JUDITH HUSKINS, O/ B/ O IAN HUSKINS
v.
JANE ALICE SAUER O/ B/ O ALICE ELIZABETH GLENNON
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 trial court's final judgment for protection against stalking is affirmed, with clarification that Judith Huskins is not a party to the injunction and is not enjoined.
Judith Huskins appealed on behalf of Ian Huskins against Jane Alice Sauer on behalf of Alice Elizabeth Glennon in a stalking protection case.…
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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JUDITH HUSKINS o/b/o Ian Huskins, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1475 ) JANE ALICE SAUER o/b/o Alice ) Elizabeth Glennon, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed March 9, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; John S. Carlin, Judge. Christopher E. Cosden, Fort Myers, for Appellant. Michael Mummert, Naples, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment for protection against stalking. We write only to clarify that, as the trial court correctly orally ruled, Judith Huskins is not a party to the injunction and is not enjoined in any way. Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.