|
| |
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 10, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. D.W. (In the Interest of S.E.), Case No. 2D05-6201,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Pursuant to § 90.706, Fla. Stat., trial court erred in allowing father's expert to testify, in a termination proceeding, regarding medical literature articles. The expert improperly bolstered his opinion by testifying regarding the contents of three articles, which were inadmissible hearsay. Permitting this undermined the rules of evidence.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Espinueva v. State, No. 4D05-3562,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because defendant's plea agreement did not include any agreement as to sentencing, his double jeopardy claim was not waived, but remained viable, justifying remand for the trial court to consider whether a violation of his rights occurred, and if necessary, a resentencing on two counts of attempted armed robbery.
|
|
| |
Fields v. Klein, No. 4D06-410,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because client's prior counsel was discharged before any contingency was realized, an award of said fee was reversed. Moreover, because there was no evidence that the privilege was abused, no evidence of prejudice to counsel, and an amendment would not have been futile, the client was erroneously denied leave to amend his complaint.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|