Summary Affirmance

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

• Robinson v. Knight
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2026-08-03
  The trial court's judgment is affirmed because the appellant failed to demonstrate any basis for reversal in her initial brief.
• Butler v. Mercantile Cap., Inc.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-07-29
  The appellant's initial brief failed to demonstrate a preliminary basis for reversal of the trial court's order.
• Le Blanc v. Waters
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2026-05-27
  The trial court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to add punitive damages.
• Menyon Ozomaro v. Macdara Hanney
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2026-04-07
  The trial court's judgment was affirmed on appeal.
• Kieran Searcy v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-05
  The court held that the state court's denial of postconviction relief was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law, and therefore denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
• Cosmic Corp. v. Bianca Hudson
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-08-27
  Control and responsibility are issues of fact to be resolved by the jury, not by summary judgment.
• Smith v. Smith
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-02-05
  When an appellant fails to provide a proper transcription of trial proceedings in the appellate record, the appellate court will affirm the trial court decision.
• McCune v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-12
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the sufficiency of charging informations, the retroactivity of a statutory amendment, and double jeopardy were meritless or not cognizable on federal habeas review.
• Rakim Lamar Blount v. State
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2024-11-26
  An appeal must be dismissed or affirmed summarily when it does not present a legally dispositive issue expressly reserved for appellate review.
• Mann v. State
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2024-11-19
  An appeal that does not present a legally dispositive issue expressly reserved for appellate review must be summarily affirmed.
• Rahaim v. Dixon
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2024-10-16
• Charo v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2024-10-16
• Joseph v. Calhoun
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2024-09-11
  The trial court's order was affirmed because the appellant demonstrated no preliminary basis for reversal.
• Muniz v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-23
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were meritless, as the state courts' factual findings were reasonable and entitled to deference under AEDPA.
• Dupree v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-06-12
  Brian A. Dupree appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate an order denying his motion to intervene in a foreclosure action. The appellate court summarily affirmed, holding that Dupree's arguments constituted legal error on the merits, which is not a cognizable gro
• Stevens v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Pinellas)
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-14
  The court held that the petitioner's claims for federal habeas relief were meritless and denied the petition.
• Kandler v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2023-12-06
  A defendant who pleads guilty without an express reservation of the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue waives the right to direct appeal of non-dispositive trial issues.
• Sweezy v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Polk County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-04
  A Florida prisoner was convicted of aggravated battery and assault following a jury trial for a violent altercation with his ex-girlfriend, and the federal district court denied his habeas corpus petition, finding that most of his claims were either procedurally barred for failur
• Evans v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Pinellas County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-30
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's claims were either procedurally defaulted or failed on the merits.
• Moak v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-07
  Thomas Moak, a Florida prisoner sentenced to three consecutive life sentences for murdering his father, mother, and sister, filed a federal habeas petition challenging his convictions on multiple grounds, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenges to evi
• Brown v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2023-02-01
  A defendant who pleads nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue has no right to direct appeal.
• Rodriguez v. US Bank Tr. NA
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-08-31
  The trial court's non-final orders were affirmed because appellant demonstrated no preliminary basis for reversal.
• La Venston Lamont Horne v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-07-20
  The trial court's order is affirmed because no preliminary basis for reversal exists.
• Lozoya v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-03-25
  Jesus Lozoya, a Florida prisoner convicted of kidnapping, battery, and other charges related to a 2009 attack, filed a federal habeas petition claiming his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to cross-examine a key witness about potential credibility issues a
• Mansell v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-23
  Lwane Mansell, a Florida prisoner convicted of luring/enticing a child and lewd/lascivious conduct against an 11-year-old, filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction, raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, and ineffective assista
• Sporea v. Regions Bank, N.A.
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-07-07
  The trial court's nonfinal order is affirmed because appellant's initial brief presents no preliminary basis for reversal.
• Abimbola Orukotan v. Oluwafemi Orukotan
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-05-05
  The trial court's order denying the petition for a domestic violence injunction is affirmed.
• Ucms LLC v. ASI Assurance Corp.
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2021-03-12
• Stone v. Germann
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-02-17
  The trial court's order was affirmed because the appellant demonstrated no preliminary basis for reversal.
• Rodriguez v. Carvalho
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-02-10
  The trial court's order is affirmed because appellant demonstrated no preliminary basis for reversal.
• Mariela Borrello v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-06-10
  The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
• Ozzie G. McKinzey *w* v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-02-26
  The trial court's order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.
• Lopez v. Am. Express Nat'l Bank
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-09-25
  An appellant who fails to provide an adequate record cannot demonstrate reversible error on appeal.
• Wells v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.
  275 So. 3d 689· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-05-08
  The International Jai-Alai Players Association (IJAPA) was held in contempt for $5,000 for violating a 1988 restraining order that prohibited striking members from intimidating or physically harassing non-striking players and patrons. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed,
• Rodriguez v. Stanfield
  273 So. 3d 1067· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-04-17
  The court affirmed the trial court's order because the appellant's initial brief failed to demonstrate any preliminary basis for reversal.
• Galluccio v. Council on Aging ST. Lucie, Inc.
  264 So. 3d 1003· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-02-27
  The trial court's judgment against the appellant was affirmed.
• May v. Novoa
  260 So. 3d 1099· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-10-24
  An order is properly affirmed summarily when the appellant's initial brief fails to demonstrate a preliminary basis for reversal.
• R.V. v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  259 So. 3d 200· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-10-17
  The trial court's order is affirmed where the appellant's initial brief fails to demonstrate a preliminary basis for reversal.
• Vega v. FRS Environmental Remediators
  145 So. 3d 895· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-07-28
  Claimant's workers' compensation benefits were properly denied under Florida Statute § 440.09(4) because he was convicted of workers' compensation fraud under § 440.105, resulting in forfeiture of all benefits.
• Miranda v. Alterra Clare Bridge
  112 So. 3d 500· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-10-03
  The court affirmed the Judge of Compensation Claims' order dismissing the petition for permanent total disability benefits as barred by the statute of limitations.
• Greenfield v. City First Mortg. Corp.
  24 So. 3d 644· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-12-09
  The court summarily affirmed the trial court's order and granted appellees' motion for sanctions, remanding for determination of fees and costs.
• State v. Lawrence
  948 So. 2d 724· Fla.· 2007-01-18
  The court summarily affirmed the Third District Court's decision in Lawrence based on its prior ruling in Harden, and denied the appellee's motion to dismiss as moot.
• Blackman v. State
  788 So. 2d 1087· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-06-13
  The appellate court summarily affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to expunge the record.
• United States v. Burnett
  989 F.2d 100· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-22
  An inadequate Anders brief requires denial of summary affirmance, appointment of new counsel, and denial of compensation to the original counsel.
• Hampton v. State
  596 So. 2d 682· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-01-03
  This case addresses the procedural requirements for appealing orders denying Rule 3.800(a) motions (for correction of illegal sentences) in Florida. The court clarifies that such appeals must follow full appellate procedures under Rule 9.140(b)(1)(C), requiring complete records a
• Prows v. Dep't OF Just.
  938 F.2d 274· D.C. Cir.· 1991-07-12
  Violations of the APA's 30-day effective date requirement are remedied by denying the rule effectiveness for the mandated 30 days, allowing it to take effect thereafter. Any claim under this section is moot if the inmate has already been made whole by other remedies.
• Billman v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  847 F.2d 887· D.C. Cir.· 1988-05-20
  The court summarily affirmed the Tax Court's decision, finding the appellant's claims frivolous and repetitive, and imposed doubled sanctions for abuse of the judicial process.
• Cascade Broad. Grp., Ltd. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  822 F.2d 1172· D.C. Cir.· 1987-07-07
  The court held that the FCC's decision to grant TRC's application and deny Cascade's was supported by reasoned explanation and did not constitute an unjustifiable departure from established policy.
• Beverlin v. Bd. OF Police Comm'rs OF Kan. City
  722 F.2d 395· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-02
  The distinction between police and firefighters in Missouri's collective bargaining statute is rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
• LA Raza Unida v. State OF NEW Mexico
  577 F.2d 677· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-06
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action because the plaintiffs' constitutional claims were insubstantial, foreclosed by prior Supreme Court precedent.