DAVID RAY MCCORMICK, APPELLANT,
v.
BRIDGET M. SHANNON, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Evidentiary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
In 2002, Bridget Shannon obtained a permanent injunction against David Ray McCormick for protection against repeat violence. In 2009, Mr. McCormick filed a motion to vacate the injunction order. He alleged that he had unfailingly complied with the injunction order, that he had no interest in contacting Ms. Shannon, and that the injunction prevented him from participating in certain prison work programs while under state supervision. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Mr. McCormick appealed, argu*788ing that he should have been given an evidentiary hearing on his motion.
Due process requires a trial court to give a person moving to vacate an injunction a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So.3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Betterman v. Kukelhan, 977 So.2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Reed v. Reed, 816 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Madan v. Madan, 729 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Because the trial court erred in summarily denying Mr. McCormick’s motion, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ng in a prison Reality House A.A. program. The trial court erred in denying this legally sufficient motion without affording appellant a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); McCormick v. Shannon, 32 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. BENTON, C.J., WEBSTER, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
-
McFARR v. Michelle McKEE o/b/o J.M. and J.M., 83 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…e process requires that the trial court afford McFarr a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the remaining claim. See Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); McCormick v. Shannon, 32 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). [*777] AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for further procéed-ings. ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.…
-
Carrozza v. Stowers, 153 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…summarily denied Carrozza’s motion on Octo [*341] ber 10, 2013, a mere three days later, citing “the serious nature of the [underlying] allegations.”2 The trial court erred by denying Carroz-za’s motion without a hearing. See McCormick v. Shannon, 32 So. 3d 787, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Baker, 139 So. 3d at 955; Reed v. Reed, 816 So. 2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). As the court stated in Reed, “[d]ue process requires that [the movant] be given [an] opportunity to be heard on his request and that his moti…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Reed v. Reed, 816 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Betterman v. Kukelhan, 977 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Madan v. Madan, 729 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)