Krystal Bohannon, Appellant v. Edward Robinson, Appellee

Summary

The court held that Bohannon’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was preserved even though she did not raise it at the hearing on the final order of protection, because sufficiency challenges in civil bench trials may be raised for the first time on appeal. On the merits, the court held that the evidence did not establish domestic abuse or imminent danger sufficient to support the order of protection, reversed and remanded, and vacated the court of appeals’ opinion. Justice Goodson concurred but questioned the majority’s characterization of the precedent it overruled, while Justice Hart concurred in the result and disagreed with both the majority’s treatment of the court of appeals’ opinion and its overruling of that precedent.