1. Harrassment

2. Course of conduct

3. Miscellaneous

1. Harrassment

A physical assault, or the threat of a physical assault, can be an act of harassment that seriously terrifies, threatens, or intimidates a person. Dugan v. Sorensen, 319 Neb. 326, 22 N.W.3d 623 (2025).

Subsection (2)(a) of this section encompasses conduct which "seriously . . . threatens"; it is not limited to threats of physical violence. Diedra T. v. Justina R., 313 Neb. 417, 984 N.W.2d 312 (2023).

Threats of nonphysical harm, such as "outing" a person as "queer" to the person's employer, can constitute threats for purposes of subsection (2)(a) of this section. Diedra T. v. Justina R., 313 Neb. 417, 984 N.W.2d 312 (2023).

Given the language of Nebraska's stalking statutes and the purpose announced by the Legislature for enacting the statutes, an objective construction of the statute is appropriate, and the victim's experience resulting from the perpetrator's conduct should be assessed on an objective basis. In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 273 Neb. 239, 728 N.W.2d 606 (2007).

Nebraska's stalking statutes focus both on the behavior of the perpetrator and on the experience of the victim. In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 273 Neb. 239, 728 N.W.2d 606 (2007).

Nebraska's stalking and harassment statutes are given an objective construction, and the victim's experience resulting from the perpetrator's conduct should be assessed on an objective basis. Glantz v. Daniel, 21 Neb. App. 89, 837 N.W.2d 563 (2013).

2. Course of Conduct

A course of conduct is established by proof of at least two separate acts of harassment. Dugan v. Sorensen, 319 Neb. 326, 22 N.W.3d 623 (2025).

A determination of whether a course of conduct has been shown is to be made by the finder of fact based on all the facts and circumstances; there is no mechanical test to be applied, but evidence of breaks in the conduct, whether temporal or spatial, can be relevant to the analysis. Dugan v. Sorensen, 319 Neb. 326, 22 N.W.3d 623 (2025).

A series of acts of harassment can occur on the same day at the same general location and within minutes of each other if the credible evidence shows a sufficient spatial or temporal break allowing the actor to pause, reflect, and form the intent to engage in another act of harassment. Dugan v. Sorensen, 319 Neb. 326, 22 N.W.3d 623 (2025).

Repeated acts of harassment need not be separated by any particular interval of time. Dugan v. Sorensen, 319 Neb. 326, 22 N.W.3d 623 (2025).

Separate acts of harassment can occur during a single incident or occasion. Dugan v. Sorensen, 319 Neb. 326, 22 N.W.3d 623 (2025).

Evidence was insufficient to support a finding that an alleged harasser's behavior fit the statutory definition of a harassing "course of conduct" as defined by subdivision (2)(b) of this section, where the incident between the alleged harasser and the alleged victims occurred within a span of 10 to 20 minutes on one particular day, and there was no evidence of harassment prior to or after the incident. Knopik v. Hahn, 25 Neb. App. 157, 902 N.W.2d 716 (2017).

3. Miscellaneous

At a show cause hearing on a harassment protection order, the petitioner must show, by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the respondent knowingly and willfully engaged in a course of conduct directed at the petitioner that seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated the petitioner; (2) that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have been seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated by the respondent's conduct; and (3) that the respondent's conduct served no legitimate purpose. Dugan v. Sorensen, 319 Neb. 326, 22 N.W.3d 623 (2025).