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

• Two individuals initiated a legal action against three defendants, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The case involved issues that required the examination of survey maps, orders from the district court, and photographs as part of the evidence. The defendants, representing themselves, appealed the district court's decision which was in favor of the plaintiffs.

Procedural History

• District Court of Mora County, John M. Paternoster, District Judge: Entered a final judgment on the merits, granting injunctive and declaratory relief to the plaintiffs.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellees: Argued for injunctive and declaratory relief against the defendants. Specific arguments are not detailed in the decision.
• Defendants-Appellants: Representing themselves, appealed the district court's decision. Their docketing statement lacked an intelligible statement of issues and failed to indicate how the issues were preserved at trial. Their memorandum in opposition did not rectify these deficiencies.

Legal Issues

• (N/A)

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision granting injunctive and declaratory relief to the plaintiffs.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the district court's decision due to the appellants' failure to provide an adequate record for review. The appellants' docketing statement did not conform to appellate procedure rules, lacking a clear statement of issues and how those issues were preserved during the trial. Despite being informed of these deficiencies and given the opportunity to correct them in a memorandum in opposition, the appellants failed to provide the necessary information. The court noted that pro se litigants are required to comply with court rules and orders and will not be treated differently from those with legal representation. Given the insufficient information to review the appellants' issues, the court presumed the correctness and regularity of the trial court's decision and affirmed it.