MICHAEL REISS, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID REISS, APPELLEE
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.
Michael Reiss appealed a trial court's dismissal of his petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence against his brother David Reiss. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding insufficient evidence under Florida Statute section 741.30 to warrant issuance of the injunction.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition. Where the record reflects conflicting accounts of the incidents and the trial court weighs evidence and makes credibility determinations, the appellate court will affirm the dismissal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and appellate courts must affirm such decisions absent a clear abuse of dis…
[2] An order imposing a permanent injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be affirmed absent a showing of abuse of discretion, especially whe…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To the extent it rests on factual matters, an order imposing a permanent injunction lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be affirmed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. This is particularly true where the order relies on live testimony or other evidence that the trial court is singularly well-suited to evaluate.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review for injunction orders based on factual findings and credibility determinations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Reiss filed a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence against his brother David Reiss, alleging three specific inc…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Injunction For Protection Against Domestic Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Reiss (“petitioner”) filed a Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence (“petition”) against Ms brother, David Reiss (“respondent”), under section 741.30, Florida Statutes (2008). The petitioner alleged that he had reasonable cause to fear imminent domestic violence based on three specific incidents of violence or threats of violence that occurred within two years of the filing of the petition. On the following day, an ex parte temporary injunction was entered, pending the full hearing.
At the evidentiary hearing, the petitioner called several witnesses, including the respondent. The petitioner and respondent testified as to two of the three alleged incidents, and their accounts of the incidents dramatically differed. At the close of his case, the petitioner moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, the trial court ruled that it was dismissing the action. In its written order of dismissal, the trial court concluded that it did not have just cause to issue an injunction for protection against domestic violence because the evidence presented was insufficient under section 741.30. The petitioner’s appeal ensued.
The petitioner contends that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition. We disagree. The record reflects two very different accounts of the incidents alleged in the petition. The trial court was, therefore, required to weigh the evidence, make credibility determinations, and resolve the conflicts in the evidence. As there is ample record support for the trial court’s conclusion, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion. See Smith v. Coal. to Reduce Class Size, 827 So.2d 959, 961 (Fla.2002) (“To the extent it rests on factual matters, an order imposing a permanent injunction lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be affirmed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. This is particularly true where the order relies on live testimony or other evidence that the trial court is singularly well-suited to evaluate.”) (quoting Operation Rescue v. Women’s Health Ctr., 626 So.2d 664, 670 (Fla.1993) (citation omitted)); Jackson v. Echols, 937 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court’s decision.”). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the petition.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weisberg v. Albert, 123 So. 3d 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ieve he was in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence.1 The standard of review for an order imposing a permanent injunction is abuse of discretion. Malchan v. Howard, 29 So. 3d 458, 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Reiss v. Reiss, 17 So. 3d 849, 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)). A trial court may issue an injunction when the petitioner has established that he or she is “either the victim of domestic violence or ‘has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim o…
-
Malchan v. Leis Howard, 29 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…t granted the injunction and ordered Malchan to attend a thirteen-week anger management program. Mal-chan now appeals the injunction. An order imposing a permanent injunction will be affirmed absent a showdng of abuse of discretion. Reiss v. Reiss, 17 So. 3d 849, 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “A court may issue an injunction when it appears that the petitioner is either the victim of domestic violence or ‘has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence.’…
Authorities Cited
- Operation Rescue v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 626 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1993)
- Smith v. Coal. TO Reduce Class Size & Pre-K Comm., 827 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2002)
- Jackson v. Ladon Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)