Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of January 8 - 12, 2024

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Warren v. DeSantis - § 1983, state attorney, First Amendment retaliation
Hunt Refining v. US EPA - administrative review, Clean Air Act, appellate forum
Lowery v. AmGuard Ins - appellate jurisdiction, abandoning claims
Young Israel v. HART - advertising policy, First Amendment, religious ads
Mungin v. DOC - habeas corpus
Bailey v. Swindell - § 1983, qualified immunity
Hansjurgens v. Bailey - Rule 69(a), reviving judgment
Santos v. Experian - Fair Credit Reporting Act

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

In re Fla R Civ Pro - amended foreclosure form
Everett v. State - capital case, postconviction relief, DNA testing
Watson v. Harris - pro se sanctions

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

RR v. DCF - parental rights, failure to prosecute
Williams v. State - duplicate recordings, costs
McKenzie v. State - hearsay
Cornell v. Joe Allen Constr - fees motion, timeliness
AW v. DCF - parental rights, failure to prosecute

Second District Court of Appeal - St. Petersburg

Sigismondi v. State - preservation of error, prior statement, remoteness
Geske v. State - sentencing
Pro-Karting Exper v. 34th St - certiorari, writ of possession
Brooks v. State - sentencing
Bynum v. State - postconviction relief

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

BeCruising Telecom v. Palau Sunset Harbor CA - preservation
Johnson v. All Constr Res - vicarious liability, scope of employment
All X-Ray Diag Serv v. United Auto - policy issuance, omissions 
Dejanovic v. Block - certiorari, partial final judgment, immediate execution 
Miami-Dade Cnty v. Polanco - sovereign immunity, summary judgment 
Scott v. Zieg - sovereign immunity, notice
Azrack v. Est of Dorman - paternity
Peña v. SC Mota Assocs - findings of fact, presumption of correctness
Stevens v. State - summary affirmance
Harvey v. Cir Ct of the Eleventh Jud Cir - habeas, order to show case 

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Zenon v. State - prosecution costs
United Auto v. Iso-Diagnostics - PIP, s. 627.736, service year
Bailes v. State - best evidence rule, preservation, harmless error, sentencing
Glegg v. Hurk - intentional interference, custodial rights, IIED
Borges v. State - sentencing
McKee v. Crestline Hotels - respondeat superior, scope of employment, cell phone use
Walker v. Yee - pro se, deficient appellate briefing
State v. Tanner - vehicular homicide, single homicide rule, ex post facto laws

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Nelson v. State - lawful firearm possession, sentencing consideration
Anderson v. State - theft, abandonment defense, § 812.014
John Knox Village v. EO Lawrence - punitive damages, affirmative findings, Rule 9.130
Kirkpatrick Trust v. Lakeview Loan - foreclosure, intervention
O’Malley v. State - certified conflict, costs
Zimmerman v. State - horse jockey license, disqualification
Bowers v. State - prohibition; burglary, statute of limitations, DNA evidence  

Sixth District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Fuentes v. Yuhi Landholdings – finality, attorney’s fees
Malkani v. Hannah - appellate attorney’s fees

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.