Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of October 25 - 29, 2021

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Autauga Cty Emergency Mgmt v. FCC - 911 calls
Del Valle v. US Secy of State - Consular review, jurisdiction
Ginsburg v. US - tax penalty
Hunstein v. Preferred Collection - FDCPA, standing, dissent
Common Cause v. Ga Secy of State - attorney fees

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

Rogers v. State - capital case, postconviction relief
Fla Bar v. Koepke - attorney discipline
In re Fla R Civ P - amended rules
In re Fla R Crim P - amended rules

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Craven v. State - jury selection
Richardson v. RV Park Mgmt - employment, FCRA, limitations
Baxter v. Bryan - Applegate affirmance
Casen v. State - certiorari, timeliness
Daniels v. Kelley - appellate jurisdiction, finality
Stephens v. Godwin - mandamus, duty to rule
Jenkins v. State - belated appeal
Shakespeare v. State - appellate jurisdiction, finality
Bryan v. State - ineffective assistance, appellate counsel

Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Morris v. State - sentencing
Am Coastal v. Ironwood - insurance, appraisal
Jacobs v. State - postconviction relief
MMW v. DCF - dependency

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

College Health v. Depau - default, vacatur
Asgaard Fund v. MM80 Oceanside - foreclosure, instrument, amendments
Pardes v. Pardes - equitable distribution
Citizens v. Casanas - insurance, attorney’s fees, costs
Callari v. Winkeljohn - punitive damages, Binger, expert disclosures
Wheelock v. Betzold - guardianship, fees
Reyes v. Cosculluela - § 57.105, property, nuisance
Babun v. Stok Kon + Braverman - trust, interim fees
Morburger v. Yellow Funding - foreclosure
Miami v. Miami-Dade - mandamus, ch 164, abatement
Moss & Assoc v. Lapin - certiorari, punitive damages
Casanova v. State - certiorari, Stand Your Ground

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Da Silva v. State - mandamus, court reporter
Marcellus v. Peterson - dissolution, attorney’s fees, amount
State v. Guerra - sentencing
Garcia v. AHCA - Medicaid provider, disqualification, agency discretion
Isola Bella v. Clement - settlement, attorney’s fees, prevailing party
Damask v. Ryabchenko - paternity, child support
State Farm v. Hollywood Diagnostics - summary judgment, conclusory affidavit
Comprehensive Spine v. Equity Ins - due process, sua sponte dismissal
State v. Dhaiti - withholding adjudication, lenity

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Demoura v. Travelers - publish, deposition, opposing party
Loancare v. Chestnut - foreclosure, sua sponte dismissal, unpled defenses
Charles v. Williams - paternity, appellate jurisdiction, timely appeal
McEver v. McEver - conceded error; magistrate report and recommendation

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.