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 order that denied his motion to set aside a stipulated order of protection. The Respondent had argued that the district court made an error in quashing the subpoena of the Petitioner’s lawyer and contended that a hearing should have been held to determine whether he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the stipulation (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by quashing the subpoena of Petitioner’s lawyer and that the court should have conducted a hearing to ascertain if he knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the stipulated order of protection (para 2).
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in quashing the subpoena of the Petitioner’s lawyer.
• Whether the district court should have held a hearing to determine if the Respondent knowingly and voluntarily entered into the stipulated order of protection.

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the Respondent's motion to set aside the stipulated order of protection (para 3).

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, J. (BOGARDUS and IVES, JJ., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the Respondent's arguments against the district court's decision to quash the subpoena of the Petitioner’s lawyer and the lack of a hearing to determine the voluntariness of his agreement to the stipulation. The Court affirmed the district court's order for the reasons stated in their notice of proposed disposition, referencing the principle that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law (para 2).