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 a dispute between two neighbors, where the plaintiff-appellant, Ana Washburn, sought a permanent restraining order against the defendant-appellee, Jerald Goodman. The contention arose from the issuance of "mutual" restraining orders by the district court, which also mandated that Washburn must maintain a distance of at least 500 yards from Goodman.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued against the "mutual" nature of the restraining orders and the requirement to stay 500 yards away from Goodman.
• Defendant-Appellee: Filed a memorandum in opposition to the appellant's arguments, although the specific content of the arguments is not detailed in the decision.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in issuing a "mutual" restraining order and requiring the plaintiff-appellant to stay at least 500 yards away from the defendant-appellee.
• Whether the district court exhibited bias against the plaintiff-appellant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to issue a "mutual" restraining order and the requirement for the plaintiff-appellant to stay 500 yards away from the defendant-appellee.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, found that the appellant, Ana Washburn, did not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in issuing a "mutal" restraining order and mandating a 500-yard distance to be maintained from Goodman. The appellate court presumed the correctness of the district court's decision and placed the burden on Washburn to clearly show error, which she failed to do (para 2). Furthermore, Washburn's claim of bias by the district court was not substantiated with sufficient evidence to warrant a reversal of the decision (para 2). Goodman's memorandum in opposition did not effectively counter the proposed disposition by the appellate court, as it did not specifically point out errors in fact or law, thus failing to meet the burden required to alter the proposed summary disposition (para 3). Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's orders for the reasons stated in their notice of proposed summary disposition and the memorandum opinion (para 4).