BRIAN BEVAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JOEL WOLFSON AND URSULA WOLFSON, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot because the injunctions had expired and no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied.
Appellant challenged trial court orders granting injunctions for protection against repeat violence. Both injunctions had expired before the appeal wa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Brian Bevan, challenges the orders of the trial court granting the petitions for injunction for protection against repeat violence that were filed by appellee, Joel Wolfson, and by appellee, Ursula Wolfson. See § 784.046, Fla.Stat. (1991). We dismiss the appeal as moot.
Both injunctions expired on December 15, 1993, and thus are no longer in effect. The Florida Supreme Court has held that:
An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect. A case is “moot” when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist. A moot case will generally be dismissed.
Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992) (citations omitted).
The court did recognize three “instances in which an otherwise moot case will not be dismissed.” 593 So. 2d at 212. The first instance occurs when the questions raised are of great public importance; the second occurs when the issues are likely to recur; and the third involves a situation where “collateral legal consequences that affect the rights of a party flow from the issue to be determined.” 593 So. 2d at 212.
After reviewing the record, as well as appellant’s response to our order to show cause, we have determined that none of the three exceptions are applicable in this case.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watrous v. State, 793 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…re serious enough to warrant special treatment. The Fifth District has interpreted Ashley as supporting that court's prior conclusion that the effect of habitualization on gain time eligibility is a direct consequence of a plea. See Wilcox v. State, 638 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The First District has concluded that Ashley "transformed” gain time and early release to equal footing with direct consequences. Freels, 701 So. 2d at 1209. The Third District seems to construe Ashley as holding that loss of ga…
-
State v. Will, 645 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…Levens v. State, 598 So. 2d 120, 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Wright v. State, 583 So. 2d 399, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see also Blackshear v. State, 455 So. 2d 555, 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (forfeiture of accumulated gain time). But see Wilcox v. State, 638 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (post-Ashley decision; suggesting that ineligibility for basic gain time is a direct consequence of a plea); Setzer v. State, 575 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (pre-Ashley decision; same). See generally Polk v. State, 405 So. 2d…
-
Murphy v. Reynolds, 55 So. 3d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…n appeal of an injunction for protection against repeat violence was not moot, as “issuance of the injunction prevented] [appellant] from carrying a gun under federal law and thus affect[ed] her career in law enforcement”). But see Bevan v. Wolfson, 638 So. 2d 527, 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (citing Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992)) (dismissing an appeal of an expired repeat violence injunction on grounds none of the three exceptions to mootness applied, including collateral legal consequences).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sallas v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)