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 (fladistctapp, 2025-05-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael Adams v. Casey L. Cox (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Id. at 569–70; Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So. 2d 298, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“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.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ceelen v. Grant
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
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. Wright, 963 So.2d 298, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of A.B. v. R.B.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
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) (quoting Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So.2d 298, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McNulty ex rel. G.M. v. Douglas ex rel. K.D.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
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. 5th DCA 2007)).
cited Cited "see" Niederkorn v. Trivino
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); see also Pope v. Pope, 901 So.2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
discussed Cited "see" Furry v. Rickles (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
cited Cited "see" Tejeda-Soto v. Raimondi
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So.2d 298, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kimberly OHRN, Appellant,
v.
Ashlee Jewel WRIGHT, Appellee.
5D06-4068.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Aug 10, 2007.
963 So. 2d 298
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).