http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A085459.PDF Joy Oriola wanted to take out a restraining order against Adam Thaler under California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). Did their four “social outings” amount to a “dating or engagement relationship,” as was required by the Act? And so the court defines “dating”: “It is a social relationship between two individuals who have or have had a reciprocally amorous and increasingly exclusive interest in one another, and shared expectation of the growth of that mutual interest, that has endured for such a length of time and stimulated such frequent interactions that the relationship cannot be deemed to have been casual.” Oriola lost her case. (She was able to, and did, obtain a conventional restraining order.)
Other interesting aspects of this opinion: a section on the history of dating in America (“The practice of ‘dating’ evolved in this nation during the 1920’s…”) and a footnote explaining why Thaler is seeking sanctions against Oriola and her attorney for serving him “in an unduly humiliating manner” (“Respondent was distraught and began to cry in front of his coworkers…”). 14:09