Free Newsletter
Harassment Restraining Orders Evidentiary Hearings
cassiejohnson//December 18, 2015
Appellant challenged the District Court’s order vacating an ex parte harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that the District Court erred by granting respondent’s rule 60.02 motion for an evidentiary hearing more than 45 days after the order was issued, and by determining that appellant failed to prove harassment. The Court of Appeals noted that there was no reason that rule 60.02 would not be available in the HRO setting, and held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by granting the motion. Affirmed.
A15-0610 Johnson v. Koski (Hennepin County)
Top News
- Mexican food trademark fight grinds on in federal court
- Target faces ‘non-drowsy’ meds suit
- Melodie Rose named president at Fredrikson
- Supreme Court lawyers have rituals of their own
- Minnesota artists consider what’s next in AI copyrights
- Defining ‘and’ in sentencing statute falls to Supreme Court
- Hashtag rates higher libel protection
- Court: Performance issues, not bias, prompted union to fire organizer
Expert Testimony
- Briefly: A chat with Supreme Court Commissioner Tim Droske
- Perspectives: Oral arguments at high court stir lively debates
- Quandaries & Quagmires: Advance waivers: Lessons from Paul Hastings vs. Coca Cola
- Perspectives: Recent cellphone ruling recalls high court cases
