2022 Abuse/Harassment

258e Harassment order, affirmed

258e Harassment order, is vacated

258e Harassment order, is vacated

209a restraining order, is vacated

A business deal that goes sour results in one person making a habit of spitting on the other's property, and this appears to be during the age of COVID.  A harassment order is the result.

It does not appear there was a basis for issuing a 209a restraining order based on what is stated in this decision.  It also appears there was no hearing for this appeal, simply put the panel is not doing their job and simply mailing it in.

It appears the testimony supported the issuance of a 209a restraining order

Permanent harassment Order affirmed, however it is one of the worst hearings that I have listened to.  One member of the panel is an absolute bully.  

The record of the hearing was not produced, it is stated that there was no recording available.  In this day there is absolutely no excuse for this happening and the court should should accept responsibility for its shortcomings.  

While the panel may be correct that according to procedure there is an alternative way for creating the record, it does not excuse the behavior of the lower court not having a recording of the hearing.

Harassment Order affirmed

Restraining Order, troubling case.  There are allegations of mental illness by both parties.  It appears that this case was not heard by the panel, which does not enhance the conclusion

Harassment Order affirmed

Harassment Order affirmed

Abuse Prevention Order, although it is unclear that there is a legal basis for the order, it does appear that it may have been a good idea

Abuse Prevention Order renewal, it is unclear whether or not the order should have been issued, but it was renewed

Abuse Prevention Order renewal, it is unclear whether or not the order should have been issued, but it was renewed

Abuse Prevention Order made permanent although a permanent order was not asked for

Harassment Order affirmed

This is an abuse prevention order.  The appeal is messy because the recording of the hearing was incomplete, an inexcusable failing on the part of the court in this day and age.  Whether the order should have been issued is a judgement call, and the call was to issue the order

Not a well argued case, and the panel appears to be aware of that, however the facts needed to issue a 209a restraining order do not appear to be present.

T.E. vs. S.B.  McCabe 

Neyman, Singh, Grant 

Harassment Order affirmed

The plaintiff wants a permanent restraining order, but only gets an extension

A 258e harassment order was obtained against the appellant, on appeal it is vacated

A 258e harassment order was obtained against the appellant, on appeal it is vacated

Interesting Case,  there were a number of procedural errors that were corrected and then the order was affirmed

Not a well written decision, it is somewhat meandering, but the 209a restraining order was upheld

A 258e harassment order was obtained against the appellant, on appeal it is affirmed

A 258e harassment order was obtained against the appellant, on appeal it is vacated

A 209a harassment order was obtained against the appellant, on appeal it is vacated

The appellant had applied for a 209a restraining order and was denied, on appeal the panel affirms the denial

An appeal of a harassment order by a pro se litigant, it does not appear that the appeal was properly presented, so the underlying order is affirmed

It doesn't appear that there was any reason for this 209a restraining order.  It does appear that this court is attempting to expand the definition when 209a orders may be issued, they should instead follow the law and not try to make it up.