Menu

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of December 3 - 7, 2018

Appellate & Trial Support   |   December 7, 2018
Download   
Share Page

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Calixto v. Lesmes - Hague Convention on Child Abduction
Hi-Tech Pharm v. HBS Intl - deceptive advertising, Lanham Act
US v. Barton - Daubert
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line v. Cochran - Natural Gas Act
In re Dukes - bankruptcy
Curtis Inv Co v. IRS - tax

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

In re Std Jury Instr (Crim) - amended instructions, corrected
In re Fla R Juv Pro - amended rules
Foster v. State - capital case, postconviction relief
In re Std Jury Instr Contracts - amended instructions
In re Fla R App P - amended rules

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

State v. Williams - probation violation
Keystone Airpark v. Pipeline- rule 1.442, settlement proposal
Cannie v. Wilmington Sav- belated appeal

Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Maki v. Green Tree Serv - foreclosure, standing
Graham v. State - bolstering, unpreserved error
Palmateer v. Palmateer - equitable distribution, pension plan
Mayo v. Mayo - indirect criminal contempt
Mayo v. Mayo - indirect criminal contempt

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Rodriguez v. State - hearsay, state of mind, harmless error
Rizk v. Rizk - probate, will, revocation
Aquasol CA v. HSBC - appellate sanctions
Miami v. AirBnB - injunction, short-term rentals
Condotte v. P & S Paving - contract damages
Graham v. Flamingo Way - rule 1.540, evidentiary hearing
DOR v. de la Bagassiere - child support modification, preservation of error
Elso v. DHSMV - second-tier certiorari, license suspension
Ultra Aviation v. Cruz Clemente - partial final judgment, appellate jurisdiction
Llanos v. Huerta - certiorari, paternity

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Sayles v. Nationstar Mortgage - foreclosure, judicial notice
Marsh v. RJ Reynolds - comparative negligence
Hinck v. State - excited utterance
Subramanian v. Subramanian - attorney's fees, vexatious litigation
State v. Wright - juvenile, mandatory minimum
Seaspray Resort v. UCF I Trust - foreclosure, sequestering rents

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Richards v. State - investigatory costs, sua sponte
Eckols v. 21st Century - UM benefits, ambiguity
FirstService v. Rodriguez - certiorari, work product, preservation
Williams v. State - postconviction relief
Wright v. Wright - prohibition, disqualification
Dodd v. State - habeas corpus


©2019 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.

Subscribe to Publications

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.