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 the Defendant-Appellant, Kathleen Jacobson, appealing against the district court's issuance of a permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs-Appellees, Charlotte Conger and Sara B. Stuart. The Plaintiffs, who were inspectors at the Appellant's apartment, alleged actions by the Appellant that led to the court's decision. The Appellant, representing herself, contested the claims made by the Plaintiffs and argued against the court's reliance on what she considered false statements by the Plaintiffs (para 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellees: Argued that the Defendant-Appellant's actions warranted the issuance of a permanent injunction.
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court's decision was based on false statements made by the Plaintiffs, which she considered perjury. She also argued that she did not prevent the inspectors from leaving her property and raised concerns about her lack of legal representation in the matter (paras 2-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's issuance of a permanent injunction was supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the Appellant's right to counsel was violated in this civil proceeding.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's issuance of a permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs-Appellees (para 5).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge concurring, provided the reasoning for the decision. The Court addressed the Appellant's claims of perjury and credibility, stating that claims of perjury were not properly before the Court and that it does not assess credibility. The Court also noted that it was within the district court's purview to resolve conflicts in testimony and that substantial evidence supported the district court's decision. Regarding the Appellant's contention about needing legal representation, the Court clarified that the right to counsel applies only to criminal prosecutions, and thus, the Appellant was not entitled to appointed counsel in this civil matter (paras 2-4).