Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of March 12 - 16, 2018

Appellate & Trial Support   |   March 12, 2018
Download Download   
Share Share Page

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Francisco v. US - immigration, ACCA 
Gates v. Khokhar - § 1983, immunity 
US v. Vergara - search and seizure 
In re Welch - sentencing, ACCA 
In re Gary - habeas corpus, stay of execution

Florida Supreme Court – Tallahassee

Johnson v. State - capital case, direct appeal 
In re Mediators - amended rules 
Hutchinson v. State - capital case, postconviction relief

First District Court of Appeal – Tallahassee

Piazza v. State - double jeopardy, plea 
Jacksonville v. O'Neal - workers' compensation 
Erlinger v. Federico - judicial disqualification 
Robinson v. Robinson - venue, duplicate litigation, relief 
Palisades OA v. Browning - condominium, owner dispute, arbitration 
Rodriguez v. Tallahassee Fire - workers' compensation

Second District Court of Appeal – Lakeland

Watkins v. State - double jeopardy 
State v. Beery - probation violation 
Kia v. Doughty - automobile warranty, damages amount 
Slydell v. State - search and seizure 
DJS v. State - delinquency, grand theft 
Brown v. Brown - marital dissolution, fees, time-sharing 
Thompson v. State - probation, special conditions 
Chandler v. MotivePower - attorney's fees, appealability 
AR v. DCF - dependency

Third District Court of Appeal – Miami

Wilmington Trust v. Alvarez - foreclosure, limitations 
Loor v. State - Faretta 
Sweetwater v. Lopez - local government, budget dispute, mootness 
Balmaseda v. Okay Ins - insurance; appellate attorney's fees

Fourth District Court of Appeal – West Palm Beach

Peatenlane v. State - sentencing 
State Farm v. Care Wellness Ctr - PIP; deductible; conflict 
Obas v. State - scrivener's error 
Ocean Concrete v. Indian River Cty - Bert Harris Act; taking 
USAA v. Gogan - PIP; deductible; conflict 
McMichael v. Deutsche Bank - foreclosure; unclean hands 
Subramanian v. Subramanian - dissolution; equitable distribution 
Progressive v. Blum - PIP; deductible; conflict 
Dyck-O'Neal v. Larman - conflict 
Debish v. Wells Fargo - lost note; adequate protection 
AN v. DCF - pension; food assistance 
Balva v. Ontario Wealth Mgmt - foreclosure; attorney's fees 
Lamorte v. Testoni - paternity 
State Farm v. CC Chiropractic - PIP; second-tier cert

Fifth District Court of Appeal – Daytona Beach

Hedden v. Hedden - alimony 
Carter v. Hart - alimony, contempt, purge 
Gaeta v. Seaside - arbitration 
Ratner v. Cemoni - prohibition; judicial disqualification

©2020 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.