DOUGLASS MILLER O/B/O C. M.
v.
ANGELA MILLER
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.
The trial court's denial of a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence is affirmed where the appellate record does not permit resolution of underlying factual issues.
[1] An appellate court cannot conclude that a trial court's judgment is unsupported by evidence without a complete record of the trial proceedings establishing the factual ba…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”
Court's rationale for affirming the trial court's order
Douglass Miller, on behalf of C.M., petitioned for an injunction for protection against domestic violence against Angela Miller. The trial court denie…
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
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-2649 Lower Tribunal No. 2025-DR-008437
DOUGLASS MILLER o/b/o C.M., PETITIONER,
V.
ANGELA MILLER,
RESPONDENT.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Polk County. Keith P. Spoto, Judge.
April 24, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Douglass Miller petitions the Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court's order denying his petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence. We treat his petition as an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause must be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought[.]"). We affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d
1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.").
AFFIRMED.
STARGEL, NARDELLA and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Douglass Miller, Lakeland, pro se.
Angela Miller, Frostproof, pro se.