Can a single outrageous act support a civil stalking injunction in Utah? Allen v. Anger Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question regarding civil stalking injunctions in Allen v. Anger, clarifying what constitutes sufficient conduct to warrant such protective orders under Utah’s stalking statute.

Background and Facts

The case arose from a family dispute between sisters Lisa Anger and Lori Allen over Allen’s decision to place her teenage daughter in a treatment facility. Anger strongly disagreed with this parenting decision and took several actions: she distributed flyers around Allen’s neighborhood, church, and workplace directing people to a website that criticized the facility and urged readers to contact Allen and file complaints with authorities. Anger also assisted the teenager in filing an emancipation petition and continued to contact Allen’s children despite Allen’s requests to stop. Allen received harassing phone calls as a result and feared for her job and children’s safety. Allen successfully obtained a three-year civil stalking injunction against Anger in the district court.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Anger’s conduct violated Utah’s 2003 stalking statute, which required a course of conduct involving repeated acts that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress. Under Utah law, such emotional distress must be severe enough to meet the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress – conduct that is “outrageous and intolerable in that it offends generally accepted standards of decency and morality.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals found that while the flyer distribution incident was potentially outrageous, Anger’s other actions – assisting with a lawful emancipation petition, contacting family members, and making unwelcome visits – did not rise to the level of outrageousness required by the statute. Critically, the court emphasized that stalking “by its very nature, is an offense of repetition.” Even if the flyer incident was sufficiently outrageous, there was no second outrageous act to establish the required repeated conduct under the statute.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that practitioners seeking civil stalking injunctions must demonstrate multiple outrageous acts, not rely on a single egregious incident. The court also showed reluctance to expand stalking liability to encompass ordinary family disagreements, even emotionally charged ones. Attorneys should carefully evaluate whether each alleged act meets the high threshold for outrageousness and ensure evidence supports a pattern of such conduct rather than isolated incidents.