 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings, No. SC04-227, No. SC04-666,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, January 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In resolving a certified conflict between district appellate courts, it was held that when notice was raised as part of a claim filed under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Act, an ALJ had jurisdiction to make findings regarding whether a health care provider satisfied the notice requirement of § 766.316, Fla. Stat.
|
|||||
| Peede v. State, No. SC04-2094, No. SC05-1885,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, January 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's postconviction motion was properly denied since the record supported defendant's competency to stand trial with regard to his first-degree murder conviction and his petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied since no Brady violation was shown nor any prejudicial admission of evidence warranting such relief was demonstrated.
|
|||||
| State v. Ratner, Nos. SC05-1007 & SC05-1009,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, January 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in ruling it lacked jurisdiction to consider county court order that denied State's motion in limine and certified a question of great public importance; order was appealable to circuit court under § 924.07(1)(h), (l), Fla. Stat. and Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(c)(2) so district court had jurisdiction under Fla. R. App. P. 9.030.
|
|||||
| Brooks v. State, CASE NO. SC06-1266,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hicks v. Hicks, Case No. 5D05-1598,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 12, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's failure to compute father's child support obligation based upon guidelines set forth in § 61.30, Fla. Stat. (2005) was proper as trial court felt obligated to use parties' real estate to secure support for parties' children based on father's record in failing to pay temporary child support obligations and his pending criminal charges.
|
|||||
| Michaels v. State, Case No. 5D06-3894,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 12, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Reserve at Wedgefield Homeowners' v. Dixon, Case No. 5D06-1578,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 12, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's injunction order against homeowner's association had to be reversed because it failed to order property owner to post a bond and failed to set forth factual basis to support likelihood of irreparable harm, unavailability of adequate remedy at law, substantial likelihood of success on merits, and consideration of public interest.
|
|||||
| Shepard v. Barnard, Case No. 5D05-1447,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 12, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In patient's action alleging that doctor was negligent in administering photodynamic therapy with drug, testimony of patient's experts that use of drug could cause permanent photoallergy was not generally accepted in relevant scientific community and was properly stricken under Frye, which applied to pharmaceutical and chemical ingestion cases.
|
|||||
| Sheppard v. Sheppard, Case No. 5D05-4422,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 12, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order that wife was only entitled to one-half of marital portion of husband's pension was reversed because order was reformation of parties' settlement agreement and wife did not present any evidence on parties' intent as to pension in reliance on trial court's statements that agreement was unambiguous and could not be modified.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
