Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of April 24 - 28, 2023

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

League Women Voters v. Fla Sec of State - election law, constitutional challenges
Barwick v. Fla Gov - capital case, § 1983, state clemency
Thompson v. Ala Sec of State - election law, constitutional challenges
Somers v. USA - habeas corpus
TocMail v. Microsoft - Lanham Act, advertising

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

In re Fla R Civ P 1.530 - amended rule
In re Fla R Traffic Ct - amended rules

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

KH v. DCF - parental rights appeal, failure to prosecute
JLE v. DCF - parental rights appeal, failure to prosecute
DL v. DCF - parental rights appeal, failure to prosecute
AH v. DCF - parental rights appeal, failure to prosecute 

Second District Court of Appeal - St. Petersburg

Eckerd Kids v. Devereux - foster care services, indemnification agreement
Benoit v. Hoffman - habeas corpus

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Garcia v. State - certified question, remand, sufficiency of evidence, preservation
Holguin v. Godin I - estate administration, will
Viera v. Viera - marriage dissolution, disqualification, contempt
Holguin v. Godin II - forum non conveniens
Pickett v. State - postconviction relief
Swain v. State - probation violation, dangerousness findings, preservation
MVP Plumbing v. Citizens - dismissal, assignment of benefits, estimate 
Carnevale v. Rogenia Trading - prohibition, disqualification
MYI Int’l v. Blue Ocean Mia - certiorari, overbroad discovery
Seme v. State - rehearing, sentence 
Vanegas v. State - habeas corpus, interference with custody

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Patient Depot v. Acadia - trade secret, summary judgment
Progressive v. Frazier - en banc, PIP, imaging, reimbursement rate
Heine v. FAU - COVID-19, state university, contract, sovereign immunity
State v. Blocker - Miranda, custodial arrest, accident report privilege
Ali v. State - postconviction relief

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Woodberry v. State - certified question, Miranda rights
Hudkins v. Hudkins - plenary guardian, incapacity
Fla Farm Bureau Gen Ins v. Worrell - insurance, remediation
Colon v. State - Anders appeal, costs
Mooningham v. Mooningham - parenting plan
Tyler v. State - Spencer warning, pro se
Kazi v. State - Anders appeal, post-appeal activity, strike
Dungey v. State - ineffective assistance, trial
Fucci v. State - certiorari, dismissal; six-person jury, murder, minor
Woodrum v. State - concurrence; murder, postconviction relief
Newton v. Wakefield - lack of transcript, inadequate record
Goodwin v. State - habeas corpus

Sixth District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Ivey v. Ivey - certiorari jurisdiction
Rojas v. State - double jeopardy

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.