Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of May 28 - June 1, 2018

Appellate & Trial Support   |   May 28, 2018
Download Download   
Share Share Page

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

US v. Obando – MDLEA, jurisdiction 
Berkun v. IRS – tax, due process
St Paul Ins v. National Union Ins – diversity 
CSX Transp v. Ala DOR – rehearing 
Jefferson v. Sewon America – discrimination, retaliation

Florida Supreme Court – Tallahassee

In re Fla R Jud Admin - amended rules
In re Fla R Civ Pro - amended rule, form

First District Court of Appeal – Tallahassee

Francis v. State - competency 
Bedell v. State - blood samples, testing
Williams v. Sapp - marital dissolution; modifying settlement agreement
Richards v. Rish - unjust enrichment

Second District Court of Appeal – Lakeland

McCampbell v. FNMA - foreclosure, best evidence rule
Stern v. Horwitz - rule 1.260, substitution upon death
State v. Lackey - sentencing
Smith v. DOC - certiorari, habeas corpus

Third District Court of Appeal – Miami

P&S v. Mak - bankruptcy, automatic stay, supplementary proceeding
JA v. State - delinquency, criminal mischief
State v. Sisco - sentencing
Holmes v. State - pro se sanctions
Thompson v. State - hearsay, excited utterance
State v. Bradley - resentencing, pipeline eligibility
Paredes v. Whole Foods - slip and fall, summary judgment
Rogers v. State - probation revocation
Hernandez v. Miami-Dade - civil service, second-tier certiorari
Transp Serv v. Seaboard - premature appeal, “go hence without day”
Wolentarski v. Anchor P&C - summary judgment, timely opposition
CH v. DCF - dependency
Chiropractic Clinics v. Responsive Auto - untimely certiorari petition

Fourth District Court of Appeal – West Palm Beach

Tillman v. State—sentencing; conflict
Hart v. State—justifiable force instruction
Quinlin v. State—ineffective assistance
Sainvil v. State—restitution
Pedroza v. State—sentencing; conflict
Naugle v. State—scoresheet
JG v. DCF—adoption; statute of repose

Fifth District Court of Appeal – Daytona Beach

Gabriel v. State – attempted murder, officer; instruction
Travelers Home v. Gallo – peremptory challenge
Maruska v. State – murder, robbery
Rupe v. State – murder, robbery
State v. Rolle – downward departure, sentence
Spear v. State – Quarterman agreement, contempt
DOR v. Curtis – child support
Jackson v. State – sentencing
DM v. MD – parental rights, termination
Dorton v. State – postconviction relief
Waddell v. State – postconviction relief
AB v. State – habeas, risk assessment
LG v. State – habeas

©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.