Fred Jay Campbell v. Erica Schulze Ising

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 1D2024-1698
• Status: Published

Opinion

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. _____________________________

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.