- 94 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

Margaret L. Garrison, appellee, 

v. Logan M. Otto II, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 4, 2022. Nos. S-21-478, S-21-641.

1. Protection Orders: Appeal and Error. The grant or denial of a protection order is reviewed de novo on the record. In such de novo review, 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 another.

2. Protection Orders. Whether domestic abuse occurred is a threshold 

issue in determining whether an ex parte protection order should be 

affirmed.

3. ____. Absent abuse as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-903 (Cum. Supp. 

2020), a protection order may not remain in effect.

4. ____. The goal of domestic abuse protection orders is to protect victims 

of domestic abuse from further harm.

5. ____. In considering whether to continue an ex parte domestic abuse 

protection order following a finding that domestic abuse has occurred, a 

court is not limited to considering only whether the ex parte order was 

proper, but may also consider a number of factors pertinent to the likelihood of future harm.

6. ____. Factors in considering whether to continue an ex parte domestic 

abuse protection order following a finding that domestic abuse has 

occurred might include, but are not limited to, the remoteness, severity, 

nature, and frequency of past abuse; past or pending credible threats 

of harm; the psychological impact of domestic abuse; the potential 

impact on the parent-child relationship; and the nuances of household 

relationships.

7. Protection Orders: Statutes: Affidavits: Time. The statutory scheme 

does not impose any limitation on the time during which a victim of 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

03/24/2022 01:06 AM CDT
- 95 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

domestic abuse may file a petition and affidavit seeking a protection 

order subsequent to the abuse.

8. Protection Orders. The renewal of a protection order shares the same 

fundamental characteristics of the original protection order.

9. ____. The requisite past act of domestic abuse is necessarily found in 

relation to the underlying protection order and is not to be relitigated 

simply because the petitioner seeks a renewal of the order.

10. Actions: Appeal and Error. Principles of law of the case generally bar 

reconsideration of the same or similar issues at successive stages of the 

same suit or prosecution.

11. Protection Orders. A protection order upon renewal, just as at its inception, is oriented toward the future with the goal to protect victims of 

domestic abuse from further harm.

12. ____. The court at a hearing on a petition for renewal must reevaluate 

the likelihood of harm over the course of another year in which it would 

be in effect if the petition for renewal is granted.

13. ____. In determining if a contested renewal of the protection order 

is justified in light of the likelihood of future harm, the court considers factors similar to those applicable to the initial contested protection order.

14. ____. In determining if a contested renewal of the protection order is 

justified in light of the likelihood of future harm, the court considers all 

the surrounding circumstances, including the passage of time since the 

abuse that was found in relation to the original order and all the factors 

relating to its severity, nature, frequency, and impact.

15. ____. The court may consider, in determining whether to renew a protection order, whether any new domestic abuse has occurred during the 

period of the original protection order and its severity, nature, frequency, 

and impact.

16. ____. In determining the likelihood of future harm based on past domestic abuse, as well as on any abuse during the duration of the original 

protection order, the court may consider evidence of the relationship 

of the parties as demonstrated by their behavior both before and since 

the issuance of the original protection order and by their testimony at 

the hearing.

Appeals from the District Court for Lancaster County: Ryan 

S. Post, Judge. Appeal in No. S-21-478 dismissed. Judgment in 

No. S-21-641 affirmed.

Edith T. Peebles, of Brodkey, Cuddigan, Peebles, Belmont & 

Line, L.L.P., for appellant.
- 96 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

John W. Ballew, Jr., of Ballew Hazen, P.C., L.L.O., for 

appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Freudenberg, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

The respondent appeals the renewal of a domestic abuse 

protection order. He argues the evidence in this case was 

insufficient to support the court’s finding that renewal of the 

protection order was necessary to prevent future harm, when 

there was no further abuse or violation of the protection order. 

We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

This case involves the renewal, under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 42-924(3)(b) (Cum. Supp. 2020), of a domestic abuse protection order issued on March 18, 2020. The order was against 

Logan M. Otto II. The protected party was his former spouse, 

Margaret L. Garrison.

1. Underlying Order

The underlying domestic abuse protection order in this case 

was originally issued ex parte, upon a finding that Garrison had 

stated facts showing Otto attempted to cause, or intentionally, 

knowingly, or recklessly caused, bodily injury to Garrison; or 

that he had, by means of credible threat, placed Garrison in 

fear of bodily injury. Further, the court found it reasonably 

appeared from the specific facts included in the affidavit that 

Garrison would be in immediate danger of abuse before the 

matter could be heard on notice.

The petition and affidavit had described as the most recent 

and severe incident of abuse Otto’s actions occurring on 

February 26, 2020, in a parking lot after a court hearing involving a dispute between Garrison and Otto. Garrison averred that 

Otto was exiting the lot in his vehicle, when he sped up and 
- 97 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

swerved toward Garrison, who was walking with her husband 

to her car. Garrison described that she was almost hit, but that 

her husband grabbed her arm to remove her from the vehicle’s 

path. Attached photographs showed skid marks in the lot. The 

petition and affidavit also described, over the course of the 

preceding 7 years, other acts of violence, prior assault charges 

against Otto, and other protection orders against Otto.

Otto contested the ex parte order, and a hearing was held in 

which Otto claimed, among other things, that he did not know 

Garrison and her husband were in the lot on February 26, 

2020. Otto testified he had been driving slowly while on his 

cell phone and swerved away when he noticed two pedestrians, who ended up being Garrison and her husband. Otto also 

testified that the tire tracks in the photograph did not resemble 

tracks his tires could make.

The district court found from the credible evidence adduced 

that the March 18, 2020, order should be affirmed.

Otto appealed the district court’s decision affirming the 

March 18, 2020, ex parte domestic abuse protection order, 

arguing there was insufficient evidence of abuse or likelihood 

of future harm. In a two-paragraph opinion, we affirmed the 

district court’s decision. 1

2. Renewal

(a) Petition

On March 17, 2021, Garrison filed a petition and affidavit 

to renew the domestic abuse and protection order. Garrison 

averred that she and Otto have had ongoing proceedings in 

district court since 2009, stemming from their divorce. She 

generally asserted there was a long history of abuse by Otto 

of herself, their children, and her husband, as well as a violation by Otto of another harassment protection order in the past. 

Garrison averred that she feared for the safety of everyone in 

her household.

1 Garrison v. Otto, 308 Neb. 372, 953 N.W.2d 568 (2021).
- 98 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

(b) Ex Parte Order

The court issued an ex parte renewal of the ex parte domestic protection order, effective for 1 year from March 19, 2021. 

In so ordering, the court found that Garrison had stated facts 

showing Otto had attempted to cause, or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had caused, bodily injury to Garrison and 

by means of credible threat had placed her in fear of bodily 

injury. Further, the court found it reasonably appeared from the 

specific facts included in the affidavit that Garrison would be 

in immediate danger of abuse before the matter could be heard 

on notice.

(c) Hearing

Otto contested the ex parte renewal and requested a hearing. 

At the hearing, Garrison again gave her version of the incident 

in the parking lot, which occurred directly after a court hearing in which the court ruled Otto would not have his parenting 

time “renewed.” Garrison testified that she still felt her life was 

in danger from Otto.

Otto also testified at the hearing. He again denied trying to 

hit or scare Garrison with his vehicle. He presented pictures 

of the tires on the vehicle he was driving and asserted that the 

tracks in the photograph that had been submitted were not from 

his vehicle. He acknowledged he had presented this same evidence at the hearing on the original protection order.

Otto also generally testified that he had a positive relationship with his children and has historically tried to avoid 

interacting with Garrison. Otto testified that he has had 551 

days of parenting time suspended since October 2019, with the 

exception of his parenting time with his then 14-year-old son. 

During that time of suspended parenting time, he has had only 

limited visitation in public places with his other children, during which the youngest child misbehaved. Otto testified that 

his children’s behavior has deteriorated while his parenting 

time has been suspended.
- 99 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

Otto’s wife testified that Otto is very careful to avoid having 

any contact with Garrison at public sporting events the children 

participate in, which both they and Garrison attend.

(d) May 10, 2021, Order

In an order on May 10, 2021, the court affirmed the ex parte 

renewal of the domestic abuse protection order and ordered it 

remain in effect.

The court concluded that a violation of the initial order was 

not a prerequisite for a renewal, noting that no such requirement is found in the statutes and that it would undermine the 

goal of domestic abuse protection orders to protect victims of 

domestic abuse from further harm.

The court also concluded that although the remoteness of the 

past abuse is a matter for the court to consider, the occurrence 

of additional acts of abuse since the original protection order is 

not a legal prerequisite for its renewal.

Finally, the court concluded that the petitioner for a renewal 

of a domestic abuse protection order is not required at the 

hearing on renewal to reestablish the truth of all facts supporting the issuance of the initial order. Noting principles of 

the law-of-the-case doctrine, the court stated that a hearing on 

renewal “is not an opportunity to relitigate the initial protection 

order.” The petitioner must only establish, by a preponderance 

of the evidence, the truth of the facts supporting renewal. Once 

that burden is met, explained the court, the burden shifts to 

the respondent to show why the protection order should not 

be renewed.

The court took notice of the fact that it had already been 

determined that Garrison was a victim of domestic abuse under 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-903(1) (Cum. Supp. 2020). The court 

found that Garrison had established by a preponderance of the 

evidence the truth of the facts supporting renewal and that Otto 

did not show cause as to why the protection order should not 

be renewed.

More specifically, the court noted that the affidavit and 

Garrison’s testimony at the hearing provided the reasons she 
- 100 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

sought renewal, additional events since the initial protection 

order was issued, that there have been no material changes in 

relevant circumstances, she remains fearful of Otto and feels 

her life is still in danger, and she was not requesting a modification of the prior order. The court found Garrison’s testimony 

at the hearing was credible and showed she has a present fear 

of future harm due to the history and pattern of such abuse 

to date.

The court noted that Otto testified to numerous confrontations between Garrison and Otto over the last few years, but 

“despite the past conduct leading up to his testimony, future 

harm is unlikely and Garrison is trying to alienate him from 

his children.” The court generally observed that both parties 

took “detours” in their testimony into grievances from many 

years before and “squabbled” over matters pending before 

the court in other proceedings. The court stated that these 

detours showed that “the relevant circumstances since entry of 

the initial protection order certainly have not improved.” The 

court stated that it had considered the factors pertinent to the 

likelihood of future harm and that Otto had not met his burden of proof as to why the protection order should not remain 

in effect.

The court summarized that Garrison had established by a 

preponderance of the evidence that she was a victim of domestic abuse as defined by § 42-903, that there has been no material change in relevant circumstances since entry of the initial 

protection order, that Garrison remains in fear for her safety 

now and in the future, and that renewal of the protection order 

is needed to prevent future harm.

(e) Terminating Motion and 

Notices of Appeal

On May 20, 2021, Otto filed a motion for a new trial or to 

alter or amend. Before the court ruled on the motion, however, 

Otto filed a notice of appeal on June 9, 2021. That appeal was 

docketed as case No. A-21-478.
- 101 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

The district court found that despite Otto’s notice of appeal, 

pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912(3) (Cum. Supp. 2020), it 

had jurisdiction to rule on the motion for new trial or to alter 

or amend. The court then denied the motion for new trial or to 

alter or amend.

Otto filed another notice of appeal on August 4, 2021, docketed as case No. A-21-641. The Court of Appeals consolidated 

the two appeals, and we moved them to our docket.

III. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Otto assigns that the trial court erred in affirming the ex 

parte renewal of the domestic abuse protection order.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] A protection order pursuant to § 42-924 is analogous to 

an injunction. Thus, the grant or denial of a protection order 

is reviewed de novo on the record. In such de novo review, 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 another. 2

V. JURISDICTION

As a threshold jurisdictional matter, we briefly address 

which of these two consolidated appeals, derived from two 

separate notices of appeal but purporting to appeal from the 

same underlying order of renewal of the protection order, is 

properly before us.

Section 25-1912(3) provides in relevant part that the running 

of the time for filing a notice of appeal shall be terminated 

as to all parties by a timely motion for a new trial or motion 

to alter or amend a judgment. It provides further, “When any 

2 Robert M. on behalf of Bella O. v. Danielle O., 303 Neb. 268, 928 N.W.2d 

407 (2019).
- 102 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

motion terminating the time for filing a notice of appeal is 

timely filed by any party, a notice of appeal filed before the 

court announces its decision upon the terminating motion shall 

have no effect, whether filed before or after the timely filing 

of the terminating motion.” 3 Instead, “A new notice of appeal 

shall be filed within the prescribed time after the entry of the 

order ruling on the motion.” 4

The first notice of appeal, resulting in what is presently 

docketed as case No. S-21-478, was premature. It was filed 

after the terminating motion for new trial or to alter or amend 

and before the court announced its decision on that motion. 

Pursuant to § 25-1912(3), it had no effect. As such, case 

No. S-21-478 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The notice of appeal resulting in what is presently docketed 

as S-21-641 was timely filed. Our opinion herein addresses the 

merits of that appeal.

VI. ANALYSIS

Otto’s argument on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support the district court’s determination that renewal 

of the protection order was justified by the likelihood of future 

harm. Both the underlying protection order and its renewal 

were issued as ex parte orders that were affirmed after show 

cause hearings in which both parties had the opportunity to 

present evidence and make arguments. Otto does not attack the 

renewal order on procedural grounds, and we express no opinion on the procedure followed here. In arguing that the court 

should not have renewed the protection order, Otto claims the 

incident on February 26, 2020, was a simple case of distracted 

driving. He also points out that he did not violate the protection 

order or commit any acts of abuse since the protection order 

was issued. This is our first occasion to address what findings 

are necessary to support the renewal of a domestic abuse protection order.

3 § 25-1912(3).

4 Id.
- 103 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

Under the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act, 5 “[a]ny 

victim of domestic abuse” may seek a domestic abuse protection order. 6 Subsection (1)(b) of § 42-924 provides that the 

“petition for a protection order shall state the events and dates 

or approximate dates of acts constituting the alleged domestic abuse, including the most recent and most severe incident 

or incidents.”

[2,3] In the context of a court’s deciding whether to affirm 

or rescind the initial ex parte protection order, we have held 

that whether domestic abuse occurred is a threshold issue, and 

absent abuse as defined by § 42-903, a protection order may 

not remain in effect. 7 “Abuse” is statutorily defined as the 

occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family 

or household members: (1) attempting to cause or intentionally 

and knowingly causing bodily injury with or without a dangerous instrument; 8 (2) placing, by means of credible threat, 

another person in fear of bodily injury, 9 or (3) engaging in 

sexual contact or sexual penetration without consent as defined 

in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-318 (Cum. Supp. 2020). 10 Family or 

household members includes former spouses. 11

[4] We have also held, in the context of a court’s decision 

to affirm or rescind an initial ex parte protection order, that a 

finding that domestic abuse has occurred does not end a court’s 

inquiry. 12 In Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G.,

 13

5 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-901 et seq. (Reissue 2016 & Cum. Supp. 2020).

6 § 42-924.

7 See Robert M. on behalf of Bella O. v. Danielle O., supra note 2. See, also, 

§ 42-924.

8 § 42-903(1)(a).

9 § 42-903(1)(b).

10 § 42-903(1)(c).

11 § 42-903(3).

12 See Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., 301 Neb. 673, 919 

N.W.2d 841 (2018).

13 See id.
- 104 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

we explained that the goal of domestic abuse protection orders 

is to protect victims of domestic abuse from further harm. 

Thus, the court must conduct a wider inquiry that weighs the 

likelihood of future harm to the petitioner in light of all the 

surrounding circumstances. 14 We noted that we have repeatedly 

analogized domestic abuse protection orders to injunctions, 

which sound in equity. 15 And injunctions are not meant to punish past actions but to prevent future mischief. 16 On a consideration of all the circumstances of each case, the court, before 

issuing an injunction, weighs the burdens the order will inflict 

against its benefits. 17

[5-7] We accordingly held that in considering whether to 

continue an ex parte domestic abuse protection order following 

a finding that domestic abuse has occurred, a court is not limited to considering only whether the ex parte order was proper, 

but may also consider a number of factors pertinent to the likelihood of future harm. 18 Those factors might include, but are 

not limited to, the remoteness, severity, nature, and frequency 

of past abuse; past or pending credible threats of harm; the 

psychological impact of domestic abuse; the potential impact 

on the parent-child relationship; and the nuances of household 

relationships. 19 With respect to the factor of remoteness, we 

have observed that the statutory scheme does not impose any 

limitation on the time during which a victim of domestic abuse 

may file a petition and affidavit seeking a protection order after 

the abuse. 20

14 See id.

15 See id.

16 Id.

17 See id.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 See id. See, also, Sarah K. v. Jonathan K., 23 Neb. App. 471, 873 N.W.2d 

428 (2015).
- 105 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

Under § 42-924(3), the protection order is generally effective for a period of 1 year, “unless dismissed or modified by 

the court prior to such date.” 21 But, under § 42-924(3)(b), any 

victim of domestic abuse may, within 45 days before expiration, file a petition and affidavit to renew a protection order. 

Section 42-924(3)(b)(ii) indicates that the petition for renewal 

shall state that “there has been no material change in relevant 

circumstances since entry of the order” and set forth “the reason for the requested renewal.” The renewed protection order 

is effective for 1 year. 22

[8] Thus, as opposed to the underlying petition and affidavit for the underlying order, in which petitioner “shall state 

the events and dates or approximate dates of acts constituting 

the alleged domestic abuse,” 23 the petition and affidavit for 

renewal must state “there has been no material change in rele

vant circumstances since entry of the order” and “the reason 

for the requested renewal.” 24 The Protection from Domestic 

Abuse Act does not otherwise elaborate on what the district court must find in order to renew the protection order. 

However, the renewed protection order necessarily shares the 

same fundamental characteristics of the original protection 

order. The renewed protection order must, therefore, be supported by the same statutory and equitable considerations as 

an original order.

[9,10] As “no material change in relevant circumstances” 

suggests, the requisite past act of domestic abuse is necessarily found in relation to the underlying protection order and 

is not to be relitigated simply because the petitioner seeks a 

renewal of the order. Principles of law of the case generally 

bar reconsideration of the same or similar issues at successive 

21 § 42-925(5).

22 § 42-924(3)(iii).

23 § 42-924(1)(b).

24 § 42-924(3)(b)(ii).
- 106 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

stages of the same suit or prosecution. 25 There is nothing in the 

statutory scheme suggesting that a new act of abuse is a prerequisite for renewal of a domestic abuse protection order or 

that a petition for renewal gives the respondent an opportunity 

to relitigate the prior finding of abuse that was foundational to 

the underlying protection order.

On the other hand, the statutory scheme can be read to suggest that an evidentiary hearing on the petition for renewal 

should be held unless the respondent fails to appear or indicates 

he or she does not contest the renewal. Section 42-924(3)(b) 

states that the protection order “may be renewed on the basis of 

the petitioner’s affidavit” when the petitioner seeks no modification of the order and either (1) the respondent has been properly served with notice of the petition for renewal and notice of 

hearing and fails to appear at the hearing or (2) the respondent 

indicates that he or she does not contest the renewal. The statute is silent as to the standard governing renewal if an evidentiary hearing is held. 26

[11,12] The purpose of that hearing is to receive evidence 

so that the court may reweigh the burdens the order will inflict 

against its benefits in light of all the relevant circumstances, 

including what has or has not changed since its issuance. 

A protection order upon renewal, just as at its inception, is 

oriented toward the future with the goal to protect victims of 

domestic abuse from further harm. 27 Here, the district court 

applied the standard from Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. and 

reevaluated the likelihood of harm over the course of another 

year in which it would be in effect if the petition for renewal 

is granted. 28 Because the question of the likelihood of future 

harm and the relative equities of the case pertain to a different 

25 See Tierney v. Tierney, 309 Neb. 310, 959 N.W.2d 556 (2021).

26 See § 42-924.

27 See Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., supra note 12.

28 See id.
- 107 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

effective period of time, the court’s prior determinations of 

these matters were not law of the case.

[13-16] In determining if a contested renewal of the protection order was justified in light of the likelihood of future 

harm, the court here considered factors similar to those applicable to the initial contested protection order. Relevant factors 

included, but were not limited to, the passage of time since the 

abuse that was found in relation to the original order and all the 

factors relating to the severity, nature, frequency, and impact of 

abuse. The court also considered any violations of the protection order and any new domestic abuse occurring during the 

period of the original protection order and the severity, nature, 

frequency, and impact of any violation of the protection order 

or additional abuse. Further, in determining the likelihood of 

future harm, the court considered evidence of the relationship 

of the parties as demonstrated by their behavior both before 

and since the issuance of the protection order and by their testimony at the hearing.

Specifically, the district court correctly recognized as law of 

the case the abuse that supported the original protection order. 

In Otto’s prior appeal to this court from the initial order, he 

principally contested the court’s finding of abuse by claiming 

that on February 26, 2020, he had simply been driving slowly 

while distracted on his cell phone and with no intention of 

either hurting or scaring anyone. When we affirmed the lower 

court’s order, we implicitly rejected this argument. We will not 

revisit it here. The original incident on February 26 was serious and could have resulted in Garrison’s injury or death. That 

fact was properly weighed by the district court in considering 

Garrison’s petition for renewal.

The court also properly considered the evidence of ongoing 

legal proceedings between Garrison and Otto stemming from 

their divorce, which were similar to the legal proceeding that 

spurred Otto’s vehicular attack. The district court, after the 

hearing on renewal, found that the continuing conflict between 

the parties had not improved during the effective period of 
- 108 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

the original protection order. The court observed that Otto 

himself testified as to numerous confrontations and accused 

Garrison of trying to alienate him from his children, yet at the 

same time asserted future harm to be unlikely. The court did 

not find this reasoning to be sound. The court instead found 

credible Garrison’s averments and testimony that she still 

feared for her safety and the safety of everyone in her household. It found that renewal of the protection order for another 

year was necessary to prevent future harm.

The court did not err in ultimately determining that renewal 

was justified. We observe that the cases from other jurisdictions Otto relies on in asserting the evidence was insufficient 

to support the 1-year renewal involve facts that are very different from the case at bar. In Vance v. Iowa Dist. Court for 

Floyd County,

 29 the court reversed a 5-year extension of a 

civil no-contact order after noting the order did not involve 

domestic abuse, sexual harassment, or any violence, threat of 

violence, or the physical safety of any family member, and 

there was no evidence the respondent had failed to comply 

with it. In S.H. v. D.W.,

 30 the court held that a 2-year extension 

of a 2-year protective order against the former husband was 

unwarranted when it had originally been based on a singular 

uncontested act of assault occurring when the petitioner collected her belongings from the marital home while divorce 

proceedings were pending and the parties had since gone their 

separate ways.

In contrast, the underlying abuse here was serious, it occurred 

relatively recently, the parties continue to experience serious 

conflict, and the renewal period is for only 1 year. Although 

our review of domestic abuse protection orders is de novo, we 

give deference to the circumstances that the trial judge heard 

and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the 

29 Vance v. Iowa Dist. Court for Floyd County, 907 N.W.2d 473 (Iowa 2018).

30 S.H. v. D.W., 139 N.E.3d 214 (Ind. 2020).
- 109 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 311 Neb. 94

facts rather than another. 31 Giving deference to the fact that the 

district court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted 

one version of the facts rather than another, we find it did not 

err in determining that the likelihood of future harm justified a 

1-year renewal of the domestic abuse protection order.

VI. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the 

district court in case No. S-21-641.

Appeal in No. S-21-478 dismissed.

Judgment in No. S-21-641 affirmed.

31 See Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., supra note 12.