Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of January 15 - 19, 2018

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

PETA v. Miami Seaquarium - Endangered Species Act 
Cita Trust Co v. Fifth Third Bank - contractual limitations period, leave to amend 
US v. Brown - sentencing, ACCA 
Pierre v. US - immigration 
Turner v. Wells - defamation

Florida Supreme Court – Tallahassee

Fla Bar v. Christensen - attorney discipline 
Quince v. State - capital case, intellectual disability 
Quince v. State - capital case, postconviction relief 
In re Fla R Jud Admin - court records, public access, involuntary assessments

First District Court of Appeal – Tallahassee

Inlet Beach v. Enclave - litigation privilege, malicious prosecution 
Pickett v. Copeland - stalking injunction; legislative staff analysis 
Leija v. Byrd - repeat violence injunction

Second District Court of Appeal – Lakeland

Hubbard v. State - sentencing 
Amica v. Willis - insurance, UM coverage 
Bryant v. State - probation revocation 
Carrion v. State - competency 
Roberts v. State - scrivener's error 
Blue v. RJ Reynolds - substitution of parties 
Hyre v. State - child hearsay 
New v. DMS - retirement benefits 
Verrier v. Oaks - parenting plan

Third District Court of Appeal – Miami

Aguilar v. State - blood test results; double jeopardy 
Deutsche Bank v. SFL Prop - foreclosure, limitations statute 
Siegel v. Cross Senior Care - JNOV, unsupported expert testimony 
Ashear v. Sklarey - property sale; ready, willing, able 
Harris v. State - search and seizure 
Deprince v. Starboard Cruise - diamond sale, unilateral mistake, price 
Romaguera v. Trust Mortgage - attorney's fees, foreclosure 
Sampson Farm v. Parmenter - personal jurisdiction 
Mitchell v. State - probation revocation 
Luma v. State - pro se sanctions

Fourth District Court of Appeal – West Palm Beach

Jones v. Fed Nat'l Ins Co - insurance; jury instructions 
14269 BT v. Wellington - code enforcement 
Rivas v. BONY - appellate jurisdiction

Fifth District Court of Appeal – Daytona Beach

Mathis v. State - costs; section 939.06, rule 9.400(a) 
Landers v. State Farm - rehearing; insurance, appraisal 
McGinnis v. Irwin - attorney's fees, findings 
Solarblue v. Jones - personal jurisdiction 
Mendenhall v. State - probation violation, preservation 
Hall v. Marion County - summary judgment; discrimination, retaliation 
Utile v. State - postconviction relief 
Benway v. State - sentence
Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.


The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.