ALEJANDRO VIDELA
v.
HITOMI OGINO
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying an extension of a domestic violence injunction when the moving party fails to present evidence establishing a continuing and reasonable fear of imminent danger based on the circumstances.
[1] To obtain an extension of a domestic violence injunction, the moving party must present evidence establishing both a continuing fear of imminent danger and that such fear…
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“The trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court's decision.”
Jackson v. Echols standard for appellate review of injunction decisions
Alejandro Videla appealed a trial court decision concerning a domestic violence injunction against Hitomi Ogino. The trial court declined to extend th…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Jackson v. Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court’s decision.”); Sheehan v. Sheehan, 853 So. 2d 523, 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“[I]n order to obtain an extension of a domestic violence injunction, the moving party must present evidence from which a trial court can determine that a continuing fear exists and that such fear is reasonable, based on all the circumstances.”); Patterson v. Simonik, 709 So. 2d 189, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“In deciding whether to extend the injunction, the trial court may consider the circumstances leading to the imposition of the original injunction, as well as subsequent events . . . .”); Malchan v. Howard, 29 So. 3d 453, 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (stating that in determining whether petitioner has shown reasonable fear of imminent danger of becoming victim of domestic violence trial court must consider history of relationship as whole as well as current behavior).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. Ladon Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Ginny L. Sheehan v. Sheehan, 853 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Patterson v. Simonik, 709 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)