Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Michael Adams v. Casey L. Cox, No. 5D2023-1821 (Fla. 5th DCA May 2, 2025)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 298 Ensuring due process in witness testimony and cross-examination5 citing cases�While we are sympathetic to the time constraints faced by busy trial courts, we cannot ignore the dictates of the Florida Statutes or the requirements of fundamental due process concerning the procedures *391 to be utilized in making critical decisions of this nature1 citing court put it this way
  • Ceelen v. Grant, 210 So. 3d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).published
    All -witnesses should be sworn, each party should be permitted to call witnesses with relevant information, and cross-examination should be permitted.” Tejeda-Soto v. Raimondi, 968 So.2d 635, 636-37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting Ohrn v. Wrig…
  • In the Interest of A.B. v. R.B., 186 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).published
    All witnesses should be sworn, each party should be permitted to call witnesses with relevant information, and cross-examination should be 'permitted’” Tejeda-Soto v. Raimondi, 968 So.2d 635, 636-37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (emphasis added) (quo…
  • McNulty ex rel. G.M. v. Douglas ex rel. K.D., 111 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).published
    All witnesses should be sworn, each party should be permitted to call witnesses with relevant information, and cross-examination should be permitted.’ ” Tejeda-Soto, 968 So.2d at 636 -37 (quoting Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So.2d 298, 298 (Fla. 5t…
  • Furry v. Rickles, 68 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).published 2 cites
    See Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
  • Tejeda-Soto v. Raimondi, 968 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).published
    See Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So.2d 298, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
At page 300 To satisfy the constitutional and statutory imperative of due process, at an injunction hearing, the parties must have an opportunity to prove or disprove the allegations made in the complaint. All witnesses should be sworn, each party should be permitted to call witnesses with relevant informatio…1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Michael Adams v. Casey L. Cox, No. 5D2023-1821 (Fla. 5th DCA May 2, 2025).published 2 cites
    (To satisfy the constitutional and statutory imperative of due process, at an injunction hearing, the parties must have an opportunity to prove or disprove the allegations made in the complaint. All witnesses should be…)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Kimberly OHRN, Appellant,
v.
Ashlee Jewel WRIGHT, Appellee.
5D06-4068.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Aug 10, 2007.
Published opinion
963 So. 2d 298
2007 WL 2274428
Per Curiam.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Bart Schneider, of Bart Schneider, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence entered pursuant to section 784.046, Florida Statutes (2006). We do so because the transcript of the hearing reflects that the trial court did not swear either witness and did not permit the appellant, Kimberly Ohrn, to call a witness who could have offered testimony to support her version of the incidents that had occurred between the parties. These actions constituted a due process violation.

Section 784.046, Florida Statutes (2006), requires a "full hearing" prior to entering a permanent injunction against repeat violence.[1] To satisfy the constitutional and statutory imperative of due process, at an injunction hearing, the parties must have an opportunity to prove or disprove the allegations made in the complaint. All witnesses should be sworn, each party should be permitted to call witnesses with relevant information, and cross-examination should be permitted. Utley v. Baez-Camacho, 743 So.2d 613, 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). While we are sympathetic to the time constraints faced by busy trial courts, we cannot ignore the dictates of the Florida Statutes or the requirements of fundamental due process concerning the procedures to be utilized in making critical decisions of this nature. See Lewis v. Lewis, 689 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, MONACO and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

1 Section 784.046(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), which governs injunctions for repeat violence, states, in pertinent part:

(6)(a) When it appears to the court that an immediate and present danger of violence exists, the court may grant a temporary injunction which may be granted in an ex parte hearing, pending a full hearing, and may grant such relief as the court deems proper, including an injunction enjoining the respondent from committing any acts of violence.

(Emphasis added).