Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of October 3 - 7, 2022

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

AL v. Walt Disney Parks - ADA
Corporacion AIC v. Hidroelectrica - rehearing en banc poll
Curling v. Raffensperger - voting, elections
Holland v. Carnival Corp - pleading standard, negligence
Luke v. Gulley - qualified immunity
McGuire v. Marshall - ex post facto, sex offenders
Norwegian Cruise Line v. Surgeon Gen - vaccines, commerce, speech, dissent
Pye v. Warden - habeas, en banc, dissent

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

Truehill v. Dixon - capital case, postconviction relief

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Brown v. State - preservation of error, hearsay objection
Burns v. Turnage - settlement proposal
State v. Anderson - appellate jurisdiction, minute entry
McClendon v. State - sentencing
Gjokhila v. Seymour - rule 1.540, mistake, child support
Morris v. State - inconsistent verdicts, felony murder
Summerlin v. L3 - employment, ADA, CRA, exhaustion
Aberman v. Ford Miller - default judgment, excusable neglect
Jones v. State - mandamus, duty to rule, mootness
Johnson v. State - mandamus, duty to rule, mootness
Tabrizi v. Mem’l Healthcare - certiorari, discovery, in camera review

Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Gulf Coast Transp v. Hillsborough - Takings Clause, taxi medallions
Cletcher v. Cletcher - marital dissolution, fees
State Farm v. Athans Chiro - certiorari, discovery, relevance, privilege
Lamberson v. State - sentencing, retroactive judicial decisions
White v. State - sentencing
North Port v. W Villagers - second-tier certiorari, municipal boundaries
Morrow v. State - postconviction relief

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Cozen O’Connor v. Mintz Truppman - certiorari, collateral estoppel
LA v. State - delinquency, remote trial
Personal Inj Clinic v. Allstate - PIP, summary judgment
Schuler v. Sandy Fox - liquidated damages, return of service
Exclusive Motoring v. Soral Inv - eviction, registry, rent, disbursement
Acuna v. Alarcon - Minimum Wage Act, employer
Abrams v. Waserstein - appellate jurisdiction, standing
SH v. DCF - parental rights, termination
Riveron v. AHCA - administrative hearing request, equitable tolling
Griffin Windows v. Pomeroy - mandamus, duty to rule, fees
JR v. DCF - prohibition, judicial disqualification

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Walk v. State - sentencing

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

DCF v. Despaigne - certiorari, involuntary commitment

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.