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 July 11 - 15, 2022
July 15, 2022

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Carson v. Monsanto Co. - preemption
Gavin v. Ala DOC - habeas, concurrence
Hessler v. US - ineffective assistance, 2255
Huggins v. Lueder , Larkin & Hunter - Rule 11 sanctions
US v. Butler - sentencing
US v. Lewis - jury selection, trial rulings
US v. Stapleton - speedy trial, evidence, extradition
US v. Watkins - fraud, trial rulings

Florida Supreme Court - Tallahassee

In re Fla R Crim Pro - amended criminal, juvenile rules
In re Fla R Civ Pro - amended rules, communication technology
In re Fla R Juv Pro - amended rules
In re Fla Fam Law R - amended rule, form

First District Court of Appeal - Tallahassee

Sandifort v. Akers Cust Homes - workers’ compensation
Richardson v. State - preservation of error
Hughes v. APD - reallocated service hours
Araguel v. Bryan - personal representative, appointment
Cottrell v. State - search and seizure
Raik v. Dept of Legal Affairs - Fla Crimes Compensation Act
Eleazer v. State - ineffective assistance, appellate counsel
Fiberoptics Tech v. Sunoptic Tech - certiorari, discovery, trade secrets
Manning v. Ford - represented pro se filing

Second District Court of Appeal - Lakeland

Massad v. State - conspiracy, obstruction, evidence
Valente v. Raissi - appellate jurisdiction, venting
Tinoco v. Lugo - child support, fees
Coursen v. Robert Watrous Chtd - certiorari, jury trial
Lang v. Fallang Family LP - § 57.105, findings
Thompson v. State - sentencing
Williams v. State - postconviction relief
Julio v. State - attorney misconduct
Mason v. McGinley - pro se sanctions

Third District Court of Appeal - Miami

Estache v. State - double jeopardy
814 Prop Hldgs v. New Birth Baptist - condo declaration, purchase option
Sierra v. Sierra - probate, appellate jurisdiction
Hosanna Comm’y Baptist v. 24 HR Air - fees, pleading, amount
Karenza Apartm’ts v. Miami - Bert Harris claim, mural ordinance
State v. Rojas - double jeopardy, appellate jurisdiction
Lawrence v. Marina Tower Turnberry CA - § 57.105, non-party
Avael Law Firm v. Sechrist - appellate jurisdiction
Perez v. Saima Grp - insurance, notice, summary judgment

Fourth District Court of Appeal - West Palm Beach

Simpson v. Dania Beach - standing, land use, zoning
Southam v. Red Wing Shoe - standing, class action, FACTA
Triple S Mgmt v. Amer. Clinical - dissent; jurisdiction, minimum contacts
Infinity Auto Ins v. Metric Diag - PIP, attorney misconduct, rule 1.190, sanctions, bad faith

Fifth District Court of Appeal - Daytona Beach

PHH Mortgage v. Schreiber - foreclosure, collateral estoppel
Varela Constr v. Pagio - rehearing, tipsy coachman
Baruti v. Vingle - injunction for protection, stalking, substantial evidence
Papa John’s v. Moore - certiorari; privilege, waiver
McDuffie v. State - Spencer bar, pro se
ALP v. State - prohibition, disqualification
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.