Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of April 17 - 21, 2023

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Iriele v. Griffin - pleadings as nullities

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

Wells v. State - capital case, direct appeal
Sanders v. State - pro se sanctions
Tundidor v. State - capital case, prohibition, judicial disqualification

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Malden v. State - search and seizure
Le Boss v. State - plea, dispositive issue, search and seizure
State v. JJ - juvenile disposition, disregarded recommendation
Stready v. FAMU - sovereign immunity, Covid-19
Okaloosa v. Moore Law Firm - appellate jurisdiction, nonfinal order
Equity Estates v. Watersound Bch CA - appellate jurisdiction, nonfinal order

Second District Court of Appeal - St. Petersburg

Scott v. Acuity - unjust enrichment
Robledo v. State - postconviction relief

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Saad v. Abud - sanctions, findings
Abrams v. Waserstein - dismissal, jurisdiction
Melendez v. State - official misconduct, benefit 
3003 Indian Creek v. Arias - inadequate record
Saenz v. Sanchez - parenting plan, due process, unrequested relief 
Zoberg v. Hu - venue selection 
Bland v. State - habeas corpus, jurisdiction
Sorhegui v.  Park E HOA - prohibition, disqualification

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Ibar v. State - juror interview
State Farm v. Precision Diag - policy language
Bernstein v. Bernstein - marital asset, equitable distribution
March v. State - prison release reoffender
Gordon v. Bethel - forum non conveniens
Coicou v. State - postconviction relief
Fries v. Anderson - attorney’s fees, pleading
Hollywood Park Apts v. Hollywood - back-billing, ordinance
Spanakos v. Hawk Sys - attorney’s fees, proposal for settlement
Tucker v. Tucker - dissolution, findings
School Board v. Delhomme - sovereign immunity
Edmondson v. Tri-County Elec - cash security bond, jurisdiction

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Olsen v. First Team Ford - summary judgment, disputed facts
Thompson v. State - aggravated battery, mistrial
Gonsalez v. State - postconviction relief
Carter v. State - Anders appeal, costs
Marshall v. State - Anders appeal, probation violation, specific conditions
Hefley v. Holmquist - rehearing, prohibition, timely ruling

Sixth District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Security First v. Nichols -  policy language
Fulcher v. Allen - noticing hearings

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.