## Facts

- Robin K. Matlock ended a brief dating relationship with Jon D. Weets after four to five weeks.
- After the breakup, Weets repeatedly contacted Matlock despite requests to stop, including calls, gifts left at her home, and later cards and letters.
- Weets began appearing near Matlock’s home and along her commuting routes with unusual frequency, including at varying times and places despite her routes changing by day.
- Weets entered Matlock’s home without permission to leave Valentine’s gifts, frightening Matlock’s mother, who was alone.
- Matlock contacted law enforcement and the county attorney; Weets was told to leave her alone, but the conduct continued.
- Matlock sought and obtained a temporary injunction requiring Weets to avoid contact and remain more than 100 feet from Matlock, her home, and her workplace.
- The district court later issued a permanent injunction after hearing and found Weets in contempt for multiple violations of the temporary injunction.
- Weets appealed the permanent injunction and sought certiorari review of the contempt adjudication.

## Issues

1. Whether Matlock proved grounds for temporary and permanent injunctive relief barring contact and requiring Weets to keep a specified distance from her and specified locations.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Weets willfully violated the temporary injunction, justifying contempt sanctions.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the temporary and permanent injunctions.
- The court annulled the writ of certiorari, leaving the contempt judgment intact.
- On the injunction appeal, the court reviewed the equitable record de novo while giving weight to the district court’s fact findings.
- On the contempt challenge, the court examined whether substantial evidence supported the contempt adjudication and concluded it did.

## Legal Principles

- Equitable injunctions may issue to restrain a course of harassing conduct that reasonably causes fear and invades personal security; a victim need not wait for physical violence or a direct confrontation.
- A court may consider the cumulative effect of repeated acts (unwanted contact, following, surveillance-like appearances, and intrusion into the home) in determining whether injunctive protection is warranted.
- Injunctive relief may be appropriate when informal measures (personal requests and law-enforcement warnings) fail to stop the conduct, and distance/no-contact terms may be used to prevent recurrence.
- On certiorari review of contempt, the appellate court does not retry facts; the contempt finding stands if supported by substantial evidence of a willful violation of a clear court order.

## Conclusion

The court upheld both injunctive protection and contempt sanctions, holding that persistent, intrusive post-breakup conduct reasonably creating fear supports no-contact and distance injunctions, and that willful violations of a temporary injunction are punishable as contempt when supported by substantial evidence.


Matlock v. Weets, 531 N.W.2d 118 (Iowa 1995)