Skip to main content

In the Matter of: Carrie Ann Seibert, individually and o/b/o C. A. A. and C. C. A. v. Adam Cain Anderson

Minn. Ct. App.March 28, 2016No. A15-757
Defendant WinAdam Cain Anderson

Case Details

Status
Unpublished
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court affirmed the district court's issuance of an order for protection (OFP) against the appellant Adam Cain Anderson based on evidence of domestic abuse, including past physical violence, threatening conduct, and controlling behavior toward the respondent.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** This case involved Carrie Ann Seibert, who sought a court order for protection against Adam Cain Anderson. The case appears to have employment law connections, though the main issue centered on domestic abuse allegations. Seibert claimed Anderson engaged in physical violence, threatening behavior, and controlling conduct toward her. She asked the court to issue an order for protection (similar to a restraining order) to keep Anderson away from her and protect her safety. **What the court decided:** The court sided with Seibert and granted the order for protection against Anderson. The appeals court upheld this decision, finding there was sufficient evidence of domestic abuse to justify the protective order. This means Anderson was legally required to stay away from Seibert and avoid contact with her. **Why this matters for workers:** While this case primarily dealt with domestic violence rather than traditional workplace issues, it highlights an important reality for workers: domestic abuse can spill over into employment situations. Workers experiencing domestic violence may need legal protection that could affect their workplace safety. Understanding that courts take domestic abuse seriously and will issue protective orders when evidence supports it can help workers know their rights when personal safety issues intersect with their work lives.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Benita M Brannon v. John Sterling Howe
Minn. Ct. App.Feb 2026

Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that his conduct was not objectively unreasonable and did not have a substantial adverse effect on respondent that was objectively reasonable. We affirm.

Plaintiff Win
Cole Robert Hooker v. David Sean Kennedy
Minn. Ct. App.Jan 2026

In this dispute related to a harassment restraining order (HRO), pro se appellant argues that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Because the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over appellant, we affirm.

Defendant Win
Jenna Marie Benzinger v. Roger Tabet
Minn. Ct. App.Jan 2026

In this appeal from an order denying a motion to reopen a harassment-restraining-order (HRO) proceeding pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. Because the district court acted within its discretion by denying his motion to reopen, we affirm.

Defendant Win
Cole Marie Carlson v. Cory Ross Holte
Minn. Ct. App.Dec 2025

Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a former romantic partner's petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO) against him. Because the district court did not clearly err in its findings and did not abuse its discretion in determining that there were reasonable grounds to believe that appellant's behavior constituted harassment, we affirm.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.