Judgments: Injunction: Appeal and Error. A
protection order is analogous to an injunction. Accordingly,
the grant or denial of a protection order is reviewed de novo
on the record.
___: ___. In a de novo review of a protection order, an
appellate court reaches conclusions independent of the
factual findings of the trial court. However, where the
credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact,
the appellate court considers and may give weight to the
circumstances that the trial judge heard and observed the
witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than
Statutes: Appeal and Error. Appellate courts
give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning and
will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of
statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.
from the District Court for Merrick County: Rachel A.
Daugherty, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Charles R. Maser for appellant.
A. Clark, of Clark & Curry, P.C., for appellees.
Chief Judge, and Bishop and Arterburn, Judges.
Neb.App. 158] Moore, Chief Judge.
D. Hahn appeals from harassment protection orders entered by
the district court for Merrick County finding that the ex
parte harassment orders entered against Hahn for the
protection of Abbie Knopik and Lance Greenwood are to remain
in effect until October 26 and November 3, 2017.
respectively. Hahn argues insufficient evidence was provided
to support issuance of the protection orders. Specifically,
Hahn argues his actions did not amount to a course of
harassing conduct, a statutory requirement for issuance of
harassment protection orders. Finding no such course of
conduct, we reverse, and remand with directions to vacate the
harassment protection orders.
October 26, 2016, Knopik filed a "Petition and Affidavit
to Obtain Harassment Protection Order" pursuant to Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 28-311.09 (Reissue 2016) against Hahn. This
petition was also made on behalf of Knopik's 4-year-old
son. On November 3, Greenwood filed a "Petition and
Affidavit to Obtain Harassment Protection Order"
pursuant to § 28-311.09 against Hahn, arising from the
same incident. Greenwood is the fiance of Knopik. Included in
both affidavits were descriptions of the alleged harassment
that inspired the protection order requests. The incident
occurred on October 14, in front of a residence shared by
Knopik and Greenwood.
same day as the petitions were filed, the court entered ex
parte harassment protection orders. The order regarding
Knopik also applied to her son. Hahn filed requests for a
hearing on the respective protection orders.
combined evidentiary hearing on both petitions was held on
November 14, 2016. Knopik and Greenwood each testified during
the hearing. Hahn did not provide testimony or any ...