Washington v. Washington

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Washington v. Washington

163 So. 3d 742, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6527, 2015 WL 1958981

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 2015

DocketNo. 1D14-2081

StatusPublished

This text of 163 So. 3d 742 (Washington v. Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Washington v. Washington, 163 So. 3d 742, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6527, 2015 WL 1958981 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Alfred Washington, seeks review of an order denying his motion to dissolve an injunction against repeat violence that was entered against him in 2011. In both the motion at issue and a prior motion to dissolve the injunction that was also denied, Appellant challenged the merits of the injunction instead of making any allegations of changed circumstances. On appeal, Appellant again challenges the merits of the injunction. We affirm. See Highway 46 Holdings, LLC v. Myers, 114 So.3d 215, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (noting that the appellant appealed from an order refusing to dissolve a temporary injunction and explaining that because neither party filed an appeal from the original injunction order entered after notice and a hearing, “the sufficiency of the original, unappealed injunction order is not before this Court for review”); see also Spaulding v. Shane, 150 So.3d 852, 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (explaining that in order to establish entitlement to dissolution of an injunction, the movant must prove that there has been a [743]*743change in circumstances since the injunction was entered).

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Alfred Washington, seeks review of an order denying his motion to dissolve an injunction against repeat violence that was entered against him in 2011. In both the motion at issue and a prior motion to dissolve the injunction that was also denied, Appellant challenged the merits of the injunction instead of making any allegations of changed circumstances. On appeal, Appellant again challenges the merits of the injunction. We affirm. See Highway 46 Holdings, LLC v. Myers, 114 So.3d 215, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (noting that the appellant appealed from an order refusing to dissolve a temporary injunction and explaining that because neither party filed an appeal from the original injunction order entered after notice and a hearing, “the sufficiency of the original, unappealed injunction order is not before this Court for review”); see also Spaulding v. Shane, 150 So.3d 852, 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (explaining that in order to establish entitlement to dissolution of an injunction, the movant must prove that there has been a [743]*743change in circumstances since the injunction was entered).

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 So. 3d 742, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6527, 2015 WL 1958981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-washington-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack