FRED JAY CAMPBELL
v.
ERICA SCHULZE ISING
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 evidence was sufficient to support an injunction for protection against stalking under section 784.0485, Florida Statutes.
[1] An objective, reasonable-person standard applies when determining whether conduct causes substantial emotional distress sufficient to support a finding of harassment unde…
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“Harass means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”
Dissent's statement of the statutory definition of harassment under section 784.048(1)(a), Florida Statutes
Campbell engaged in conduct directed at Ising that the trial court found constituted harassment. The case involved an appeal of a stalking injunction …
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 Substantial Emotional Distress cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2024-1698 _____________________________
FRED JAY CAMPBELL,
Appellant,
v.
ERICA SCHULZE ISING,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. John Miller, Judge.
December 23, 2025
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LONG, J., concur; WINOKUR, J., dissents with opinion.
2
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
WINOKUR, J., dissenting.
The evidence in this case was not sufficient to show that Campbell willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harassed Ising to support an injunction for protection against stalking pursuant to section 784.0485, Florida Statutes. “Harass” means “to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.” § 784.048(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Even if we view the evidence in the light most favorable to Ising, the evidence did not support a finding that Campbell’s conduct was sufficient to cause “substantial emotional distress” under the reasonable-person standard we must apply. See Bouters v. State, 659 So. 2d 235, 238 (Fla. 1995) (holding that an objective, reasonable-person standard applies to the phrase “substantial emotional distress”). For this reason, we should reverse.
_____________________________
Jason Cromey of Cromey Law, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
Erica Schulze Ising, pro se, Appellee.