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.

 Skip to Content

Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of January 27 - 31, 2020
January 31, 2020

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

US v. Bane – procedural default
White v. Lemma – three-strikes provision, frivolous claims
Glasser v. Hilton Grand – TCPA
US v. Cabezas-Montano – MDLEA, Miranda, Brady, sentencing
In re Dailey – AEDPA, habeas corpus
Johnson v. Miami-Dade Cnty -  § 1983, Title VII, FCRA

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

In re Fla R App P - amended rules

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Knighton v. State - new trial standard
La Galere Markets v. DBPR - alcohol, automated beverage machines
Martin-Godinez v. State - postconviction relief
Pickle v. Hale - contingency fees
King v. State - postconviction relief
Mobley v. Taylor - appellate jurisdiction
Stevens v. State - sentencing
Jackson v. State - evidence
State v. Fla Snr Liv Ass’n - rule challenge, ALFs, fees
Haupt v. Haupt - child support, income
Cook v. Cook Bros - judicial disqualification
Rogers v. State - certiorari, Stand Your Ground
Cave v. State - postconviction relief

Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Riley v. State - direct criminal contempt
Jones v. US Bank - foreclosure, standing, mortgage, fees
Taneja v. Saraiya - derivative action, SLC, discovery
HSBC v. Sherman - foreclosure, paragraph 22
Bayfront v. DOH - trauma center application
Lobb v. State - resisting arrest, Marchman Act
Lane-Hepburn v. Hepburn - marital dissolution, default
Routenberg v. State - ineffective appellate counsel
NC v. DCF - certiorari, forced immunizations

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Four Ambassadors v. Vice City - contract claims
CS v. State - grand theft, value
Rawls v. State - postconviction relief
Yam Export v. Nicaragua Tobacco - arbitration
Aguilo v. Am Sales - rule 1.420, costs
Bahad v. Christiana Trust - foreclosure, sale, mootness
Citizens v. Schwiep - county ordinance, board membership
Berki v. State - appellate jurisdiction
Alvarez-Mejia v. Bellissimo Props - appellate jurisdiction
Esslinger-Wooten Maxwell v. Lones Fam - broker, procuring cause
Cellfus Ent v. Perez - service of process

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Fla Ins Guaranty Assoc v. Rubin—attorney’s fees, insurance
Alexander v. State—jury instruction, obscenity
Nelson v. State—competency hearing
Bynes v. State—pro se sanction
Clark v. Meizlik—parenting plan

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Orange Cty v. Ferguson – negligence, directed verdict, new trial
Willis v. State – postconviction relief, special concurrence
Frantz v. EM Paving – garnishment, deficiency judgment  
State v. Miller – postconviction relief
Downs v. State – postconviction relief
Velez v. State – Spencer bar, pro se
Gore v. State – Spencer warning, pro se
Fox v. Hamptons Condo Assn – Spencer warning, pro se
Chester v. State – Anders appeal, investigative costs
Rittirucksa v. Rogers – summary judgment, confession of error
Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support
©2024 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.