Flattum-Riemers v. Peters-Riemers
Roland C. Flattum-Riemers, Petitioner, Appellant
Jenese A. Peters-Riemers, Respondent, Appellee
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Lawrence E. Jahnke
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
|Term:||04/2001  Argument: 04/03/2001|
|ND cite:||2001 ND 121|
630 N.W.2d 71
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Did the trial court abuse it's discretion and violated the Rules of Procedure and Petitioner's Due Process rights by allowing the submission of Respondents Pleadings less then 24 hours before the hearing?
II. Did the trial court error and deny Petitioner his Due Process rights by not allowing the Petitioner to obtain witnesses to rebut Respondent's tardy Pleadings and testimony?
III. Did the trial court error by not making specific findings of fact on domestic abuse.?
IV. Did the trial court error in its view of the law, believing that domestic abuse had to be recent in order to be considered for a protection order and effectively excluded evidence of Respondent's threats with guns and knifes before14th of March 2000?
V. Did the trial court error by ruling that Petitioner's failure to previously stop living with Respondent and his willingness to meet with Respondent for child visitations demonstrated he had no real fear of her?
VI. Did the trail court error in not ruling on Petitioner's motion to hold Respondent in contempt for lying in court?
VII. Did the trial court error and abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner a Protection Order?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. The Trial Court did not Abuse its Discretion by Allowing Jenese to File her Responsive Affidavit Less Than 24 Hours Prior to the Hearing
B. The Trial Court did not err and Deny Roland Due Process by not Allowing him a Continuance to Rebut Jenese's Affidavit and Testimony
C. The Trial Court did not err in Failing to Make Specific Findings of Fact on Domestic Abuse
D. The Trial Court did not err in not Ruling on Roland's Impromptu Contempt Motion
E.The Trial Court did not err in Denying Roland's Protection Order
|Add Docket 20000349 RSS|
|1||12/15/2000 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/13/2000|
|2||12/26/2000 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL|
|3||12/21/2000 Letter from Roland Riemers dated 12-18-00 asking if a filing fee is required as appeal is a denial|
|4||12/21/2000 of a protection order under N.D.C.C. 14-07.1|
|5||01/09/2001 RECORD ON APPEAL|
|6||01/09/2001 TRANSCRIPT DATED September 19, 2000|
|7||01/10/2001 DISK - TRA (9-19-00)|
|8||02/12/2001 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|9||02/12/2001 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|10||02/13/2001 DISK - atb|
|11||03/09/2001 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|12||03/09/2001 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|13||03/12/2001 DISK - AEB|
|14||03/27/2001 Request for waiver of oral argument (faxed letter from Michael L. Gjesdahl dated 3-27-01 & copy of|
|15||03/27/2001 e-mail message to Mr. Gjesdahl from Mr. Riemers dated 3-23-01 & Mr. Riemers' E-mail response)|
|16||03/27/2001 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Waiver of oral argument - AT/AE). Granted|
|17||03/28/2001 Original of Request for Waiver of oral argument dated 3-27-01 w/cover letter|
|18||04/03/2001 APPEARANCES: submitted on brief|
|19||04/03/2001 ARGUED: submitted on brief (Vol. X; page 123)|
|20||07/10/2001 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|21||07/10/2001 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|22||07/10/2001 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|23||07/11/2001 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|24||07/16/2001 Notice of Entry of Judgment & Cert. of Service (judgment mailed to Roland Riemers 7/13/2001)|
|26||08/10/2007 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|27||07/16/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|