JAKE ALLEN DAILEY
v.
MICHAEL JEFFREY ROTH
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.
Uncivil text messages and a tense exchange between two men in an acrimonious relationship do not constitute repeat violence sufficient to support a permanent injunction under Florida law.
[1] A cause of action for an injunction for protection in cases of repeat violence is authorized by Florida law.
[2] Evidence of uncivil text messages and tense exchanges, without more, is insufficient to support a permanent injunction for repeat violence.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Mere shouting and obscene hand gestures, without an overt act that places the victim in fear, does not constitute the type of violence required for an injunction.”
Court's citation to Russell v. Doughty explaining the threshold for violence sufficient to support an injunction.
Dailey and Roth had an acrimonious relationship due to Roth being the ex-husband of Dailey's fiancée. The men exchanged uncivil text messages and had …
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 Repeat Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
The evidence presented below showed an acrimonious relationship between Dailey and Roth, whose ex-wife was engaged to Dailey. The two men exchanged uncivil text messages and had a tense exchange at a Little League game. The evidence proved the men behaved badly, but it was insufficient to support the injunction. See § 784.046(1)(b) (defining “repeat violence”); cf.
CORRECTED PAGES: pg 1 CORRECTION IS UNDERLINED IN RED MAILED: January 24, 2019 BY: KMS Russell v. Doughty, 28 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Mere shouting and obscene hand gestures, without an overt act that places the victim in fear, does not constitute the type of violence required for an injunction.” (quoting Sorin v. Cole, 929 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)); cf. also Jones v. Jackson, 67 So. 3d 1203, 1205 (Altenbernd, J., concurring) (“It might occasionally be helpful if the circuit courts had the power to enter an order requiring adults to act like grownups. But a permanent injunction for protection against repeat violence cannot be used simply to compel civility and common decency.”).
REVERSED.
ROBERTS, RAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Jason K. Hutchinson, Jacksonville, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sorin v. Cole, 929 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Micah Jones v. Jackson, 67 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Russell v. Deidra L. Doughty, 28 So. 3d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)