Florida Appeals Court Decisions: Week of September 28 - October 2, 2020

Appellate & Trial Support   |   October 2, 2020
Download Download   
Share Share Page

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Whiteside v. GEICO - insurance, notice, certifying questions to Ga Sup Ct
USA v. Bolatete - National Firearms Act, criminal, sentencing
SE v. Gaddy - bankruptcy, exempt from discharge
Fox v. Ritz-Carlton - exhaustion, class standing
USA v. Conage - ACCA, sentencing, certifying questions to Fla Sup Ct
USA v. Abreu - certificate of innocence
Peery v. Miami - consent decree, contempt

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

RR v. New Life Comm Church - limitations, accrual, tolling, minors

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Beebe v. DOC - mandamus, exhaustion of remedies, prisoners
Johnson v. State - jail credit
Garrison v. State - habeas corpus, double jeopardy
Martin v. State - habeas corpus

Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Coleman v. State - murder, lesser-included
Ferri v. State - criminal restitution
Street v. Street - marital assets
Lincare Hldgs v. Ford - annual bonus, preservation of error
Duberry v. State - competency
FIGA v. Reyes - sinkhole coverage, confession, fees and costs
Woodward v. State - sentencing
Neapolitan Enters v. Fishman - newly discovered evidence
Tyrak v. Garcia - written opinion request granted
Maderi v. State - certiorari, pretrial intervention, veterans

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Lopez-Brignoni v. DOACS - citrus canker, inverse condemnation
DOR v. Taylor - child support
Chirino v. State - probation revocation
Rodriguez v. State - probation revocation
Moore v. State - postconviction relief

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Valentine v. State – photo lineup; hearsay, prior consistent statement
Gabriji v. Hollywood East – dismissal, collateral estoppel; equitable lien
Danforth v. Jamaica Bay East – eviction; disability, reasonable accommodation
Sibrun v. State – sentencing, lack of remorse

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

Daytona Beach v. AB - attorney’s fees, § 790.33
Hicks v. State - competency, criminal
Howell v. Orange Lake CC - temporary injunction, timeshare cancellation
Moore v. Moore - special concurrence, dissolution, alimony
Campbell v. State - probation, restitution
Perez v. State - postconviction relief
Thompson v. State - Spencer warning, pro se

©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.