 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Santana v. Fla. Int'l Univ., CASE NO. 3D05-834,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 11, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A law-school applicant's appeal of two counts of a six-count amended complaint against a university was dismissed because it was taken from a nonfinal non-appealable order. Although he based each count on different legal theories, they all involved the same parties and the action was still pending between the same parties in the court below.
|
|||||
| Sidran v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., CASE NO. 3D01-2229,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 11, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Chemical manufacturer's motion for rehearing was denied, as an error admitting the opinion of its expert, an agronomist employed by the United States Department of Agriculture, was not harmless, but served as primary support for the manufacturer's water contamination defense in a defective product and negligence suit against it.
|
|||||
| State Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Gould v. Mustaf, CASE NO. 3D04-2033,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 11, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a father only advised a court of one undisputed fact that was not presented at an earlier hearing, the record complied with the mandates of Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.491(f), (h); the State did not challenge the trial court's authority to order the father to reimburse it for less than the total amount of child support paid to the mother.
|
|||||
| State v. Mathis, Case No. 2D04-2477,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 11, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the appeals court agreed with the trial court that the prosecutor misstated the law in closing argument as to the defense of self defense and defendant's duty to retreat, because the error was not preserved and was not fundamental, the trial court erred in granting defendant a new trial based on said misstatements.
|
|||||
| Sullivan v. Galske, Case No. 2D05-1774,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 11, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court correctly granted rehearing on the issue of attorneys' fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. ch. 713.29 (2002) in order to permit consideration of presuit negotiations, it was required to provide the parties with an evidentiary hearing before it determined the factual issues essential to its ruling.
|
|||||
| U.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Belance, CASE NO. 3D04-872,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 11, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in finding that the landowner was not entitled to the statutory immunity found in Fla. Stat. ch. 440.11(3) because the landowner was sued in its capacity as the owner of the allegedly defective and dangerous premises and Fla. Stat. ch. 440.11(3) did not grant immunity to property owners.
|
|||||
| Woodlands Golf Ass'n v. Bader, 4D05-1198,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Young v. McAteer, CASE NO. 3D05-606,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 11, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Young v. State, Case No. 2D04-5186,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 11, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon review of a search warrant affidavit supporting a search of defendant's residence, in conjunction with important, yet omitted facts concerning an informant's knowledge and the affiant's observations, the information contained therein was far too stale to establish probable cause to support a warrant. Thus, suppression was erroneously denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
