SAMUEL PARISE, APPELLANT,
v.
SALLY SELPH, 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.
Samuel Parise appeals a permanent injunction for protection against repeat violence issued by the trial court. The appellate court reverses and remands because Parise was denied a full hearing—specifically, he was not permitted to present testimony from a law enforcement officer witness without explanation.
The court held that due process requires parties to have a full hearing and reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove allegations, including allowing relevant testimony of pertinent witnesses. The trial court's denial of Parise's witness request without permitting him to explain the witness's relevance violated due process, requiring reversal and remand for a new hearing.
[1] Parties are entitled to a full hearing prior to the trial court issuing a permanent injunction.
[2] Due process requires that parties have a reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove allegations at an injunction hearing, including presenting relevant testimony of pert…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“parties are entitled to a full hearing prior to the trial court issuing a permanent [*390] injunction.”
Establishes the foundational requirement for due process in injunction proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSally Selph petitioned for an injunction for protection against repeat violence against Samuel Parise. At the injunction hearing, Parise requested to …
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 Opportunity To Present Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Samuel Parise appeals a final judgment granting an injunction for protection against repeat violence based on a petition by Sally Selph. We reverse the injunction because Mr. Parise was not given a full opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the petition for injunction, including the testimony of his law enforcement officer witness.
We recognized in Furry v. Rickles that “[pjarties are entitled to a full hearing prior to the trial court issuing a permanent *390injunction.” 68 So.3d 389, 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing § 741.30, Fla. Stat.). At an injunction hearing, due process requires that the parties have a reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove the allegations made in the complaint, including “allowing relevant testimony of pertinent, noncumulative witnesses who are present and cross-examination of the parties.” Id. (citing Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). See also § 784.046(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (permitting grant of temporary ex parte injunction “pending a full hearing”). At the short evidentiary hearing held in this matter, Mr. Parise requested on the record to present one witness, a law enforcement officer who had “dealt with this situation before.” The request was denied without even permitting Mr. Parise time to explain or proffer what the officer’s testimony would address. We conclude that Mr. Parise was not afforded the due process associated with a full hearing, and therefore reverse the injunction and remand for a new hearing on the petition. See also Snead v. Ansley, 160 So.3d 952, 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newsom v. Newsom, 221 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
-
Whitfield v. Haley Breann Meeks & OBO K.M.M. (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Ohrn v. Ashlee Jewel Wright, 963 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Furry v. Rickles, 68 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Landi v. State, 68 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Derick Snead v. Ansley, 160 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)