of-process claim proceed against someone who used a protective order process, even though the order itself was temporary and later dissolved.