MEGHAN NICHOLE FROMME
v.
MATTHEW CODY JOHNSON
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.
Section 784.048(2), Florida Statutes, does not require a petitioner to prove that a respondent has repeatedly stalked them, only that the respondent has followed, harassed, or cyberstalked them repeatedly.
[1] Under section 784.048(2), Florida Statutes, a petitioner seeking a stalking injunction need not prove that a respondent has repeatedly stalked them as a multiple offense,…
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“section 784.048(2), Florida Statutes, does not require that a petitioner prove that a respondent has "repeatedly stalked them, just that the respondent has followed, harassed, or cyberstalked them "repeatedly" because nowhere in the statutory definition "is stalking defined as a multiple of itself"”
Court's explanation of the proper interpretation of Florida's stalking statute
Meghan Nichole Fromme appealed a circuit court decision in a stalking case against Matthew Cody Johnson. The case involved allegations of stalking con…
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 Cyberstalking cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 5D2025-2660 LT Case No. 16-2025-DR-000763-A
MEGHAN NICHOLE FROMME, Appellant,
v.
MATTHEW CODY JOHNSON, Appellee.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Eric Roberson, Judge.
Meghan Nichole Fromme, Goliad, TX, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
June 5, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Klein v. Manville, 363 So. 3d 1163, 1169 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (observing that section 784.048(2), Florida Statutes, does not require that a petitioner prove that a respondent has "repeatedly stalked them, just that the respondent has followed, harassed, or cyberstalked them “repeatedly" because nowhere in the statutory definition “is stalking defined as a multiple of itself" (quoting Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So. 3d 1142, 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018))).
LAMBERT, EDWARDS, and HARRIS, JJ., concur.