55 So. 3d 716
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Murphy appeals a final injunction for protection against repeat violence issued at Reynolds's request.
- Trial court found two incidents of repeat violence by Murphy to support the injunction.
- Reynolds alleged Murphy engaged in cyberstalking by offensive email, hacking accounts, deleting emails, and altering signature block.
- No competent substantial evidence linked Murphy to the cyberstalking acts.
- Statutory framework requires competent, substantial evidence of two incidents of repeat violence to support the injunction.
- Court notes the injunction expired but collateral legal consequences keep the appeal from being moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there competent substantial evidence of two incidents of repeat violence by Murphy? | Murphy committed two incidents of repeat violence against Reynolds. | Evidence tied Murphy to the acts and supports the injunction. | No; evidence insufficient to prove two incidents of repeat violence. |
| Did Reynolds prove Murphy engaged in cyberstalking? | Murphy cyberstalked Reynolds via emails and hacking. | Murphy was responsible for cyberstalking acts. | No; no competent substantial evidence linked Murphy to cyberstalking. |
| Is the appeal moot due to expiration of the injunction? | Appeal concerns continuing legal effects of the injunction. | Expired injunction would render appeal moot. | Not moot because collateral legal consequences flow from the injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodman v. Rodman, 48 So.3d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (injunctions for protection against domestic violence have collateral consequences, so not moot)
- Boyles v. Tiefenthaler, 810 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (issuance of injunction can affect career when tied to federal firearms law)
- Bevan v. Wolfson, 638 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (dismissing appeal when none of mootness exceptions apply)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1992) (mootness exceptions discussed in context of collateral consequences)
- Terrell v. Thompson, 935 So.2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (repeat-violence standard requires competent substantial evidence)