Narrative Opinion Summary
Appellant Keith A. Halpern contests an injunction against domestic violence issued on January 26, 2017, claiming it lacked competent substantial evidence. Despite being permitted to supplement the record with a transcript or stipulated statement of the hearing, the Appellant failed to do so. Consequently, the court affirms the injunction, referencing established case law to support its decision. The ruling is not final pending any timely motions under relevant procedural rules. Judges Wetherell, Bilbrey, and M.K. Thomas concur with the affirmation. Halpern represented himself, while there was no appearance for the Appellee, Nikoleta G. Koikos.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Lower Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the decision of the lower court by referencing established case law, as the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to overturn the initial ruling.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court affirms the injunction, referencing established case law to support its decision.
Requirement of Competent Substantial Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the injunction against domestic violence due to the appellant's failure to provide competent substantial evidence to challenge it.
Reasoning: Appellant Keith A. Halpern contests an injunction against domestic violence issued on January 26, 2017, claiming it lacked competent substantial evidence.
Supplementing the Record on Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant was permitted to supplement the record with a transcript or stipulated statement of the hearing, but failed to do so, affecting the outcome of the appeal.
Reasoning: Despite being permitted to supplement the record with a transcript or stipulated statement of the hearing, the Appellant failed to do so.