|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more.
lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
|
| |
State Courts -
Florida - January 5, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Dep't of Children & Families v. K.R., Case No. 5D06-1901,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because trial court's order directing Department of Children and Family Services to pay for at-home drug testing of father seeking custody of daughter violated separation of powers doctrine under Art. II, § 3, Fla. Const., and departed from essential requirements of law, certiorari relief was granted Department under Fed. R. App. P. 9.040(c).
|
|
| |
Esquivel v. McDonough, CASE NO. 1D05-0644,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Lower court improperly dismissed inmate's mandamus petition for failure to pay partial filing fee because under § 57.085(4), Fla. Stat., not § 57.085(8)(c), basis for partial payment or dismissal had to be found in six-month period preceding lower court's determination not six months preceding initial filing, which was 21 months earlier.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Hazealeferiou v. Labor Ready, CASE NO.: 1D05-5619,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Order of a Florida Judge of Compensation Claims dismissing the claimant's petition for benefits was affirmed because the accident occurred in Alabama, the employment agreement was made in Alabama, and there was no evidence to establish that the claimant's employment was principally located in Florida, as required by § 440.09(1), Fla. Stat. (2005).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
