Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of October 10 - 14, 2022

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Steele v. Soc Sec Comm’r – certified question, posthumously conceived child

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

Statler v. State - sexual battery, knowledge

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

CC v. APD - administrative review, timeliness
Iarussi v. Iarussi - dissolution, proposed orders, interest, imputed income
Bonhomme v. Staff Team Hotels - workers’ compensation
Jack v. State - preservation of error, sentencing
State v. Green - search and seizure
Key v. State - curtilage, burglary, fundamental error
EIG Servs v. One Call Med - arbitration, award, clarification
INVO v. Ring Power - Applegate affirmance
Atwood v. State - search and seizure
Sims Crane v. Preciado - workers’ compensation
Williams v. State - sexual battery, limitations statute
DOH v. Smith - certiorari, corporate representative deposition
Bryant v. State - prohibition, Stand Your Ground
Perez v. DOR - child support, confession of error rejected
Nilio v. Dixon - mandamus, DOC, failure to act, transfer
TL v. DCF - parental rights, termination, failure to prosecute appeal

Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Battles v. State - sentencing
Pellegrino v. DOR - child support, confession of error

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Martinez v. Jones - habeas corpus, pretrial bond
Alcazar v. State - habeas corpus, pretrial detention
Sager v. Blanco - dangerous instrumentality, vicarious liability, weaponized vehicle
Avant Design v. Aquastar - contract, fraud, FDUTPA, lien
Polynice v. Burger King - new trial, scope of relief
Duncan v. Franklin - child support
Cabrera v. AHCA - administrative review, Medicaid participation
Mendoza v. State - probation revocation
Gidwani v. Roberts - fees, costs
Gonzalez v. Faccidomo - retainer, refund

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Leposky v. Ego - temporary injunction; asset freeze
Versace v. Uruven - garnishment; tenancy by entireties
Skirdulis v. State - prosecution costs
Air Qual Experts v. Family Secur Ins - assignment of benefits
Benitez v. Universal Prop - s. 627.409, misrepresentation
Williams v. State - sentencing

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Ellis v. State - Anders appeal, public defender fee
State v. Woodson - Stand Your Ground motion, facial sufficiency, evidentiary hearing
Roberts v. State - vehicular homicide, suspended license
DB v. APD - developmental disabilities, HCBS waiver
Hohns v. Thompson - summary judgment; promissory note, requirements
Commins v. State - criminal conviction, sentence
Timmons v. State - Spencer bar, pro se
Ajanel v. State - postconviction relief, sentence
Wright v. State - Spencer warning, pro se

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.