Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of September 14 - 18, 2020

Appellate & Trial Support   |   September 18, 2020
Download Download   
Share Share Page

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Ledford v. Warden - postconviction relief
Sowers v. RJ Reynolds - relevancy, closing argument, punitives, 7th Am
Luke v. Gulley - malicious prosecution, favorable termination
LeCroy v. USA - stay of execution
Presnell v. Warden - postconviction relief
USA v. Boyd- sentencing, appeal waiver
Franks v. Warden - postconviction relief
Hall v. Flournoy - § 1983, qualified immunity, interlocutory appeal, jurisdiction
Gherardi v. Citigroup - employment, vacatur of arbitration
Johnson v. NPAS - class settlement, timing of objections, incentives, reasoning

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

Lott v. State - capital case, postconviction relief

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Armstrong v. State - postconviction relief
Richardson v. Adams - Applegate affirmance
Godwin v. McKamey - appellate jurisdiction
Coleman v. State - hearsay, findings, preservation
Kartsonis v. State - written opinion request, sentencing
Johnson v. State - sentencing, collateral estoppel
Anderson v. State - postconviction relief
Bell v. State - sentencing
Showntail the Legend v. DBPR - license suspension, stay, COVID

Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Emke v. State - sentencing

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

2711 Hollywood Bch CA v. TRG - economic loss rule
Lopez v. State - justifiable force instruction
Palma v. SF Pulmonary - UCC, promissory notes, accommodation parties
Warren v. State - jury instructions, using hypotheticals
Bridge Golde v. Pix Realty - appellate jurisdiction
Cuomo Trading v. World Contract - contract breach
Cobb v. State - postconviction relief
Carrero v. State - sentencing

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Eam v. State - Miranda, non-custodial interrogation
Field v. Lloyd's - insurance, defense costs, claim
Brant v. Metro Life Ins - foreclosure, local action rule, cross-collateral
Pennymac v. Ustarez - foreclosure, condition precedent
Alexander v. State - postconviction relief
Burdett v. Opton - promissory note, attorney's fees, § 679.623(2)(b)
Riggs v. US Bank - mandamus, reconsideration, hearing

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Wilmington Savings v. Greenwell - foreclosure, standing, conditions precedent
Vang v. Guillen - attorney's fees, sanction
Ryland v. Beachside - appellate jurisdiction, rehearing
Bryant v. Geoghagan - dismissal, prejudice
Kirk v. State - sentence
Cruz v. State - Quarterman's release, willful violation
State v. D'Agostino - certiorari, jury size, capital case
Williams v. State - postconviction relief

©2022 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.