STEVEN SANZARO
v.
KATHERINE GRACE CROWE
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.
Steven Sanzaro appeals a trial court's final judgment granting an injunction for protection against stalking filed by Katherine Grace Crowe, raising three issues. The appellate court affirmed the judgment on all three issues, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of Sanzaro's request to appear telephonically at the final hearing.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the telephonic appearance request. The trial court's decision was neither arbitrary, fanciful, nor unreasonable, and a reasonable person could have adopted the view taken by the trial court.
[1] A trial court's denial of a defendant's request to appear telephonically at a final evidentiary hearing in an injunction for protection against stalking proceeding is rev…
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 intelligenceSteven Sanzaro, a non-resident from Las Vegas, Nevada, sought permission to appear telephonically at the final evidentiary hearing on Katherine Grace …
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
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County.
John S. Carlin, Judge.
March 21, 2025 PER CURIAM.
Steven Sanzaro challenges the trial court’s final judgment of injunction for protection against stalking and raises three issues on appeal. We affirm as to all three, but we find one issue merits comment. As his first issue, Sanzaro argues the trial court erred in denying his request to appear telephonically at the final evidentiary hearing on Appellee Katherine Grace Crowe’s petition for injunction for protection against stalking. We find Sanzaro’s argument for reversal on this point fails under the applicable abuse of discretion standard.
On this record, we cannot say that “no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court” or that the trial court’s action was “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” See Johnson v. State, 397 So. 3d 626, 639 (Fla. 2024) (“[D]iscretion ‘is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.’” (quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980))). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED. WHITE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur. LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concurs in part, and dissents in part, with opinion.
_____________________________ NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED _____________________________ LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part. I concur with the majority opinion’s affirmance on two of the three issues raised by Appellant for reversal. However, under the circumstances of the case, because I believe that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the indigent, non-resident Appellant’s motion to appear telephonically at the final hearing, I would reverse the final judgment of injunction for protection against stalking and 3 remand for further proceedings.1 Accordingly, I respectfully dissent as to the majority’s affirmance on the first issue raised by Appellant in this appeal.
_____________________________ Steven Sanzaro, Las Vegas, Nevada, pro se. Katherine Grace Crowe, Bonita Springs, pro se.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Sanzaro v. Crowe, 397 So. 3d 626 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)…licable abuse of discretion standard. 2 On this record, we cannot say that “no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court” or that the trial court’s action was “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” See Johnson v. State, 397 So. 3d 626, 639 (Fla. 2024) (“[D]iscretion ‘is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.’” (…
-
Crecelius v. Rizzitano, 2026 WL 555031 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)…. Yule, 905 So. 2d 251, 259 n.10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (Canady, J., specially concurring)). “Any statement of law in a judicial opinion that is not a holding is dictum." Pedroza, 291 So. 3d at 547. Dicta is without force as precedent. Johnson v. State, 397 So. 3d 626, 641 n.9 (Fla. 2024) (citing State ex rel. Biscayne Kennel Club v. Bd. of Bus. Regul. of Dep't of Bus. Regul. of State, 276 So. 2d 823, 826 (Fla. 1973)). While we are bound to follow all holdings of the Florida Supreme Court, we are not bound by dic…
-
Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Ameriquest Mortg. Sec. Inc., 431 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Sanzaro v. Crowe, 397 So. 3d 626 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)