California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

Malatka v. Helm, H032417

Trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dissolve an order restraining her from verbally harassing her neighbor and the neighbor's husband is affirmed where: 1) to the extent the current appeal from an order implicitly refusing to dissolve a restraining order presents issues that could have been raised in an appeal from the original restraining order, those issues are not reviewable in this appeal; 2) because the alleged evidentiary error by the trial court in refusing to consider the declarations of defendant's witnesses as defense evidence at the hearing could have been raised in an appeal from an earlier order, it is not reviewable on appeal from the later order implicitly denying the request to dissolve the restraining order; 3) defendant's claim that the trial court erred in denying a motion to strike the testimony of a witness because the witness did not appear for further cross-examination on the date of the continued hearing is without merit; and 4) defendant's request to reverse the judgment is denied as her appeal has become moot.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 09/29/2010
  • Published 09/29/2010

Judges

  • RUSHING

Court

  • California Court of Appeal

Counsel

Copied to clipboard