J.D. v. M.D.F.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
25 A.3d 1045 (2011)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Although they were never married, J.D. (plaintiff) and M.D.F. (defendant) lived together, had two children, and were in a committed relationship for approximately 13 years. The relationship subsequently deteriorated. Later, J.D. began a new relationship with another man, R.T. Early one morning, R.T. saw M.D.F. outside J.D.’s home in a vehicle, taking pictures. R.T. immediately notified J.D. As soon as R.T. pulled aside the curtain to permit J.D. to see M.D.F., M.D.F. drove away. J.D. filed a domestic-violence complaint against M.D.F. and requested that a temporary restraining order (TRO) be issued. In the complaint, J.D. listed only the single act of M.D.F. taking pictures outside J.D.’s residence in the early morning. The trial court granted the TRO and set a return date for a full hearing. At the hearing, J.D. testified consistently with her written petition and also mentioned several previous incidents of M.D.F. taking pictures and committing other harassing conduct. M.D.F. objected to the testimony regarding the prior incidents and requested additional time to prepare. The trial court denied M.D.F.’s request. M.D.F. testified that his taking of pictures was intended to build a case against J.D. for the custody of their two children. The trial court disagreed and entered a final restraining order against M.D.F. M.D.F. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hoens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.