Arhip v. Hunt
Appellant David Michael Hunt (Hunt), proceeding in propria persona, appeals from the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order against him after a contested hearing. He contends the trial court erred in granting respondent Serghei Arhip’s (Arhip) request for the restraining order because the trial court: (1) relied on conduct that does not legally constitute “abuse”; (2) considered evidence not properly filed or served on Hunt; (3) violated his right to equal protection of the law by holding him to a higher standard of evidence than that applied to Arhip; and (4) abused its discretion by imposing a restraining order that was overly restrictive.
Arhip has failed to file a respondent’s brief. Having considered the record below and the arguments raised by Hunt on appeal, we affirm the order.

Comments on Arhip v. Hunt

Post Reply

Search thread for Go ►

Download thread as textHTMLGo ►

• 0/5
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment: Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

Submit Advanced