Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of February 26 - March 2, 2018

Appellate & Trial Support   |   February 26, 2018
Download Download   
Share Share Page

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Hargress v. Soc Sec Admin - social security 
US v. Hubert - Hobbs Act, sentencing 
Ga Dept of Ed v. US Dept of Ed - equitable offset

Florida Supreme Court – Tallahassee

Richards v. State - jurisdiction discharged 
Roberts v. State - fundamental error, lesser included instruction 
Guzman v. State - capital case, direct appeal 
Sochor v. State - capital case, postconviction relief 
Hickmon v. Jones - pro se sanctions

First District Court of Appeal – Tallahassee

Hooks v. State - Faretta inquiry 
Wood v. State - Williams rule 
Williams v. State - aggravated assault 
Davis v. Bay Cnty Jail - finality, summary judgment 
Statham v. State - closing argument, DNA evidence 
Pinestraw v. State - postconviction relief 
Walker v. Jones - untimely appeal 
Tolbert v. Lakeview Loan - appealability, telephonic hearing order 
Pensacola Bch v. Am Fidelity Life Ins - appealability 
Pryear v. State - postconviction relief 
Washington v. State - mandamus 
Schiffman v. Schiffman - appealability, discovery order

Second District Court of Appeal – Lakeland

Elkin v. State - postconviction relief 
Blount v. State - juvenile sentencing 
Heyward v. Wells Fargo - foreclosure, standing 
Arcuri v. HSBC Bank - foreclosure, standing 
Wedmore v. O’Connor - expert witness costs, medical record costs 
Bond v. Bond - temporary appellate fees

Third District Court of Appeal – Miami

Ferk Family v. Frank - commercial contract, derivative litigation, business judgment rule 
Fla Cap Grp v. Bishop - arbitration award, confirmation 
Kelly v. HSBC Bank - quiet title; premature appeal, sanctions order 
Marshall v. State - habeas corpus, manifest injustice, instructions 
JS v. DCF - dependency

Fourth District Court of Appeal – West Palm Beach

Philmore v. State - sentencing 
Austin v. State - sentencing; vindictiveness 
Obolensky v. Chatsworth at Wellington Green - arbitration; severance 
Sandelier v. State - criminal contempt 
Russell v. BAC Home Loans - foreclosure; standing 
Tovar v. Russell - settlement agreement 
HSBC Bank v. Sanchez - foreclosure; date of default 
Rolls-Royce v. Spirit Airlines - personal jurisdiction; evidentiary hearing 
Niagara Indus v. Giaquinto Electric - trade secrets; disclosure 
Meyrowitz v. Schwartz - proposal for settlement 
Brown v. State - postconviction relief

Fifth District Court of Appeal – Daytona Beach

Burton v. State - search and seizure 
Granger v. State - double jeopardy 
Deutsche Bank v. Merced - foreclosure; business records 
Davis v. State - competency 
Northport Health v. Louis - arbitration 
SMK v. SLE - parental rights, termination 
Murray v. State - investigative costs

©2023 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


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.