Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of June 5 - 9, 2023

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Milgram v. Chase - Fair Credit Reporting Act
Myrick v. City of Hoover - USERRA, military reservists
Marquez v. Amazon - breach of contract, Prime, Rapid Delivery
Myrick v. Fulton Cnty - § 1983, excessive force claims
Ferguson v. Ala DOC - habeas corpus, § 2254
USA v. Laines - murder, evidence, sentencing
AM Grand Court Lakes v. Rockhill Ins - insurance, hurricane damage
King v. Ga Diagnostic Prison - habeas corpus

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

Fla Bar v. Jacobs - attorney discipline

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Gable v. Gable - equitable distribution, fees
State v. Walker - certiorari, evidence, victim’s injuries
Oliver v. FCOR - certiorari, parole release
Beasley v. State - double jeopardy
Orange Cnty FFA v. Orange Cnty - PERC, arbitration award, compliance
Brown v. State - pro se sanctions

Second District Court of Appeal - St. Petersburg

Reddick v. USF - FCHR, discrimination, notice
Wells Fargo v. Avers - foreclosure, surplus funds
Libardi v. Pavimento - employment, discrimination
State v. Crebo - Miranda, statements

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Gonzalez v. Santana - summary judgment, competing evidence
41 Acquisition v. Haff - attorney’s fees, settlement
Miccosukee Tribe v. Lewis Tein - attorney’s fees, proposal for settlement
Mercury Indem v. Pan Am - PIP demand, itemized statement
Infinity Auto v. Mia Open - examination under oath, notice
Diaz v. State - community control, violation
Morris v. State - probation, violation, preservation of error 

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Seminole Tribe v. Manzini - prohibition, sovereign immunity
State v. Acevedo - search and seizure, blood draw
Douglas v. Douglas - marital dissolution
Water’s Edge v. Christopherson - venue transfer
Coto v. State - sentencing
Wilsey v. State - sentencing, costs

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Chou v. Shi - dissolution, derivative suit
Pender v. State - attempted murder, evidence tampering
Sanford v. Skate Station - Spencer warning, pro se
Reed v. State - Spencer warning, pro se
Sanford v. Skate Station - Spencer warning, pro se

Sixth District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Meeks v. Strickland - contract construction
Clark v. Global Guaranteed - contract enforcement
Luft v. Fla Real Estate Comm'n - denial of license
Smith v. State - postconviction relief
Bravo v. State -  transfer of venue
Beauchamp v. Beauchamp -  dissolution of marriage
Grovehurst HOA v. Stone Crest Master Ass'n - contract construction
First Acceptance v. At Home Auto Glass - policy construction, appraisal
Dowdy v. Estate of Dowdy - appellate jurisdiction, timeliness
Peterson v. State - sentencing

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.