Can Repeated Unwanted Texts and Emails Lead to a Harassment Protection Order in Nebraska?
They can, but the number of messages isn't what decides the case. To get a harassment protection order in Nebraska, the person asking for it generally has to show four things. The first is a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at them. The second is that the conduct seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated them. The third is that it would have had the same effect on a reasonable person in the same circumstances. The fourth is that it served no legitimate purpose. Texts, emails, and calls can be part of that course of conduct, which requires at least two separate acts. The Nebraska Supreme Court has said a certain number of texts or calls does not, by itself, amount to harassment. So courts look at the full picture: how often the messages arrive, when they arrive, what they say, whether the sender was asked to stop, and what else has happened between the people involved.
A Nebraska Court of Appeals decision released October 6, 2026, McCloud v. McCloud, offers a recent example. After his marriage ended, a man sent hundreds of hostile emails and texts to his parents and two adult sisters, often in the middle of the night and after being asked to stop. The court affirmed harassment protection orders protecting all four adults. The sisters' children were not included in the orders the trial court continued after the hearing. The messages weren't just frequent. They included:
profane insults;
messages suggesting one sister's children had "a right to know" crude claims about her past;
a statement suggesting he would take the other sister's children;
for his father, an earlier physical confrontation.
The court also rejected his argument that the messages served a legitimate purpose. Insults and threats did not logically serve his stated goal of getting his family to stop interfering in his marriage.
The case also carries a procedural lesson. At the start of the hearing, the son asked out loud for more time because his lawyer couldn't attend. No lawyer had entered an appearance, and no written motion or affidavit had been filed. Looking at all the circumstances, the appeals court found no abuse of discretion in denying the request.
Two cautions. McCloud is a memorandum opinion not designated for permanent publication. It shows how one appellate panel decided these cases rather than setting a binding rule. And Nebraska's protection-order statutes were reorganized in 2025 and amended again in 2026, so older articles and forms may cite outdated section numbers.
The short answer
There's no message-count rule. A court asks four questions:
Does the evidence show a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at the petitioner?
Did that conduct actually seriously terrify, threaten, or intimidate the petitioner?
Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances have felt the same way?
Did the conduct serve a legitimate purpose?
Dugan v. Sorensen, 319 Neb. 326, 337, 22 N.W.3d 623 (2025); Flinn v. Strode, 320 Neb. 813, 821, 30 N.W.3d 661 (2026).
Two people could each receive 200 messages and end up in very different places. These can all weigh toward a finding of harassment:
late-night bursts of messages;
insults;
threats to expose private information;
messages that keep coming after a block;
a history of in-person confrontations.
Messages about a real issue, sent at reasonable times and in a reasonable tone, may look different, but there is no safe harbor. Each case turns on its own evidence and the judge hearing it.
What Nebraska law requires
A person who has been harassed can file a petition and affidavit for a harassment protection order under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 26-104, part of Nebraska's Protection Orders Act. The petition has to describe the events and dates, or approximate dates, of the harassment, "including the most recent and most severe incident or incidents."
Under current Nebraska law, "harass" means "to engage in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously terrifies, threatens, or intimidates the person and which serves no legitimate purpose." Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.02(2)(c).
A "course of conduct" is "a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose." It includes contacting or otherwise communicating with the person. § 28-311.02(2)(a).
In practice, the petitioner generally needs to show three things:
A knowing and willful course of conduct directed at them. That requires at least two separate acts of harassment. Dugan, 319 Neb. at 344. The acts can happen on the same day if the evidence shows a real break between them. Id. at 345–46. Repeated texts, emails, or calls can be part of that pattern, but a message count doesn't prove the case on its own.
Conduct that seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated them, and that would have had that effect on a reasonable person. Nebraska courts use an objective standard. They ask how a reasonable person in the same circumstances would react, not only how the petitioner felt. Id. at 337; In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 273 Neb. 239, 245, 728 N.W.2d 606, 612 (2007).
No legitimate purpose. This is part of the statutory definition of harassment, so it is part of what the petitioner must establish. Dugan, 319 Neb. at 337.
At the show-cause hearing that follows an ex parte order, the petitioner must first prove the facts supporting the order by a preponderance of the evidence. Only once that burden is met does the burden shift to the respondent to show why the order should not remain in effect. Diedra T. v. Justina R., 313 Neb. 417, 423, 984 N.W.2d 312 (2023).
A note on statute numbers
In 2025, the Legislature passed LB 80. It gathered Nebraska's domestic abuse, harassment, and sexual assault protection-order laws into a single Protection Orders Act beginning at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 26-101. Harassment orders formerly governed by § 28-311.09 now fall under § 26-104. Domestic abuse orders formerly governed by § 42-924 now appear at § 26-103.
In 2026, the Legislature made further changes. Among them, it reordered the definitions in § 28-311.02, operative July 18, 2026. "Course of conduct" now appears at subsection (2)(a) and "harass" at (2)(c). Court opinions applying the earlier version, including McCloud, cite the former lettering. If you're reading an older article or holding an older form, check it against current law.
What happened in McCloud v. McCloud
After his wife and children left, the son came to believe his parents and two adult sisters had encouraged the breakup. Over several months, he sent them a large volume of emails and texts, many of them insulting and profane, despite repeated requests to stop.
In October 2025, all four filed their own petitions, without lawyers, in the Madison County District Court. The court entered ex parte orders the same day, and according to his brief, the son requested hearings the next day. After hearings in November 2025, the court kept the orders in effect for one year as to the four adults. McCloud v. McCloud, Nos. A-25-941 through A-25-944 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2026) (memorandum opinion).
Here's what each family member showed:
His father testified that he received "hundreds" of emails, often between 2:00 and 5:00 a.m., after asking his son to stop multiple times. On one day alone, the son sent eight emails in about four hours, calling his father a "fraud" and a "disease," among other things. The father also described a May 2024 visit when his son poked him in the chest. Later that evening, the son struck the driver's-side window of the father's car with his forearm. The son disputed parts of that account, but the trial judge credited the father, and the appeals court gave weight to that credibility call.
His mother testified that she received anywhere from 10 to 30 texts a day blaming her for the breakup of his family. She also described a night when he confronted her at the family farm, where he had been staying, and she asked him to leave. She worried he could come onto the farm at any time. The appeals court found that fear reasonable given his past conduct and the steady stream of messages.
One sister submitted 32 pages of emails and texts spanning about ten months, full of insults. Some messages suggested her minor children had "a right to know" crude claims about her past. She had blocked him, but his emails kept arriving in her spam folder. He never actually contacted her children, but the court concluded these messages could reasonably be construed as threats to reveal intimate information to third parties.
The other sister said she once woke up to more than 300 texts. She also submitted a log of more than 100 emails sent since December 2024. She reported that her brother told her, "You took my kids from me, I should take yours from you." The court concluded that those comments, combined with the sheer volume of messages, would make a reasonable person feel seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated.
Two details are easy to miss.
First, the trial court did not continue protection for the sisters' minor children. It found the evidence as to the children insufficient.
Second, the father's ex parte order was originally a domestic abuse protection order, but after the hearing the court entered a harassment protection order instead. The opinion doesn't explain every step behind that change. The Protection Orders Act allows a court to treat a petition for one type of order as a petition for another when the evidence supports it, if the court makes specific findings or the petitioner asks. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 26-107.
Due process still applies. A respondent must be notified of the grounds on which a protection order is sought and given an opportunity to respond to those grounds at the show-cause hearing. D.W. v. A.G., 303 Neb. 42, 50, 926 N.W.2d 651, 657 (2019).
How much weight McCloud carries
McCloud is a memorandum opinion that the Court of Appeals did not designate for permanent publication. The opinion itself states that it may not be cited except as provided by Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-102(E). It shows how one appellate panel applied Nebraska law to these facts, not a rule that binds other courts. Recent decisions can also be affected by later proceedings, such as a petition for further review.
Why the number of messages wasn't the whole story
The son relied on Diedra T. There, the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed "that a certain number of texts or calls does not in itself constitute harassment under § 28-311.02." 313 Neb. at 424, 984 N.W.2d at 320.
The Court of Appeals didn't read that as making volume irrelevant. It said frequency can be considered "along with the content of the communications and the surrounding circumstances."
Across the four cases, these were the factors doing the work:
Volume and pace. Hundreds of messages, sometimes only minutes apart.
Timing. Messages arriving in the middle of the night.
Content. Profanity and personal attacks rather than discussion of an actual issue.
Ignored boundaries. Repeated requests to stop, and a block that didn't stop the emails.
Non-physical threats. Threats involving the recipients' children.
History. A prior physical incident with the father and an in-person confrontation with the mother.
The court weighed these together. It didn't suggest that any one of them, standing alone, would have been enough. A different set of facts in front of a different judge could come out differently.
Threats don't have to be about physical violence
In Diedra T., the Nebraska Supreme Court explained that § 28-311.02 "is not limited to threats of physical violence." 313 Neb. at 425. In that case, a threat to expose information about the petitioner to her employer counted. The court focused on how the respondent used the information against the petitioner, not on whether the information was true. Id. at 426.
McCloud applied similar reasoning to messages involving the recipient's children. Telling a mother her kids had "a right to know" crude claims about her past could reasonably be construed as a threat to reveal intimate information to third parties.
That doesn't make every unpleasant message about family business a threat. These cases are fact-specific. The question is still whether the conduct would seriously terrify, threaten, or intimidate a reasonable person, given everything else going on.
The "no legitimate purpose" requirement
Even a persistent, upsetting course of conduct isn't harassment under the statute if it serves a legitimate purpose. The Nebraska Supreme Court has described a two-part inquiry: "(1) whether the actor genuinely holds a justifiable purpose for engaging in the course of conduct and (2) whether the course of conduct is in logical service of such purpose under the circumstances." Flinn, 320 Neb. at 821.
In Flinn itself, the court dismissed the appeals as moot. It did not decide whether the conduct in that case lacked a legitimate purpose. Id.
In McCloud, the son argued his messages were meant to stop his family from interfering in his marriage. The court assumed, for the sake of argument, that this could be a justifiable purpose. Even so, it concluded the messages weren't in logical service of that purpose. Most of them didn't concern his wife or children at all; they were insults, profanity, and threats.
For people with a real reason to stay in contact, such as co-parents coordinating exchanges, the second question matters. A legitimate reason to communicate may not cover messages that stop serving that reason. And if a protection order is already in place, don't assume a parenting plan permits contact the protection order prohibits. Get advice about your specific orders.
The procedural lesson: a same-day request for more time is risky
The son requested show-cause hearings on October 22, 2025, and the hearings took place on November 13, 22 days later. At the start of the first hearing, he told the judge he had hired a lawyer who couldn't be there. He said the lawyer had asked him to request an extension until January.
The judge treated that as a motion to continue, found no good cause, and denied it. The judge explained that protection-order cases are designed to move quickly.
Protection-order petitions are filed with the clerk of the district court. The case is treated as a district court proceeding even when a county court judge hears it. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 26-106(1), 25-2740(2).
Looking at the circumstances as a whole, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion. Several facts mattered:
No written motion. Nebraska's continuance statute for district court requires the request to be made "by written motion" that sets out the grounds and is supported by affidavit. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1148. The court noted that an oral request doesn't comply, but it treated compliance as one relevant factor rather than the whole answer.
No lawyer on file. The record didn't show that any attorney had filed an appearance before the hearings.
Notice and an opportunity to be heard. He didn't dispute that he had notice of the hearings. He testified and responded to each petitioner, and the petitioners were also unrepresented. The court said it was unaware of any statutory or constitutional provision that categorically requires counsel in protection-order proceedings.
Timing. He had more than three weeks and waited until the hearing itself to ask. The court said that apparent lack of diligence "weighs heavily against the grant of a continuance."
The takeaway isn't that a hearing-day request can never succeed. It's that a lawyer's absence doesn't create an automatic right to a delay. A request made without a written motion, an appearance, or a supporting affidavit leaves everything to the judge's discretion. If you've hired a lawyer, make sure they appear promptly, and raise any need for more time in writing, with a supporting affidavit, as early as possible.
Which kind of protection order fits?
Nebraska's Protection Orders Act covers three main types of orders. The right one depends on what happened, not just on who the other person is.
Harassment protection order (§ 26-104). Available to "any victim who has been harassed," with no particular relationship required. The court can order the respondent not to restrain, harass, threaten, assault, molest, attack, or otherwise disturb the peace of the petitioner. It can also order no contact or communication with the petitioner, plus other relief the court finds necessary for the petitioner's safety and welfare. The statute does not list temporary custody of children as available relief.
Domestic abuse protection order (§ 26-103). For "abuse" between family or household members. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-903(1). Abuse includes:
attempting to cause, or intentionally and knowingly causing, bodily injury;
placing someone in fear of bodily injury through a credible threat, meaning a threat made by someone with the apparent ability to carry it out, so that the target reasonably fears for their own safety or their family's safety;
sexual contact or penetration without consent.
The available relief is broader. It can include removing the respondent from the petitioner's residence and awarding the petitioner temporary custody of minor children for up to 90 days. § 26-103(2)(f).
Sexual assault protection order (§ 26-105). For victims of a sexual assault offense, as the Act defines it. The available relief is similar to that of a harassment order.
"Family or household members" is broad. § 42-903(3). It includes:
spouses and former spouses;
children;
people who live or have lived together;
people who share a child;
people in a dating relationship;
"other persons related by consanguinity or affinity," meaning relatives by blood or marriage.
So the parents and sisters in McCloud were family members under that definition. Their cases centered on a pattern of hostile communication, which is what the harassment statute addresses.
What to gather if you're receiving unwanted messages
If you're considering a harassment protection order, organized evidence makes it easier for a judge to see the pattern. Consider gathering:
Complete message threads, not cropped screenshots, showing the sender's number or address and the date and time of each message.
A simple log: date, time, method (text, email, call, social media), and a one-line summary.
Your requests to stop, and when you blocked the person.
Messages that came through anyway, such as emails landing in spam or texts from new numbers.
The most recent incident and the most severe incident. The petition asks for both.
Any in-person incidents, the names of anyone who saw them, and any calls to law enforcement.
If you want your children protected by the order, evidence about how the conduct was directed at them or affected them specifically. In McCloud, the court did not continue protection for the sisters' children because it found the evidence as to the children insufficient.
At a hearing on a protection order, the petition and affidavit are deemed offered into evidence. They are admitted unless the court specifically excludes them. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 26-112(1).
The statute doesn't list attachments separately. The McCloud judge received the applications and attachments on the court's own motion, but don't count on attachments speaking for themselves. Bring organized copies and be prepared to explain them under oath.
If you are in immediate danger, call 911.
What to expect if you've been served with an ex parte order
Being served with a protection order you think is unfair is stressful. A few things matter right away:
Follow it immediately, even if you disagree with it. Don't text, email, call, or message the person, and don't try to reach them through friends or family. Don't assume a parenting order allows contact the protection order prohibits. Knowingly violating a harassment protection order after service or notice as the statute describes is a crime. It is a Class II misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class I misdemeanor after that. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 26-118(1), (3).
Act quickly on the hearing request. A respondent served with a temporary ex parte order generally has ten business days after service to return the hearing-request form to the clerk of the district court. § 26-109(3). The statute also lists the circumstances in which a temporary ex parte order is affirmed and deemed the final order, including when no timely hearing request is made. § 26-109(5). Read the order and the service papers right away.
Expect a fast timeline. Once the court receives a timely hearing request, or a request from the petitioner, it must schedule a show-cause hearing "to be held within thirty days" after receiving that request. § 26-109(4).
Bring in a lawyer early. If you want representation, hire counsel promptly so they can appear and, if needed, file a written motion to continue with a supporting affidavit.
Be prepared to explain your messages honestly. If they were about something real, be ready to show how they served that purpose, and be realistic about how they read to someone else.
Questions to ask a Nebraska lawyer
Whether you're asking for an order or responding to one, these questions can make a consultation more productive:
Which type of protection order fits my facts, if any?
What evidence matters most, and how should I organize it for the hearing?
Should my children be included, and what would I need to show?
How would a protection order interact with our parenting plan or a pending divorce, paternity, or custody case?
What exactly does my order permit and prohibit, including for child exchanges?
What should I do if the other person keeps contacting me, or if I'm accused of violating the order?
When family conflict is driving the messages
McCloud is a reminder that a marriage ending rarely affects only the two spouses. Parents, siblings, and in-laws can get pulled in, and conflict that starts over a breakup can become a court case of its own.
For our divorce and custody clients, Zachary W. Anderson Law offers in-house divorce and co-parenting coaching as part of our services, at no additional fee. Coaching is a resource for the communication side of a separation. It doesn't replace legal advice, counseling, or any action needed to address a safety concern.
If you're dealing with unwanted contact or have been served with a protection order, talk with a Nebraska lawyer promptly about your specific situation.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get a harassment protection order in Nebraska if there was never any physical violence?
Possibly. The Nebraska Supreme Court has said § 28-311.02 is not limited to threats of physical violence. In Diedra T., a threat to expose information to the petitioner's employer was treated as a threat. Every case is fact-specific, and physical history can still matter: in McCloud, a prior physical incident helped show why the father's fear was reasonable.
How many texts or emails does it take?
There's no set number. A course of conduct requires at least two separate acts of harassment, and the Nebraska Supreme Court has said a certain number of texts or calls doesn't, by itself, amount to harassment. Courts look at volume together with timing, content, requests to stop, threats, and the history between the people involved.
Does it hurt my case that I blocked the person, or unblocked them later?
Not necessarily. In McCloud, family members blocked the son at times, and some unblocked him out of concern for his well-being. The court still found harassment. Messages that come through anyway, like emails landing in spam, can help show the pattern.
What if the messages are about something real, like our kids?
Whether the conduct served a legitimate purpose is part of the harassment analysis. Courts ask whether the sender genuinely had a justifiable purpose and whether the messages were in logical service of it. Messages that stick to a real issue may look different from insults or threats, but no topic or tone is a guaranteed safe harbor. If you share children with the other person, get advice about how any protection order and your parenting orders fit together.
I was served with an ex parte harassment order. How long do I have to ask for a hearing?
A respondent served with a temporary ex parte order generally has ten business days after service to return the hearing-request form to the clerk of the district court. If no timely hearing is requested, the temporary order can be affirmed and deemed the final order. Read the order and service papers immediately, because the deadline is short.
Can I get the hearing postponed?
Possibly, but it's up to the judge. Nebraska's continuance statute calls for a written motion supported by an affidavit in district court cases. In McCloud, the appeals court upheld the denial of an oral request made at the hearing, based on all the circumstances. If you need more time, raise it in writing as early as possible.
Can a harassment protection order decide custody or parenting time?
The harassment-order statute doesn't list temporary custody as available relief, and a harassment order doesn't resolve parenting rights. A domestic abuse protection order can award temporary custody for up to 90 days. Longer-term custody and parenting-time decisions generally belong in a custody, paternity, or divorce case. If both kinds of orders exist, follow the protection order's terms and get advice before assuming a parenting plan allows contact.
How long does a harassment protection order last?
A protection order may be issued for an initial period of at least one year and no more than two years, set by the court based on the evidence. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 26-110(1). A petitioner may seek renewal by filing a petition and affidavit within the 45 days before expiration, including the expiration date. § 26-111. Renewal requires court action, and a renewed order generally runs for one year.
What happens if someone violates a harassment protection order?
Knowingly violating a protection order after service or notice as the statute describes is a crime. For a harassment protection order, it's a Class II misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class I misdemeanor for a second or later offense. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 26-118(1), (3). If an order is being violated, contact law enforcement and keep a record of each violation.
Educational disclaimer
This article is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws, court rules, and court decisions change, and this post may not reflect the most current law or recent changes to it. Every case depends on its own facts, the court hearing it, and local practice, and no particular result is promised. This article cannot tell you what an existing order permits or requires in your case. Follow the orders and notices you receive. If you are in immediate danger, call 911. Reading this article or contacting Zachary W. Anderson Law does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not guarantee representation.