 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| R.C. v. State, CASE NO. 1D06-2811,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Matter was remanded to the trial court because there was insufficient evidence to adjudicate the juvenile as a member of a criminal street gang under § 985.23(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005), because the evidence did not show that the juvenile met at least two of the eight criteria set forth in § 874.03, Fla. Stat. (2005).
|
|||||
| R.T. v. State, CASE NO. 1D06-2352,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to § 985.23(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005), trial court erred by failing to reference characteristics of high-risk facility in relation to juvenile's needs and failing to explain why its consideration of evidence led to different conclusion than Department of Juvenile Justice, so trial court's upward departure from recommendation was reversed.
|
|||||
| Shaw v. Tampa Elec. Co., Case No. 2D06-2331,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted electric company's motion for summary judgment denying claim by homeowners for permanent mandatory injunction requiring company to remove electric transmission poles and lines from their neighborhood because circuit court could provide adequate legal, monetary remedy if it determined that legal nuisance was created.
|
|||||
| Sobi v. First South Bank, Inc., CASE NO. 1D06-0646,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was properly entered in favor of bank on borrowers' negligence and breach of contract claims because although parties' construction loan agreement gave bank right to require flood insurance for house borrowers were having built, nothing in agreement required bank to obtain flood insurance certificate before funding construction draws.
|
|||||
| Soto v. Soto, Case No. 2D06-66,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in attempting to calculate how much the husband was actually earning by examining what he and the wife were actually spending in determining his income for alimony and child support purposes, despite the fact that such was legitimate, as the calculation was inherently flawed given the fluctuating value of the assets involved.
|
|||||
| State v. Moninger, Case No. 2D05-4568,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court properly concluded that the victim in an alleged child molestation prosecution, who was also defendant's daughter, acted as an instrument or agent of the State in retrieving two used condoms from defendant's bedroom without a warrant or defendant's consent, suppression of the same was properly granted.
|
|||||
| State v. Watt, Case No. 5D06-1058,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the affidavit supporting a search warrant was not so lacking in probable cause that the officer executing the same could not rely on it, and the technical sufficiency of the same, in good faith, the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of said warrant.
|
|||||
| Vale v. State, Case No. 5D03-3485,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Wilcher v. State, Case No. 5D05-3753,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of defendant's probation based on urine test that reported positive result for cocaine was affirmed because under judicial precedent, Crawford did not apply to probation revocation proceedings, but question of whether Crawford's testimonial hearsay rule applied to probation and community control revocation proceedings was certified.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
