Embedded Files
T. M. vs. S. A. Hogan
A plaintiff gets an extension of a restraining order, but after witnesses are heard on the matter it is vacated
A defendant challenges the ex parte hearing rather than the following hearing that he attended, therefore the restraining order is affirmed
L. R. vs. E. L. Swan
A defendant tries to vacate a permanent restraining order because they learned the difficulties it presented to them and they had not interacted with the plaintiff in over ten years, unfortunately their is little forgiveness when it comes to restraining orders
A.C. vs. J.C. Swan
A defendant tries to vacate a restraining order, however the reason for issuing it is supported by the testimony of the plaintiff.
The defendant of a 209a restraining order, argues that there was no imminent fear since the last physical altercation happened some 18 months before the order was applied for. Its hard to argue that the defendant is incorrect, but they do not prevail
Harassment order affirmed
D.C. vs. D.M. Gardner
Harassment order vacated
Although there does not appear to be any legitimate reason for this 209a restraining order, it is none the less affirmed
J.M. vs. J.W. White
Harassment order vacated
G.B vs. C.A Leoney
An incredibly bizarre tale. A plaintiff seeks an abuse prevention order on four separate occasions they were denied the first three times, but the fourth was the charm. The allegations were pretty much the same each time.
209a abuse prevention order is remanded
M.G. vs. G.A. Yee
A 209a restraining order does not issue. The plaintiff was applying for one based on the third factor available:
causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress.
Although the lower court did not find that the evidence supported this, the panel remands the case for further consideration
A.L. vs. C.D. Goggins
It does not appear that there was a legitimate reason for this 209a restraining order, however there is a process to address this and the defendant does not follow it
C.F.M. vs. J.E. Sullivan
The plaintiff applied for a 209a restraining order, but got a harassment order instead. Although the order is upheld it is acknowledged that it is a mess
A 209a restraining order is issued, upon review it is vacated
The defendant alleges a 209a is unconstitutional. The court does not take kindly to such an ascertain. The panel points out that the law has been found to be constitutional, and then ignores the rest of the complaint.
J.S. vs. N.A. Nestor
A request for a harassment order is denied
A.R. vs. L.C. White
A harassment order is remanded for clarification
C.O. vs. D.S. Coyne
A harassment order it is vacated
A harassment order affirmed
C.C. vs. C.C. Doyle
It is hard to tell how the plaintiff was able to argue the imminent requirement to obtain a 209a restraining order
F.W.T. vs. F.T. Sullivan
A harassment order it is vacated
M.M. vs. J.M. Haley
A harassment affirmed
L.H. vs. L.H. Kelly
A harassment order it is vacated
A 209a abuse prevention form. While there may have been a reason for this order, those reasons are not included in this opinion
L.G. vs. A.I. Mori
A 209a abuse prevention form. While there may have been a reason for this order, those reasons are not included in this opinion
C.P. vs. D.F. Calagione
The plaintiff gets a 209a restraining order against the person she is living with (its there house). While there is no question that the defendant behaved poorly it does not appear that they did anything to justify the order.
Harassment Order Affirmed
C.E.M. vs. J.A.L. Contant
A 209a order is issued, based on the facts detailed in this opinion it does not appear that there was a basis for the restraining order. Although there an incidence of violence alleged it was two years before the issuance of a restraining order, so whatever fear it may have generated, it was not imminent. Although the defendant uses colorful language it does not appear that there were any threats of violence against the plaintiff.
A 209a order is issued, based on the facts detailed in this opinion it does not appear that there was a basis for the restraining order.
L.D. vs. C.H. Singleton
A 209a order is issued and renewed, it is never clearly stated what the basis for issuing the restraining, although one may assume that the criminal charges that were brought were the basis of the order. The not guilty verdict that was a result of the charges does not necessarily provide a basis for vacating the order, one cannot tell from the facts presented in this opinion
K.O. vs. J.S. Hogan
A 209a restraining does not issue, although it could have if the judge chose to.
209a restraining orders are issued against both people. One person appeals so their restraining order is vacated
A.K. vs. G.B. Coven
Harassment Order, affirmed
D. R. vs. D.A. Ward
This opinion claims there were sufficient facts for this 209a restraining order, but does not state what these facts were.
A.H. vs. D.C. Flynn
It's hard to tell from this opinion, whether or not the 209a restraining order should have been listed.
H.D. vs. X.Z. Thomas
A 209a restraining order includes the plaintiffs child, and is therefore remanded
Page updated
Report abuse