2024 Abuse/Harassment

The extension of a harassment prevention order, 258E, is denied., on appeal that decision is overruled

An abuse prevention order, 209A, is denied, this is the appeal which upholds the denial

An abuse prevention order, 209A, is issued, then a mutual order is issued.

This appeal addresses the second abuse prevention order, and it is vacated

A harassment order is issued.  The pro-se defendant appeals but fails to make a professional appeal.   It is unclear if this order was properly issued 

A harassment order is issued, after an extension hearing the defendant appeals.  The appeal is filed too late to address the initial harassment order, therefore whether or not the initial request for the harassment prevention order is justified is not discussed.  The extension is limited to two years rather than the ten ordered

An individual is charged with a violent crime, and the issuance of an Abuse Prevention Order 209a follows.  When the defendant is found not guilty, they attempt to challenge the Abuse Prevention Order.  It is never made clear if there was justification for the Abuse Prevention Order, but the order is affirmed none the less

This is an appeal of an Abuse Prevention Order 209a, while it is generally easy to state the facts that justify such an order, the panel fails to do so here.  Although they do affirm the order, it is not made clear why

A harassment order is challenged, and it would be a good thing if the panel explained the justification for the order, but they didn't

Poorly written decision.

A Pro-Se litigant attempts to undo a 209a Abuse Prevention Order, however as the court goes to some length to show, since they did not follow the proper procedure, they fail.

Although the issue that the litigant attempts to raise is whether or not the 209a Abuse Prevention Order was justified, the panel chooses to ignore this issue and not explain whether the it was

Poorly written decision.

At issue is whether or not a 209a denied in one jurisdiction could then be reconsidered in another jurisdiction, effectively may an individual forum shop until they get their desired result.

The simple question of whether or not there was a base for a 209a order is not made clear in this opinion

The extension of an Abuse Prevention order is affirmed.

The extension of an Abuse Prevention order is affirmed.

The extension of an Abuse Prevention order is affirmed.

A judge fails to extend a 209a abuse prevention order, because a restraining order related to a criminal matter already existed.  The panel concludes that the plaintiff has a right to a 209a order as well

 An Abuse Prevention order is made permanent, and affirmed.

The extension of an Abuse Prevention order is affirmed.

This appears to be an appeal of the extension of a 209a order.  It is never stated why the order was issued, much of the opinion has to do with other rulings made by the court, but it is seldom made clear what is being appealled and why.

The extension of an Abuse Prevention order is affirmed.

The extension of a Harassment Prevention order is affirmed.

The extension of a Harassment Prevention order is affirmed.

Expungement of the state's record is denied where a vacated harassment order was not obtained through fraud

The extension of a Harassment Prevention order is affirmed, again.

The extension of a Harassment Prevention order is vacated once the underlying order is vacated

A judge holds and extension hearing for a 209a order, eventually deciding to not extend the order.   

The standard for extending a 209a order is pretty low, so the case is remanded to get the order extended

An exparte 209A order is issued but not extended.   It is claimed that there was a reason for the exparte order,  but no explanation is given

Harassment order that is vacated

In this appeal sufficient behavior was alleged that could result in the issuance of the abuse prevention order

This appeal is hard to follow, but it appears sufficient behavior was alleged that could result in the issuance of the abuse prevention order

A Harassment Prevention is entered, the defendant fails to make a timely appeal, when the order is extended, this appeal is filed.  Why the order was first issued is not made clear

An Abuse Prevention order is vacated

An Abuse Prevention order is affirmed

The extension of an Abuse Prevention Order is challenged on a procedural basis, but it is upheld

An Abuse Prevention order is made permanent

Harassment order that is remanded

A bizarre case, a judge chooses to not issue a 209A restraining order and this appeal is started.  Since there were no written findings it is difficult to determine why the restraining order did not issue.  Part of the problem with this case is what in fact happened at the hearing.  Although the panel had the transcript of the hearing the lawyer arguing the case misrepresents what occurred at the hearing for the 209a, they are corrected on at least two occasions.  At issue is what the judge found the facts  to be, and without written findings it is difficult to determine that.  Although the Appeals Court claims they do not disturb the findings of lower courts, unless clearly wrong, in this case they do exactly that.  Rather than remanding the case and requesting written findings of fact, the court orders the lower court to issue a 209a restraining order.

A 258E Harassment Prevention Order is issued, while there could be a reason for it being issued, this poorly written makes little effort to explain why.  At no point is it made clear what relationship if any existed between the two parties.  The panel points to the poorly written brief as a basis for affirming the lower court, however responding with its own poorly written opinion does not help matters