Summary Affirmance

111 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Bradford Burt
  619 F.2d 831· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-27 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the decision to federally prosecute the defendants was justified by independent reasons and made prior to the defendants asserting their rights, thus dispelling any appearance of vindictiveness.
• Evans v. Buchanan
  555 F.2d 373· 3d Cir.· 1977-05-18 ·cited 49×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the majority's order is unclear and that the case should be remanded to resolve critical issues regarding interdistrict violations and their effects.
• Gill v. P.J. Mecusker
  633 F.3d 1272· 11th Cir.· 2011-02-23 ·cited 37×
  Marvin Gill appealed a district court's denial of his federal habeas petition challenging his conviction for capital sexual battery and related offenses. Gill claimed the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation under Faretta v. California by denying
• Nuris Jimenez v. The Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  669 So. 2d 340· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-03-13 ·cited 35×
  This case addresses the proper procedure for appellate counsel in termination of parental rights cases when counsel believes there is no meritorious basis for appeal. The court held that the Anders procedure from criminal law does not apply to parental rights terminations and ins
• DOE v. Hodgson
  478 F.2d 537· 2d Cir.· 1973-05-01 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a prior Supreme Court summary affirmance in Romero v. Hodgson is binding precedent, precluding the current challenge to similar statutory exclusions.
• Hardwick v. Bowers
  760 F.2d 1202· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Michael Hardwick had standing to challenge the Georgia sodomy statute, and that the Supreme Court's summary affirmance in Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney did not preclude consideration of the constitutional issues.
• Chem. Eng'g Corp. v. Marlo, Inc.
  754 F.2d 331· Fed. Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 31×
  The court held that it has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals involving patent law, even if diversity jurisdiction is also pleaded, and that the appeal was frivolous, warranting summary affirmance and award of attorney fees.
• United States v. Herminio Cruz
  568 F.2d 781· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-06 ·cited 22×
  Prosecution for conspiracy to distribute heroin after conviction for possession with intent to distribute does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Dronenburg v. Vice Admiral Lando Zech
  746 F.2d 1579· D.C. Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 16×
  The panel's examination of Supreme Court privacy cases was necessary and appropriate, and its implicit criticism was inseparable from the required analysis.
• Lecates v. Just. OF the Peace Court NO. 4 OF the State OF Del.
  637 F.2d 898· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-30 ·cited 16×
  The Supreme Court's dismissal of a prior case for want of a substantial federal question, under Hicks v. Miranda, binds lower courts on the precise issues presented and decided.
• Domingo A. Cabrera v. Outdoor Empire Inc.
  134 So. 3d 573· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-03-27 ·cited 12×
  In this workers' compensation appeal, the claimant challenges orders finding he fully settled two workers' compensation claims with his employer for $165,000. The court affirms, holding that competent substantial evidence supports the settlement and that the claimant's subjective
• Serpas v. Schmidt
  827 F.2d 23· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge argues that the federal court should abstain from deciding the case to allow Illinois state courts to interpret the relevant state statute and rules, which could resolve the constitutional questions.
• Nell v. Warden Charles James
  811 F.2d 100· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner's second habeas petition was an abuse of the writ and that he failed to allege sufficient facts for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Parker v. Drew Lewis
  670 F.2d 249· D.C. Cir.· 1981-12-09 ·cited 10×
  The court granted partial summary affirmance of attorneys' fees and costs, affirming amounts not contested or clearly established, and expedited the appeal for further consideration of the remaining disputed amounts.
• United States v. Miranda-Parra
  637 F.2d 610· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that significant trial delay constitutes 'irreparable harm' for invoking Rule 6(h) emergency procedures in Abney appeals, and that the district court's finding of no gross negligence was not clearly erroneous, thus allowing retrial.
• Wall v. United States
  500 F.2d 38· 10th Cir.· 1974-07-22 ·cited 10×
  A trial court is not required to advise a defendant of every collateral consequence of a guilty plea, including the possibility of consecutive sentences, as long as the direct consequences and maximum penalties are understood.
• United States v. Glover
  731 F.2d 41· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-06 ·cited 9×
  The Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause does not bar retrial after a mistrial declared due to a genuinely deadlocked jury, provided the mistrial was declared out of manifest necessity.
• In re Nw. Homes OF Chehalis, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
  526 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-18 ·cited 8×
  The Washington attachment statute (RCW 7.12 et seq.) is not unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause as applied in this case.
• Antal v. Dist. 5
  451 F.2d 1187· 3d Cir.· 1971-11-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that union members' accountants are entitled to remove their work papers from union premises during an examination of union records.
• Furman v. United States
  720 F.2d 263· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-17 ·cited 6×
  A federal appellate court's summary affirmance, even without a published opinion, provides adequate appellate review and does not preclude the finality of the judgment for collateral attack purposes.
• Winpenny v. Krotow
  574 F.2d 176· 3d Cir.· 1978-03-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a prior Supreme Court summary affirmance binds this court, and the plaintiff's constitutional challenge to the Pennsylvania Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act was foreclosed.
• Vazza v. Campbell
  520 F.2d 848· 1st Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional claims regarding the Massachusetts eminent domain statutes were wholly insubstantial and did not present a substantial constitutional question requiring a three-judge court.
• Naugle v. State OF Okla.
  429 F.2d 1268· 10th Cir.· 1970-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is not a "law providing for the equal civil rights" under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, and thus does not support removal of a state criminal prosecution to federal court.
• Martina Spencer v. Florida Power Light/Broadspire
  141 So. 3d 203· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-10-31 ·cited 5×
• The Fla. Bar re: Amendments to Fla. Rules of App. Procedure & Rules of Jud. Admin.
  509 So. 2d 276· Fla.· 1987-06-08 ·cited 5×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rules of Judicial Administration, primarily to reduce appellate court workload. The Court approved new rule 9.315 permitting summary affirmance or reversal, amendments to rules governing
• White v. Off. OF Pers. Mgmt.
  840 F.2d 85· D.C. Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for damages under the Privacy Act because the complaint did not allege facts demonstrating that the agency acted in a willful or intentional manner as required by the statute.
• Picou v. Gillum
  813 F.2d 1121· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-03 ·cited 4×
  The Supreme Court's summary affirmance in Simon v. Sargent does not control this case regarding privacy implications of helmet laws.
• Green Miller, Jr. v. Barry
  698 F.2d 1259· D.C. Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 4×
  A municipality cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or a Bivens action based solely on respondeat superior; the plaintiff must allege that an official policy caused the constitutional violation.
• United States v. Quinones
  613 F.2d 47· 3d Cir.· 1980-01-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding a potential conflict of interest and an insufficient knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to effective assistance of counsel, thus requiring separate counsel.
• Piercy v. Parratt
  579 F.2d 470· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the federal district court should retain jurisdiction but stay its hand pending the outcome of the appellant's current state court action, with a provision for the federal court to proceed if the state courts do not rule within ninety days.
• Forrest Cummings Green v. Turner
  409 F.2d 215· 10th Cir.· 1969-04-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the habeas corpus petition was properly denied because the statutes charged different offenses and the petitioner's claims must first be presented to state courts.
• Okin v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  145 F.2d 913· 2d Cir.· 1944-12-01 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the Commission's order, finding no grounds to disturb it despite the order having been carried out.
• Soro v. Villari
  300 So. 3d 152· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-07-28 ·cited 3×
  The circuit court's judgment is affirmed because the appellant demonstrated no preliminary basis for reversal in the initial brief.
• Dalrymple v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  237 So. 3d 389· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-01-31 ·cited 3×
  The order granting a writ of possession is affirmed because the appellant's arguments attack the underlying final judgment which was not appealed after it was rendered in July 2015.
• King v. Giardina
  368 So. 3d 546· Fla. 1st DCA· 2023-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed a trial court's temporary injunction against the appellant. The appellant argued the trial court's factual findings were inaccurate but failed to provide a transcript of the hearing, preventing review.
• Boyd v. State
  336 So. 3d 838· Fla. 5th DCA· 2022-04-08 ·cited 2×
  An appeal that does not present a legally dispositive issue expressly reserved for appellate review must be summarily affirmed.
• In the Interest of Gloria Pullen v. State
  764 So. 2d 704· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-06-19 ·cited 2×
  Gloria Pullen appealed an order authorizing her continued involuntary civil commitment under Florida's Baker Act. The court held that Anders v. California procedures do not apply to civil commitment appeals because the right to counsel arises from due process, not the Sixth Amend
• Goch v. E.C. Horning and Lorraine F. Horning
  579 So. 2d 377· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-05-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant failed to raise any substantial issues on appeal, warranting summary affirmance.
• Parron v. Quick
  869 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not exhausted because the state appellate division likely affirmed on procedural grounds, not the merits of the underlying speedy trial claim.
• Stewart v. The United States
  620 F.2d 740· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-04 ·cited 2×
  A summary affirmance by the Supreme Court does not extinguish claims not adjudicated by the lower court or presented on appeal.
• United States v. Baynes
  548 F.2d 481· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-01 ·cited 2×
  Affirmance by judgment order without an opinion does not constitute a denial of due process.
• Rohauer v. The Eastin-Phelan Corp.
  499 F.2d 120· 8th Cir.· 1974-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice due to the plaintiff's willful refusal to comply with discovery orders and court rules.
• United States v. Thomas
  414 F.2d 792· 4th Cir.· 1969-08-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of error regarding the jury charge were without merit and affirmed the conviction.
• Massengale v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  408 F.2d 1373· 4th Cir.· 1969-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the Tax Court's decision, dismissing the appeal as frivolous and denying the request for new counsel.
• United States v. Chandler
  403 F.2d 531· 4th Cir.· 1968-10-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that compulsory military service under the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude.
• Int'l Basic Econ. Corp. v. Lugo
  271 F.2d 437· 1st Cir.· 1959-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it would summarily affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico because the appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in that court's denial of review.
• Valdes v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.
  333 So. 3d 739· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-12-01 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court summarily affirmed the lower court's order, finding no preliminary basis for reversal. The court noted that the appellant's claims regarding foreclosure sale objections were not related to conduct at the sale itself and that the cited legal authorities did not
• State v. Sachs
  948 So. 2d 723· Fla.· 2007-01-18 ·cited 1×
• Hernandez v. Cap. One, N.A.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-08-12
  The trial court's order is affirmed because the appellant's initial brief fails to demonstrate a preliminary basis for reversal.
• Zimmermann v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-08-05
  An appellant's failure to present a preliminary basis for reversal in the initial brief warrants summary affirmance.