Menu

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of January 7 - 11, 2019

Appellate & Trial Support   |   January 11, 2019
Download   
Share Page

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Aaron Pvt Clinic Mgmt v. Berry - mootness, standing
US v. Campbell - search and seizure
Solomon v. US - sentencing

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

Allen v. State - capital case, postconviction relief
Thompson v. State - capital case, postconviction relief

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Barber v. State - double jeopardy
Denson v. State - postconviction relief
Mielke v. Deutsche Bank - foreclosure, lost note, limitations period
State v. Pate - employment, retaliation, cat’s paw liability
Cairns v. State - child support
Bolden v. Bolden - equitable distribution
Wall v. State - hearsay
Foster v. State - postconviction relief
Aviles-Manfredy v. State - Stand Your Ground, certified conflict
Vinson v. Vinson - dissolution, timesharing, contempt, distribution
Sweet v. Tucker - post-recusal order
Taylor v. State - trial court jurisdiction pending appeal
First Student v. Williams - certiorari, discovery

Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Freeman v. State - double jeopardy

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Tally v. State - emotional displays, impaired observation instruction, closing
Cendan v. State - postconviction relief
Pinnacle CA v. Haney - class certification
MW v. State - judicial impartiality
Calafell v. State - jail credit

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

State v. Wesby - sentencing
State v. West - sentencing
Johnson v. State - sentencing, scoresheet errors
Stickney v. State - sentencing, probation
Sol v. State - sentencing, burglary
State v. Serfrere - Brady, prejudice
Ortiz v. State - acquitted conduct
Bean v. State - sentencing, costs
Alexander v. Kalitan - post-judgment interest
Machin v. State - competency
McKinley v. State - self representation
DFS v. Barnett - certified question, sovereign immunity cap
Clark v. State - authentication, harmless error
Paul v. State - sentencing
EG v. State - predisposition report
Clarke v. Stofft - dissolution, decision-making authority
Kendall v. State - Anders
Perry v. State - sentencing
Hadassah v. Melcer - qualified beneficiaries
State v. Sephes - circumstantial evidence
Recovery Racing v. Maserati - fairness hearing, franchise agreement
Compere v. State - allocution
Chetu v. KO Gaming - discovery, financial information
Goodstein v. Goodstein - restricted depository

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Griffitts v. Griffitts - dissolution, permanent alimony, child support
DHSMV v. Morrical - second-tier certiorari, driving suspension


©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.