Levy v. Jacobs
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14981
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Levy appeals a final injunction for protection against repeat violence issued against him.
- Jacobs petitioned alleging two separate violent incidents: one outside the building and one inside the lobby, separated by about five minutes.
- The trial court found two distinct acts based on time and location and entered an injunction prohibiting Levy from near Jacobs.
- Evidence included Jacobs’ testimony, injury photos, security video stills, and valet testimony; Levy did not testify.
- Statute defines repeat violence as two incidents within six months directed at the petitioner or their immediate family; requires two qualifying incidents.
- Appellate court affirmed, distinguishing this case from Darrow and holding there were two separate incidents with a temporal gap.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the two assaults separate incidents constituting repeat violence? | Levy: only one continuous incident; no time/distance split. | Jacobs: two acts separated by time and space qualify as repeat violence. | Yes; two acts separated by time and space supported injunction. |
| Standard of review and Darrow distinction | Darrow controls; single incident; no two acts. | Record shows two acts; Darrow distinguishable on record. | Court affirmed; competent substantial evidence supported two incidents; Darrow distinguished. |
Key Cases Cited
- Darrow v. Moschella, 805 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (injunction reversed when single incident rather than two incidents)
- Smith v. Melcher, 975 So.2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (two incidents within time frame required for repeat violence)
- Long v. Edmundson, 827 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (separate acts must be time-separated to count as two incidents)
- Sorin v. Cole, 929 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (basic repeat-violence framework guidance)
- Santiago v. Towle, 917 So.2d 909 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizes two incidents needed for repeat-violence injunctions)
- Clinton v. State, 970 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (temporal breaks allow separate criminal intents in successive acts)
- Shocki v. Aresty, 994 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (standard for reviewing injunctions is competent substantial evidence)