DAVID L. SHIERLING, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIE E. HALL, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Protection Against Repeat Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
David L. Shierling seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to modify a final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence which prohibits him from going within 500 feet of the residence or 100 feet of the automobile of Willie E. Hall, Shierling’s next-door neighbor. Shierling argues that the court abused its discretion in refusing to modify the injunction so he could move back into his home but still have no contact with Hall. We recognize the difficult position in which the permanent injunction puts Shi-erling because it effectively precludes him from living in his home with his family. However, Shierling did not present any evidence or argument that would support a finding that the denial of his motion constituted an abuse of discretion. See Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So.2d 692, 692-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we affirm. We note that this affirmance does not preclude Shierling from moving to modify the injunction in the future should he be able to present evidence that warrants modification.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bondi v. Tucker, 93 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…as a petition for writ of certiorari. Nor could we do so on this record. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is not available to a litigant who, like the Attorney General in the present case, had an adequate remedy at law.8 See In re D.R.C., 67 So. 3d 251, [*1112] 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“[Rjelief by means of certiorari is not available when ... the petitioner has another remedy.”). Although we have general “authority to treat a notice of appeal as a petition for writ of common law certiorari, in kee…
-
NOE v. Brady Marchant NOE, 217 So. 3d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…, “[t]he trial court has broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and, unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, appellate courts will not disturb the trial court’s decision.” See also Shierling v. Hall, 67 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that record did not support finding that denial of motion to modify injunction was an abuse of discretion). “ ‘This is particularly true where the order relies on live testimony or other evidence that the trial court is s…
Authorities Cited
- Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)