eo22-083.pdf
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case No. VERMONT SUPREME COURT 22-AP-083 109 State Street Montpelier VT 05609-0801 802-828-4774 www.vermontjudiciary.org Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a crossappellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. ENTRY ORDER AUGUST TERM, 2022 Justin Ames Gamache* v. Alexander Burke } } } } APPEALED FROM: Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Civil Division CASE NO. 22-ST-00176 Trial Judge: John W. Valente In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: Plaintiff appeals pro se from the trial court’s denial of his request for an anti-stalking order. We affirm. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in August 2021, asserting that defendant stalked him by trying to determine if he was still living in Vermont. Following a hearing, the court made findings and conclusions on the record and denied plaintiff’s request for relief. Plaintiff appealed. On appeal, plaintiff reiterates his assertion that defendant stalked him.* The trial court concluded otherwise. Because plaintiff did not order a transcript of the proceedings below, we assume that the court’s findings are supported by the record. See V.R.A.P. 10(b)(1) (“By failing to order a transcript, the appellant waives the right to raise any issue for which a transcript is necessary for informed appellate review.”); In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294, 307 (1988) (explaining that appellant bears consequences of failing to order transcript and without transcript Supreme Court assumes that evidence supports trial court’s findings). Plaintiff fails to show that the court erred in denying his request for relief. Affirmed. BY THE COURT: Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice * We deny plaintiff’s request that sanctions be imposed against defendant under V.R.A.P. 42(b).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
