Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of February 17 - 21, 2020
February 21, 2020
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Sow v. US – immigrationRoyal Palm Props v. Pink Palm Props – trademark
Jones v. Fla Gov – equal protection, injunction
Democratic Exec Cmte v. Nat Repub Sen Cmte – mootness, vacatur
Kondrat'yev v. City of Pensacola – standing, establishment clause
Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee
Adv Op re Voter Approval - proposed constitutional amendmentFirst District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee
Brinson v. State - probation revocation, sex offender statusKyle v. Carter - timesharing; appellate jurisdiction, contempt
Flowers v. State - search and seizure
Starkes v. State - criminal defense, taxable costs
Patin v. Davis - stalking injunction
Nilio v. State - postconviction relief, trial court jurisdiction
Lindsay v. Edwards - mootness
Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland
Gundel v. AV Homes - class action, homeowners associationNaples v. Ethics Naples - city charter, citizens’ initiative
Gage v. State - juvenile sentencing, certified conflict
VMOB v. DOR - sales tax assessments, penalty
DOR v. Bell - tax exemption, residency requirement, constitutionality
TRC v. State - burglary tools
Taylor v. State - postconviction relief
Third District Court of Appeal - Miami
Velazco v. State - testimony perpetuation; double jeopardy, certified conflictWaves of Hialeah v. Machado - undertaker’s doctrine; drug use evidence
People’s Trust v. Bravo - insurance, property repair, injunction
Cordeiro v. Alves - rehearing, new affidavit
Shipman v. Wells Fargo - foreclosure sale, vacatur
NC v. State - resisting without violence, evidence
Guillen v. PNC Bank - rule 1.540
Spradley v. DOC - venue, agency home
Goldstein v. Ellman - lack of transcript
Brown v. Brown - preservation of error
Davide v. State - mandamus
Rodriguez v. Children’s Home - pleading, pro se plaintiff
Vaz v. State - ineffective assistance, deportation
Davis v. Junior - habeas corpus, rule 3.133, hearsay evidence
Diaz v. State - ineffective appellate assistance, timely petition
Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach
Quarles v. State – Miranda, waiverHousehold Fin Corp III v. Williams – foreclosure; attorney’s fees
Maclean v. State – lesser-included offense, instruction
State v. Sampaio – failure to return hired vehicle; statutory construction
Kostoglou v. Fortuna – charging order; LLC distributions
Oliver v. Winn-Dixie – slip and fall, constructive knowledge
Curtis v. Centauri Spec Ins – amount in controversy; circuit court jurisdiction
Kaiser v. Onlymoso – noncompete; temporary injunction bond
Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach
State Farm v. Cadet - certiorari, appraiser, interest
Smith v. Cooper - error not argued
Carollo v. Henderson - certiorari, lis pendens, discharge
Rish v. State - postconviction relief
©2025 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.