Skip to Content

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

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Jones v. USA - postconviction relief
Austin v. Glynn Cnty - sheriffs, 11th Amendment immunity, compensation decisions
W Va v. US DOT - Covid-19, Rescue Plan Act challenge, en banc denial
Jacksonville v. Jax Hospitality Holdings - Rule 41, voluntary dismissal, stipulation
Zen Group v. Fl AHCA - Medicaid provider, retaliation, due process, qualified immunity

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

No decisions this week.

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Snyder v. State - similar fact evidence
KJ v. DCF - parental rights appeal, failure to prosecute
Ellis v. State - sentencing
Martinez v. State - habeas corpus
Stuart v. Lapete - paternity, temporary support

Second District Court of Appeal - St. Petersburg

Saterbo v. State Farm - insurance, bad faith, proposed settlement
Garner v. State - sentencing, Eighth Amendment
Bric McMann v. Regatta Bch Club - punitive damages amendment
Allaire v. Allaire - alimony, modification
State v. Downs - sitting for 5DCA, postconviction relief
McDougald Fam v. Rays Baseball - arbitration
Pirman v. South Pointe - homeowners association, contract breach

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Peebles v. GrassMasters - unjust enrichment, express contract
People's Tr v. Banks - clarification, policy interpretation, act of nature
City of Mia v. Marcos - default, Kozel factors
Boksa v. Hogan - insufficient initial brief, insufficient record
Serrano v. Epstein - summary judgment, due process
TheDigital.Support v. Smarketing - insufficient record
Send Enters v. Set Drive - unauthorized motion, untimely appeal
Deblois v. Dominguez - substitution of party, appellate jurisdiction, certiorari 
DNP Consulting v. MDPD - certiorari, irreparable harm

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Chiquita v. Port Everglades - unjust enrichment; benefit
RJR v. Spurlock - Engle progeny, punitive damages
Seminole Tribe v. Webster - sovereign immunity, real party in interest
Haratz v. Dental Team - condition precedent, waiver, pleading
Day v. Lawyers’ Reporting - personal jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Housman v. Housman - guardianship, asset freeze, ex parte order
State v. Downs - postconviction relief
The Cape v. Och-Ziff - dismissal, amendment
Richardson v. State - special concurrence, postconviction relief
Kuthiala v. Goldman - offer of judgment, attorney’s fees
McCullough v. State - Anders appeal, cost
In re Jane Doe - abortion, minor, consent of guardian, judicial waiver
TA v. DCF - concession of error, parental rights

Sixth District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

CPPB v. Taurus Apopka City Ctr -  lis pendens, irreparable harm

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.