Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of November 18-22, 2024
November 22, 2024

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Grayson v. Ala DOC - capital case, postconviction relief

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee


Mosley v. State - capital case, direct appeal

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee


Campbell v. Ethics Comm’n - financial disclosure, inaccurate
McDonald v. Fla NICA - administrative review, time-barred NICA claim
Wakeley v. State - habitual offender
Rasmussen v. State - trial continuance
Gessner v. Southern - Fla Whistleblower’s Act, certified conflict
A&J Hldgs v. Calypso Towers - motion for rendition of final judgment

Second District Court of Appeal - St. Petersburg


Simmons v. State - search and seizure
US Bank v. Rodriguez - foreclosure, lost note
Smart Comm’n v. Logan - temporary injunction, irreparable harm
Gaffney v. Baumann - pro se sanctions
State v. Riggleman - certiorari, evidence, rules 403 and 404(2)(b)

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami


Thomason v. State - postconviction relief
Grimes v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr - foreclosure, fraud
Walker v. State - improper closing
Estevill v. Estevill - unlawful detainer, subject matter jurisdiction
Egui v. Dep’t of Revenue - no hearing, waiver, paternity, support
Moble v. Dep’t of Revenue - insufficient record
Labriola v. Da Silva - mandamus, ruling, mootness

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach


Guzman v. State - sentencing, fee
Kranci v. Kranci - dissolution, valuation
CSAB v. Clarke - equitable lien, foreclosure
Murray v. State - sentencing, fines
Ouslander v. Ouslander - dissolution, credibility
Sawyer v. State - sentencing
Jones v. BOA - attorney’s fees, finding of fact

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Ruth v. Guerrieri Mgmt - actual or constructive knowledge
Lawrence v. State - unrelated offenses
Bialostozky v. GAHC3 - service of process, default
Villalba-Santos v. State - postconviction relief

Sixth District Court of Appeal - Lakeland


Melena v. Panez - Hague Convention, child custody
Lai v. State - inconsistent verdict
Lai v. State - inconsistent verdict
State v. Banda - sentencing, double jeopardy
Decker v. Cerisme - summary adjudication

The provided links above may be available for a limited time only, as courts sometimes relocate opinions on their websites. Should that occur, please use the “written opinions archive” links provided below each court header to search for the opinion using the case name. The availability of opinions through these channels may vary and is subject to the discretion of the courts.
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.

Disclaimer

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.