DENISE RODMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
NIAH RODMAN, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2010-12-03
No. 1D07-5540
KAHN, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
48 So. 3d 1022 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2010) Positive Treatment
Cited by 14 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

This case was originally dismissed as moot. However, injunctions for protection against domestic violence are an exception to the usual rules of mootness because of the collateral legal consequences that flow from such an injunction. See Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla.1992). Therefore, the appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted. The opinion dated July 13, 2009 is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted in its place.

On the merits, the injunction for protection against domestic violence is quashed because the petition did not allege, and the testimony at hearing did not establish, that the appellant and the appellee resided in the same household as required by section 741.30, Florida Statutes (2007).

KAHN, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Murphy v. Reynolds, 55 So. 3d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
    …ial court decreed that the injunction remain in place until October 27, 2010, when it expired. This case is not moot, however, because collateral legal consequences flowing from such an injunction outlast the injunction itself. See Rodman v. Rodman, 48 So. 3d 1022, 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“[I]njunctions for protection against domestic violence are an exception to the usual rules of mootness because of the collateral legal consequences that flow from such an injunction.”); accord Boyles v. Tiefenthaler, 810…
  • Jacquot v. Jacquot, 183 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
    …ons against domestic violence fall under the third exception to the usual rule of mootness because of the collateral legal consequences that may flow from the injunction. See Stone v. Stone, 128 So. 3d 239, 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Rodman v. Rodman, 48 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Appellant’s motion and remand -for the .trial court to address the motion at an evidentiary hearing. We express no position as to the merits of the motion. REVERSED and REMANDED. SAWAY…
  • Bell v. Battaglia, 332 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw