AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves an appeal by the Respondent against an order of protection. The Respondent, representing themselves, disputes the occurrence of abuse and contends that the district court should have accepted their version of events. Additionally, the Respondent suggests they were the victim of a conspiracy. The Petitioner had previously moved to terminate the order of protection, which was granted by the district court in October 2019 (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argues that the abuse did not occur, the district court should have believed their version of events, and suggests being a victim of a conspiracy (para 2).
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not believing the Respondent’s version of events regarding the alleged abuse.
• Whether the termination of the order of protection affects the mootness of the appeal.

Disposition

• The appeal from the order of protection is affirmed (para 3).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, J. Miles Hanisee, and Zachary A. Ives, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. The Court deferred to the district court's role as fact-finder in resolving issues of credibility and determining the facts of the case. It was noted that appellate courts do not re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses or resolve conflicts in evidence. The Respondent's argument regarding being a victim of a conspiracy was also considered a matter for the fact-finder. Furthermore, the Court found that the termination of the order of protection by the district court in October 2019 supported the conclusion that the appeal was moot. The Respondent's memorandum in opposition did not successfully demonstrate any errors in fact or law that would persuade the Court to alter its proposed disposition (paras 1-3).