 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brook v. State, Case No. 5D07-3030,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 9, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Concealed weapon charge should have been dismissed because defendant was an employee of the business where the incident took place. Section 790.25(3)(n), Fla. Stat. specifically exempted a person possessing arms at a place of business from the concealed weapon statute, and included premises where the individual was employed by another.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, CASE NO. 1D08-1247,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 9, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, CASE NO. 1D07-3024,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 9, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Green v. State, Case No. 5D07-1309,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 9, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of conspiracy to purchase cocaine was supported by sufficient evidence because the jury could have inferred a conspiracy from evidence that, inter alia, defendant and co-defendant met purported seller at a prearranged meeting, both were present throughout negotiations, and defendant indicated that "they" were there to buy cocaine.
|
|||||
| Konrath v. State, Case No. 5D07-3870,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 9, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lindsay v. State, CASE NO. 1D07-1009,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 9, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to submit question of defendant's actual possession of gun to jury for sentencing was error, but this failure was subject to harmless error analysis and was harmless because jury found that defendant possessed the gun and no reasonable jury could have found possession without finding defendant was in actual possession of the gun.
|
|||||
| Porter v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n &, CASE NO. 1D08-0063,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 9, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claimant was entitled to recover unemployment benefits under § 443.101(1)(a), Fla. Stat., notwithstanding her offer to resign because she actually left work three days before her resignation was to become effective, when her employer told her to leave because it had hired a cook to replace her and could not pay two cooks simultaneously.
|
|||||
| St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, Case No. 5D06-1116,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 9, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of damages to owner based on alleged improper exaction by water management district based on permit denial was proper because, despite district's claim that nothing was exacted from owner, an exaction claim was cognizable when, as here, land owner refused to agree to an improper request from the government resulting in a permit denial.
|
|||||
| Stratton v. State, CASE NO. 5D08-3051,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 9, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
