 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Black v. State, Case No. 5D05-59,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While defendant's taped telephone communications, which were admitted at trial, were certainly between the attorney and his client, they were not privileged under Fla. Stat. § 90.502 because they were made in the presence of a third party and because defendant was warned at the outset that the telephone conversations were being monitored and taped.
|
|||||
| Dragomirecky v. Town of Ponce Inlet, Case No. 5D05-980,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court granted the property owner's petition for certiorari review of the circuit court's decision because the sanction of dismissal was too severe where the dismissal deprived the property owner of the only judicial review of the administrative order requiring that he demolish his partially built home.
|
|||||
| Fernandez v. State, CASE NO. 1D05-1492,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the sole basis for the stop of a vehicle was to determine if its female owner was driving, and it became apparent immediately that purpose of the stop had been satisfied when officer saw that defendant, a male, was driving, officer's actions in engaging defendant in conversation and in asking to see his driver's license were improper.
|
|||||
| French v. Dep't of Children & Families, Case No. 5D04-4205,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the hearing officer failed to order corrective payments retroactive to the date of the error, both 42 C.F.R. § 431.246 and Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 65-2.066(6) required remand for the hearing officer to order retroactive corrective payments.
|
|||||
| Greene v. State, Case No. 5D05-4223,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, Case No. 2D05-1416,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lakeland Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., CASE NO. 1D04-5585,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fla. Stat. § 408.0361(3)(a) did not violate due process and equal protection because a medical center had no constitutionally protected property right in pursuing its non-final administrative hearing challenge to a hospital's certificate of need application after the enactment of the grandfather amendment.
|
|||||
| Maxwell v. State, Case No. 5D04-4177,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since not even the most erudite individual could reasonably discern with the level of understanding required by Miranda that the warning that defendant "had the right to an attorney" encompassed the right to have an attorney present during questioning and the right to have one appointed, the Miranda warning was not proper.
|
|||||
| PPI, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, Div. of Pari-mutuel Wagering, CASE NO. 1D05-2699,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporations were not entitled to writ of prohibition to prevent state agency from responding to a petition for declaratory statement filed by a state representative because the agency did not have the authority to construe Fla. Const. art. X, § 23 but had the authority to deny the request for declaratory statement under Fla. Stat. ch. 120.565(3).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
