|
|
| |
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, 2009
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Osborne v. State, No. 4D07-2983,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 5, 2009, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a toy gun found in defendant's possession had no relevance to the crimes with which he was charged, was never mentioned in the information, and did not tend to prove or disprove any material fact at issue, and because the jury was misled into thinking that the gun was evidence of defendant's guilt, its admission was harmful error.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Schauer v. Morse Operations, Inc., Nos. 4D06-4902, 4D07-1354 & 4D07-4540,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 5, 2009, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Judgment in favor of signer on claim under Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, § 559.72, Fla. Stat., was improper because there were at most seven telephone calls over a six-month period from lender, trying to collect loan in default, and worst call was one in which lender told signer he would be in "big trouble" if he did not repay.
|
|
| |
Sharrard v. State, No. 4D08-1119,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 5, 2009, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a trial court's orders, requiring the warrantless arrest and transportation of supervised offenders who tested positive for a prohibited substance, interfered with the Department of Corrections' discretion in §§ 30.15, 948.06(1)(a), Fla. Stat., the orders violated the separation of powers doctrine of Fla. Const. art. II, § 3.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
