The trial court properly extended – on its own motion – the duration of a personal protection order (PPO) after finding the respondent guilty of criminal contempt for violating the PPO, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court properly issued a PPO in this case and correctly held the respondent in contempt, finding that she violated the terms of the PPO.

The trial court wrongly denied the respondent’s motion to terminate a PPO entered against him because “fear alone” is insufficient to justify continuing a PPO, the Michigan COA has ruled.

Trial court didn’t comply with the statutory requirements for denying an ex parte PPO by “merely concluding” that the allegations were “insufficient” for relief, the Michigan COA has ruled.

The trial court properly held the defendant in criminal contempt for violating a personal protection order (PPO) because he “tagged” the plaintiff in a Facebook post.

There was sufficient evidence to uphold the defendant’s convictions for violating a personal protection order (PPO) that had been issued against him.

The trial court properly held the respondent in criminal contempt for violating a non-domestic personal protection order (PPO), the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

A trial court erred by denying the petitioner’s request for a personal protection order (PPO) based on the prior denial of a similar PPO request by the petitioner.

An appeal involving the entry of a personal protection order (PPO) is not moot just because the PPO expired while the appeal was pending, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

The Michigan COA held that MCR 8.119(F)(5) does not give a trial court the discretion to seal prior court orders. Jenson v Puste arose out of a 2006 divorce case where the plaintiff wife obtained a PPO against her ex-husband.