Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of October 14 - 18, 2019

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

US v. Pearson - sentencing
Smith v. Haynes & Haynes - FLSA
McWilliams v. Ala DOC - habeas corpus
Bailey v. Swindell - search & seizure, qualified immunity
Steiner v. US - habeas corpus, ineffective assistance
Carter v. Allen - en banc
Cvoro v. Carnival Corp - foreign arbitration
Jefferson v. GDCP Warden - habeas corpus, AEDPA

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

No decisions this week

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Simmons v. State - sentencing
Smith v. State - double jeopardy
Worrell v. State - postconviction relief
Blanco v. Creative Mgmt - workers' compensation, expert qualifications
Gordon v. State - postconviction relief
Sanchez v. State - habeas corpus
Hamilton v. State - habeas corpus

Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Davis v. Sheridan Healthcare - FCCPA, workers' compensation, certified question
Gannon v. Cuckler - personal jurisdiction, waiver, certified conflict
State v. Miller - search and seizure
US Bank v. Sturm - foreclosure, paragraph 22
Carpenter's Home Estates v. Sanders - certiorari, punitive damages
Heare v. State - postconviction relief
Marshall v. State - sentencing, enforcing mandate, intervening decision
Heid v. FIGA - opinion withdrawn (this one)
Santiago v. Rodriguez - medical malpractice, equal protection, certified question

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Araujo v. Winn-Dixie - trial, letter of protection reference, spoliation instructions, fees for denying RFA
OP-G v. State - disrupting school, First Amendment; Richardson
Vella v. Salaues - amending pleadings; summary judgment, additional discovery
Eskenazi v. Eskenazi - personal jurisdiction, marital dissolution
Miami v. Kho - Google maps photo, authentication
Molina v. State - closing argument, bolstering by counsel

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Geliga v. State - sentencing
Hurchalla v. Homeowners Choice - summary judgment; affirmative defenses
Rodriguez v. State - competency hearing
Cabrera v. US Bank - class certification, counterclaim, denial, findings
Mahinbakht v. Mahinbakht - forum non conveniens
Hallandale Beach v. Sharkey - order, oral comments, contradiction
Kovacs v. State - postconviction relief

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Maisonet v. State - certified question, postconviction relief
Romaine v. Romaine - dissolution, settlement agreement, counteroffer
Ortiz v. State - postconviction relief
Henderson v. State - Spencer warning
McDuffie v. State - Spencer warning
Everett v. State - postconviction relief
Quick v. State - prohibition, bias
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.

Disclaimer

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.