We Handle All Types of Appeals
The lawyers at Combs Greene are experience in handling all types of appeals. Many of our appellate clients are referred to us by other the trial lawyers who do not handle appellate issues. Steve Combs and Deborah Greene have handled dozens of appellate matters, both before the appellate Courts in the State of Florida, as well as before federal appellate Courts.
But there are very short deadlines which apply to appeals and appellate matters, and if these are not met your right to appeal could be lost forever. So it’s important for you to act now.
Appellate law requires a thorough knowledge and understanding of the substantive law which applies to the case on appeal, and the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which strictly govern every aspect of an appeal, as well as an attention to detail, both as to the facts and law applicable to the case, as well as to the record from the trial Court below. Our lawyers possess the knowledge and experience necessary to effectively handle just about every type of appellate matter.
But there are very short deadlines which apply to appeals and appellate matters, and if these are not met your right to appeal could be lost forever. So it’s important for you to act now.
Appellate law requires a thorough knowledge and understanding of the substantive law which applies to the case on appeal, and the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which strictly govern every aspect of an appeal, as well as an attention to detail, both as to the facts and law applicable to the case, as well as to the record from the trial Court below. Our lawyers possess the knowledge and experience necessary to effectively handle just about every type of appellate matter.
Some of our Appellate Cases
Thompson v. Cunningham, 65 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
The client’s former spouse sought review of a denial of his motion under Rule 1.540 for relief from a judgment. The motion claimed that the judgment contradicted the trial Court’s findings at trial and included findings not supported by the evidence presented. The appellate Court affirmed, holding that “[R]ule 1.540 was not intended to serve as a substitute for the new trial mechanism prescribed by [R]ule 1.530[,] nor as a substitute for appellate review of judicial error.” The case at the trial Court, and before the appellate Court was won for the client.
J.F. v. M.H., 53 So.3d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA April 13, 2010)
The client sought custody of her grandchild in dependency Court, and she won custody. The father sought certiorari relief from the appellate Court, and he was denied. The case at the trial Court and at the appellate Court was won for the client.
Leonard v. Leonard, 971 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
The trial Court modified the client’s alimony, but he believed his alimony should have been further modified. The client appealed and the appeal was won for the client, which resulted in a further reduction of the client’s alimony.
Lahodik v. Lahodik, 969 So.2d 533 (Fla 1st DCA 2007)
The client was a former wife who sought to modify custody of her children from the father/former husband to herself . The trial Court granted the modification and placed custody with the client. The father/former husband appealed the trial Court’s decisions. The appeal was won for the client because the appellate Court affirmed the trial Court’s modification of custody to the client. The appellate Court also ordered attorneys fees in favor of the client.
Dice v. Dice, 959 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
The client had been divorced for a number of years, but the former husband later tried to argue that the divorce judgment had not actually divorced the parties, and that the Court should treat the divorce judgment as if it were a temporary order. The trial Court disagreed, and amended the divorce judgment to clearly divorce the parties. The former husband appealed, and the appellate Court affirmed the trial Court’s action. The appellate Court also ordered attorneys fees in favor of the client. The case was won for the client.
General Commercial Packaging, Inc. v. T.P.S. Package Engineering, Inc., 126 .3d 1131 (9th Cir. 1997)
The case involved a dispute whereby a sub-contractor attempted to steal the business from the client’s customer, in violation of a contract between the client and the sub-contractor. The client sued and the trial Court ruled against the client. The client appealed and the appeal was won for the client.
Adoption of Baby James Doe, 572 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
The Father of a child was allowed to assert his paternity even though the Mother of the child was married to another man at the time the child was born, which resulted in the legal theory of the presumption of legitimacy causing it to be difficult, but not impossible, for the Father to assert his paternity.
Bell v. State, 708 So.2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
The trial Court departed from the sentencing guidelines based on an alleged escalating pattern of criminal conduct. The sentence was appealed by one of our lawyers, and he argued that there was no such escalating pattern of criminal conduct on the part of the defendant. The appellate Court agreed and remanded to the trial Court for sentencing within the statutory sentencing guidelines.
The client’s former spouse sought review of a denial of his motion under Rule 1.540 for relief from a judgment. The motion claimed that the judgment contradicted the trial Court’s findings at trial and included findings not supported by the evidence presented. The appellate Court affirmed, holding that “[R]ule 1.540 was not intended to serve as a substitute for the new trial mechanism prescribed by [R]ule 1.530[,] nor as a substitute for appellate review of judicial error.” The case at the trial Court, and before the appellate Court was won for the client.
J.F. v. M.H., 53 So.3d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA April 13, 2010)
The client sought custody of her grandchild in dependency Court, and she won custody. The father sought certiorari relief from the appellate Court, and he was denied. The case at the trial Court and at the appellate Court was won for the client.
Leonard v. Leonard, 971 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
The trial Court modified the client’s alimony, but he believed his alimony should have been further modified. The client appealed and the appeal was won for the client, which resulted in a further reduction of the client’s alimony.
Lahodik v. Lahodik, 969 So.2d 533 (Fla 1st DCA 2007)
The client was a former wife who sought to modify custody of her children from the father/former husband to herself . The trial Court granted the modification and placed custody with the client. The father/former husband appealed the trial Court’s decisions. The appeal was won for the client because the appellate Court affirmed the trial Court’s modification of custody to the client. The appellate Court also ordered attorneys fees in favor of the client.
Dice v. Dice, 959 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
The client had been divorced for a number of years, but the former husband later tried to argue that the divorce judgment had not actually divorced the parties, and that the Court should treat the divorce judgment as if it were a temporary order. The trial Court disagreed, and amended the divorce judgment to clearly divorce the parties. The former husband appealed, and the appellate Court affirmed the trial Court’s action. The appellate Court also ordered attorneys fees in favor of the client. The case was won for the client.
General Commercial Packaging, Inc. v. T.P.S. Package Engineering, Inc., 126 .3d 1131 (9th Cir. 1997)
The case involved a dispute whereby a sub-contractor attempted to steal the business from the client’s customer, in violation of a contract between the client and the sub-contractor. The client sued and the trial Court ruled against the client. The client appealed and the appeal was won for the client.
Adoption of Baby James Doe, 572 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
The Father of a child was allowed to assert his paternity even though the Mother of the child was married to another man at the time the child was born, which resulted in the legal theory of the presumption of legitimacy causing it to be difficult, but not impossible, for the Father to assert his paternity.
Bell v. State, 708 So.2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
The trial Court departed from the sentencing guidelines based on an alleged escalating pattern of criminal conduct. The sentence was appealed by one of our lawyers, and he argued that there was no such escalating pattern of criminal conduct on the part of the defendant. The appellate Court agreed and remanded to the trial Court for sentencing within the statutory sentencing guidelines.
