Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of December 11 - 15, 2023

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Consumers’ Research v. FCC - Telecommunications Act, nondelegation doctrine
USA v. McCoy - First Step Act, sentencing
Lapham v. Walgreen - FMLA, Florida Whistleblowers Act, retaliation
USA v. Kincherlow - coercing prostitution, inducing
Ounjian v. Globoforce - Fla Whistleblowers Act, FDUTPA
Tynes v. Fla DJJ - Title VII discrimination, burden shifting

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

In re Fla R App P - amended rule
Gonzalez v. State - capital case, interlocutory appeal, all writs
Nairn v. State - pro se sanctions
In re Fla Prob R - amended rules
In re Fla R GP & JA - amended rule

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Whitley v. State - sentencing
Seminole v. Braden - workers’ compensation
Mitchell v. Ahmed - parenting plan, modification
C&S Wholesale v. DBPR - excise tax, refund, other tobacco products
Washington v. State - evidence, controlled substance, possession by passenger

Second District Court of Appeal - St. Petersburg

Sarasota Tennis v. CC of Sarasota HA - tortious interference, contract breach, FDUTPA
State v. Reddin - extraterritorial arrest
Welch v. State - sentencing, plea withdrawal
Treadway v. State - postconviction relief

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Universal v. Sunset 102 Off Park CA - leave to amend, spoliation, improper comments
Ferrer v. Larrinaga - alimony 
Fertil v. Univ of Mia - Daubert challenge, causation opinion
Wello & Mom v. Clear Spring - forum selection clause
Pringle v. Pringle - unequal distribution, debt 
Weiss v. BI 27 - lis pendence, fraud in execution
Miami-Dade Cnty v. Berastain - negligent supervision, breach, causation, evidence
Sadeh v. Calenzani - child support, modification
Gnaegy v. Morris - removal of personal representative and trustee, appellate jurisdiction 
SDSol Techs v. Stardam - leave to amend, claim to pierce corporate veil 
Ryan v. State - peremptory challenge, sentencing 
Johansson v. Miami-Dade Cnty - second-tier certiorari, jurisdiction
Vill of Palmetto Bay v. 17777 Old Cutler Rd - second-tier certiorari, incorrect application of law
Roberson v. Reyes - habeas, delayed filing of charges, good cause

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Fed Ins Co v. Perlmutter – punitive damages proffer, en banc, certification

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

State v. Crandall - resentencing
Villalba-Santos v. State - sentence, vacate
Hurlburt v. State - jail credit, summary denial, records

Sixth District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Maso v. Security First - certified conflict; § 627.70152, pre-suit notice
Hines v. Westgate Resorts - summary affirmance
Orosco v. Rodriguez - establishment of paternity
Mercury Indemn v. Thomas - appellate jurisdiction

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.