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 Petitioner-Appellant, Mark Minteer, appealing the district court's decision to deny his request to set aside a restraining order against him. The restraining order was initially entered by Judge Gerard J. Lavelle, who had previously served as the child's guardian ad litem before becoming a judge. The Petitioner argued that this prior role should have necessitated Judge Lavelle's recusal from reviewing and entering the temporary orders of protection.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that Judge Lavelle should have recused himself due to his previous involvement as the child's guardian ad litem, claimed bias or prejudice due to the judge's prior role, and contended that his right to due process was violated as he was denied the opportunity to present evidence. Additionally, the Petitioner argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed an act of domestic abuse.
• Respondent: The summary does not provide specific arguments made by the Respondent, Diane Sudlow.

Legal Issues

• Whether Judge Lavelle should have recused himself from reviewing and entering the temporary orders of protection due to his previous role as the child's guardian ad litem.
• Whether the Petitioner's right to due process was violated by denying him the opportunity to present evidence.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of domestic abuse.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that denied the Petitioner's request to set aside the restraining order.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge James J. Wechsler authoring the opinion and Judges Cynthia A. Fry and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, provided several reasons for affirming the district court's decision:
  Recusal: The Court found that the Petitioner did not preserve the issue of Judge Lavelle's recusal for appeal by failing to raise it below. Additionally, the Court determined that no actual bias or prejudice was shown that would necessitate recusal.
  Due Process: The Court disagreed with the Petitioner's claim that his right to due process was violated, noting that any failure to present evidence was due to the Petitioner's own actions rather than any prevention by the special commissioner. The Court also found that the district court had adequately reviewed the case, satisfying the hearing requirement.
  Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found that the testimony of the Respondent was sufficient to support a finding of domestic abuse, emphasizing that it is the fact-finder's prerogative to weigh evidence and determine credibility.
  The Court did not address issue four as the Petitioner did not provide any additional arguments regarding it.