Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of July 15 - 19, 2019

Appellate & Trial Support   |   July 19, 2019
Share Page

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

US v. Moss - en banc
Worthy v. Phenix City - red light cameras, standing

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

No decisions this week.

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Gunn v. State - sentencing
Miron v. Richardson - preservation of error, dissolution, fees
Green v. State - habeas corpus
Coastal Creek v. Fla Trust - foreclosure, condo assessments, certified conflict
Smith v. State - postconviction relief
Ratley v. State - judicial recusal
Hickmon v. Rachel Bushey Reese PA - preservation; confession, rejected
Miller v. Miller - parental relocation
Chappell v. Clark - permanent injury
Washington v. State - Stand Your Ground, certified conflict
Heritage Oaks v. Madison Pointe - housing tax credits, administrative review
Specialty Hosp-G'ville v. Barth - medical negligence, vulnerable adult, causation
Viker v. Cherry - untimely appeal

Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

State v. Ratliff - sentencing
Anthony v. State - mandamus, indigent, copies of documents
Crowley v. State - postconviction relief, scrivener's error
Springer v. Springer - parentage, nonparent, standing
Raysor v. State - postconviction relief
US Bank v. Cook - foreclosure, constructive possession, agency
Davis v. State - probation revocation
Westervelt v. State - sentencing
Szurant v. Aaronson - charging lien

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Rosen v. Harborside Suites - rehearing, contract, guaranty, release
Henley v. State - probation revocation
Aquino v. State - lewd, lascivious conduct
Liebman v. City of Miami - standing, land use challenge
Urrea v. Koplow - proceedings supplementary, inequitable conduct
AF v. State - stolen property
Bahad v. Wilmington Sav - foreclosure, standing
Taufer v. Wells Fargo - foreclosure, judgment, standing, possession
Space Coast CU v. Day - foreclosure sale, deposit
Pounds v. State - judicial disqualification
Ludeca v. Alignment & Cond'g - mandamus, rule 1.440; certiorari, severance

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Cherfrere v. State - single criminal episode
Conyers v. State - hearsay, competency
Squire v. State - ineffective assistance
Deutsche Bank v. Smith - foreclosure, standing
Chetu v. Franklin First - excusable neglect
Carrasco v. State - pro se, sanctions
Marino v. State - competency restoration
HK v. DCF - belated appeal

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Reese v. State - costs, ability to pay
Brown 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.