Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of October 16-20, 2023

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Scott v. Adv’d Pharm Consult - Rule 54, § 1292(b), appellate jurisdiction
Noble Prestige v. Galle - appellate jurisdiction, injunction, TRO
Positano Place CA v. Empire Indem - appellate jurisdiction, insurance, appraisal order
Edger v. McCabe - § 1983, qualified immunity, Stop-and-Identify statute

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

In re Fla R Civ P 1.530 - amended rule

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Gainey v. State - self-defense, law enforcement opinion, fundamental error
Heagney v. State - habeas corpus

Second District Court of Appeal - St. Petersburg

No decisions this week

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Ramle v. Miami-Dade Cnty - involuntary dismissal, tax deed sale, surplus
MDC v. Nader + Museu I - set-off, attorney’s charging lien, collateral estoppel
Liu v. Univ of Mia - foreclosure, appellate jurisdiction
Pomeroy v. Griffin Windows - correct measure of damages, insufficient record
Figueroa v. State - closed-circuit television testimony, case-specific findings
Citizens v. Cruz - attorney’s fees
Heritage v. Century Park CA - appraisal, coverage, dual-track approach
Seduction v. Dunbar - arbitration, evidentiary hearing
Robinson v. State - habeas corpus, ineffective assistance
Rigg v. State - postconviction relief
Saenz v. Sanchez - mandamus, jurisdiction

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Nepola v. Nepola - en banc, child support guidelines
Jaimes-Luviano v. State - sentencing order, oral pronouncement
CNN v. Black - defamation, punitive damages
Green Tech Dev v. Kahn & Resnik - account stated
Waterside v. S. Homes - settlement, mutual mistake
Sheermohamed v. Tozzi - injunction, psych exam
McClam v. Carrier - pickup order, custody
Cleveland Clinic v. Daniels - certiorari, presuit notice, med mal

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Roller v. Collins - trust, beneficiaries, statutory reimbursement, § 673.4191
Garrison v. Williamson - dating violence injunction, notice
Luck v. State - Anders appeal, costs
Davis v. State - postconviction relief
Walters v. State - Spencer bar, pro se
Caldwell v. State - postconviction relief
DCF v. RV - dependency, dismissal
KF v. DCF - dependency, certiorari, court records access

Sixth District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

State v. Besten - personal jurisdiction
Pickell v. Lennar Homes - res judicata, privity of parties
Peacock Services v. Pro Form Sports -  insufficient record

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.