SAMUEL LEE SMITH, JR.
v.
LEAMSI HORTA
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.
The appellant must demonstrate that the course of conduct alleged as stalking serves no legitimate purpose.
[1] In a stalking case, the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the course of conduct alleged as stalking serves no legitimate purpose.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Petitioner must demonstrate that the course of inappropriate conduct alleged as stalking, of which he complains, serves no legitimate purpose.”
Court's citation to Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Samuel Lee Smith, Jr. appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County regarding allegations of stalking by Leamsi Horta.…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 2, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-139 Lower Tribunal No. 24-754
Samuel Lee Smith, Jr., Appellant, vs. Leamsi Horta, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Javier Enriquez, Judge.
Samuel Lee Smith, Jr., in proper person. No appearance, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA
2018) (Petitioner must demonstrate that the course of inappropriate conduct alleged as stalking, of which he complains, serves no legitimate purpose.)
2