Loeffler v. Medina (2009)

July 18, 2009

A respondent seeking modification or termination of a DVRO bears the burden of proof to justify the change; Trial court did not err in rejecting respondent's request to terminate the RO; Rejecting arguments to terminate RO to "serve the ends of justice" based on respondent's desire to carry weapons as a volunteer law enforcement officer (was still hypothetical, respondent had not tried to volunteer yet) and to make it easier to find construction jobs (respondent presented no evidence that RO affected his work prospects); Attorney fees were awarded to petitioner under DVPA, not as a sanction

Courts & Hearings
Restraining Orders

Was this resource helpful?

Thanks for your feedback!