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 a district court's order of protection in favor of the Petitioner. The Respondent, acting pro se, challenges the order, alleging that the district court did not accept her arguments regarding the Petitioner's allegedly harassing conduct. The specifics of the events leading to the issuance of the protection order are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Challenges the district court's order of protection against her, arguing that the court did not accept her arguments about the Petitioner's allegedly harassing conduct. The Respondent also seems to raise new matters not presented in the district court, including complaints about false representations by the Petitioner and the court's rejection of her version of events (paras 2, 6-7).
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order of protection against the Respondent was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Whether the Respondent's new complaints raised on appeal were reviewable by the appellate court.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order of protection (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Timothy L. Garcia with concurrence from Chief Judge Roderick T. Kennedy and Judge James J. Wechsler, provided several reasons for affirming the district court's order. The Court noted that the Respondent, despite being pro se, is held to the same standards as members of the bar regarding compliance with court rules and procedures (para 2). The Respondent failed to clearly articulate her appellate issues and did not provide a concise and accurate summary of facts relevant to her appellate issues, as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (para 2). The Court also highlighted that it relies on the docketing statement as a substitute for a complete record of proceedings below and that the Respondent did not provide a summary of the evidence presented at the hearing, leading to a presumption in favor of the correctness of the district court's decision (paras 3-4). Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the Respondent raised new matters on appeal that were not presented to the trial court, which are not reviewable by the appellate court (para 6). The Court deferred to the district court's credibility determinations and weighing of the evidence, emphasizing that appellate courts do not decide the facts in a case (paras 7-8). Lastly, the Court noted that the Respondent's failure to provide complete information requested by the Court almost certainly resulted in the affirmance of the district court's order (para 9).