 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Tribble v. State, No. 4D06-3687,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied relief under both Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) and 3.850, as defendant's requests were time-barred and insufficient. Further, defendant was competent, understood the proceedings, was not misled about the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence he was subject to, and received all the jail-time credit he was entitled to receive.
|
|||||
| Williams v. State, Case No. 2D05-4734,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the circuit court's written sentence on a count of possession of cocaine did not reflect the court's oral pronouncement, and the court constructively denied defendant's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2) motion by not ruling on the same within 60 days, the written sentence was reversed, and the court was ordered to amend the sentence.
|
|||||
| Zuver v. Gottner, No. 4D06-361,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The determination of how much care a reasonable man should use in safeguarding his weapon was properly left to the jury. A victim of a gunshot wound seeking damages from the owner of the gun was not entitled to an instruction that the owner owed a duty of care beyond that of a reasonable gun owner under similar circumstances.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
