CAMPANHAC
v.
LAURAMORE
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.
Each incident of stalking must be proven by competent, substantial evidence to support an injunction against stalking.
[1] To support an injunction for protection against stalking, each alleged incident of stalking must be proven by competent, substantial evidence.
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“each incident of stalking must be proven by competent, substantial evidence to support injunction against stalking”
Court citing Packal v. Johnson, 226 So.3d 337, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) regarding the evidentiary standard for stalking injunctions
Appellant Noel Campanhac was subject to final judgments of injunction for protection against stalking issued by the trial court in related consolidate…
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 Injunction For Protection Against Stalking cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
Appellant, Noel Campanhac, appeals the trial court's final judgments of injunction for protection against stalking in these related cases,1 arguing that there was insufficient evidence of stalking to support the injunctions. After considering the limited testimony and evidence presented below and without the benefit of briefs or any appearance by Appellees, we agree with Appellant that there was no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding of stalking. See Packal v. Johnson, 226 So. 3d 337, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (holding that each incident of stalking must be proven by competent, substantial evidence to support injunction against stalking). Accordingly, we reverse the injunction.
REVERSED.
LAMBERT and SASSO, JJ., concur.
This Court has consolidated these cases for purposes of this opinion only.