MENTHIA FAULK, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

v.

AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By (26 total)

• Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
  …prove a single incident of stalking. Turning to the facts of this case, it was incumbent on Ms. Copeland to prove stalking by competent, substantial evidence. Thoma v. O'Neal , 180 So. 3d 1157, 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citing McMath v. Biernacki , 776 So. 2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) ). As is so often true in injunction cases, the parties appeared below without counsel. The trial court conscientiously questioned each of the parties, in turn. There was scant relevant evidence presented, and the parties'…
• Power v. Boyle, 60 So. 3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
  …). Harassment is defined as a series of acts over a period of time “directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.” § 784.048(1)(a); Fla. Stat.; see also McMath v. Biernacki, 776 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (citing Bouters v. State, 659 So. 2d 235, 238 (Fla.1995), for the proposition that a reasonable person standard applies in determining whether an incident causes substantial emotional distress so as to constitute harassment…
• Slack v. Jean-Michel Kling, 959 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
  …serves no legitimate purpose.” In determining if an incident causes substantial emotional distress, courts use a reasonable person standard, not a subjective standard. Ravitch v. Whelan, 851 So. 2d 271, 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); McMath v. Biernacki, 776 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In the present case, Kling testified regarding two phone calls he received from Slack which served no legitimate purpose. Kling testified that on February 25, 2006, and June 15, 2006, Slack left a voice message stating th…