Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of May 21 - 25, 2018

Appellate & Trial Support   |   May 21, 2018
Download Download   
Share Share Page

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

US v. Mitrovic - unlawful naturalization, Geneva Convention 
US v. Touset - search & seizure, border search 
Scott v. US - Brady, AEDPA

Florida Supreme Court – Tallahassee

In re Std Jury Instr (Capital) - amended instructions 
Fla Bar v. Blackburn - attorney discipline 
Everett v. State - capital case, postconviction relief 
In re Std Jury Instr (Crim) - amended instructions 
Sweet v. State - capital case, postconviction relief 
Schofield v. State - pro se sanctions

First District Court of Appeal – Tallahassee

Anderson v. State - aggravated assault, lesser included; certified conflict 
Birch v. State - information, scope; constructive possession 
Miller v. State - blood draw, consent 
Gainey v. Washington Cnty - employment, whistleblower 
Fla Carry v. Thrasher - firearms, university campus; judicial disqualification 
Meeks v. State - circumstantial evidence, robbery 
Compassionate Care v. ACHA - hospice, certificate of need 
Stricklin v. Stricklin - alimony, fees 
Kurtanovic v. Kurtanovic - equitable distribution, alimony 
Johnson v. State - certiorari; sentencing 
Williams v. DOC - whistleblower claim, timeliness 
Johnson v. State - postconviction relief

Second District Court of Appeal – Lakeland

State v. Crumbley - vagueness, pain management clinic regulation 
Jenkins v. Goodman - domestic violence injunction, relief 
Leclaire v. State - postconviction relief 
Horgan v. Cosden - trust, interpretation

Third District Court of Appeal – Miami

Bailey v. State - prohibition; Stand Your Ground 
Knight Found v. Urban Phil - charitable trust, interpretation 
Coral Gables v. Blanco - sovereign immunity, appellate jurisdiction

Fourth District Court of Appeal – West Palm Beach

Cledenord v. State - postconviction relief 
Smith v. State - probation revocation 
Parr v. State - sentencing; impartiality 
Walerowicz v. Armand - medical bills; treating physician expert 
Carefirst v. Recovery Village - personal jurisdiction 
State v. Stouffer -- search and seizure 
Graham v. State - postconviction relief

Fifth District Court of Appeal – Daytona Beach

Jedak Corp v. Seabreeze - rehearing, show cause 
Johnson v. State - sentencing, time served, costs 
Swanick v. Lorish - probate, gag order 
Nieves v. State Farm - new trial, remittitur, medical expenses 
Bank of NY v. Burgiel - foreclosure, standing 
State v. Snook - driver’s license suspension, habitual; dismissal 
Carson-Grayson v. Grayson - due process, notice, scheduling conference 
Tolliver v. State - ineffective assistance 
Brown v. Sate - postconviction relief 
Joseph v. State - competency 
Moore v. State - habeas corpus 
Guillaume v. State - habeas corpus

©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.