DR. PHILLIPS, INC., APPELLANT,

v.

CITY OF ORLANDO, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Lukacs v. Luton, 982 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
  …mitted at least two acts of stalking against her.”); Russell ex rel. Russell v. Hogan ex rel. Hogan, 738 So. 2d 1003, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“Repeat violence is defined as two incidents of stalking or violence .... ”); see also Werner v. Scharlop, 867 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (finding that the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the appellant’s actions caused the appellee substantial emotional distress, “which is all that is required when the injunction is predicated upon rep…
• Alderman v. Faylene A. Thomas, 141 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
  …at Alderman’s actions caused her substantial emotional distress, that they served no legitimate purpose, that they were done willfully or maliciously, and that she had an objective fear that they would continue in the future. Cf. Werner v. Scharlop, 867 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that respondent’s behavior caused substantial emo [*672] tional distress when he “continued to call, write letters and send e-mails to the victim” for a year, despite petitioner’s repeatedly telling him “that she w…
• State v. Hamner, 942 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
  …at it prevented the defense from challenging the reliability of the victim’s claims that she told Hamner “no” and “stop.” We disagree. “[T]rial judges are afforded broad discretion in controlling the scope of cross-examination.” Werner v. Scharlop, 867 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “[Although wide latitude is permitted on cross-examination in a criminal trial, its scope and limitation lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and is not subject to review except for a clear abuse of discreti…

Authorities Cited

• Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534 (Fla. 1952)