 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bradshaw v. Mickins, No. 4D06-1324,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a hearing review board failed to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the termination of a deputy sheriff, the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law when it remanded the matter to the board; consequently, the sheriff was not entitled to certiorari relief.
|
|||||
| Brodie v. Bayside Vill. E. Condo. Ass'n, Nos. 3D06-2212, 3D06-2202,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| DeLeo v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Case No. 2D06-580,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court's nonfinal order compelling a judgment debtor to answer a bank's questions at a deposition in aid of execution of judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a hearing because the court abused its discretion by failing to rule on each individual question for which the debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege.
|
|||||
| Dep't of Revenue, Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Ductant, No. 3D06-150,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the unrebutted DNA test showed, at the very least, there was a material mistake of fact as to the paternity of the child, the evidence sufficiently satisfied the requirements of both Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540 and § 742.10, Fla. Stat. to disestablish paternity. However, the alleged father was still obligated to pay an arrearage.
|
|||||
| Disque v. Unger, Nos. 4D05-2976 & 4D05-2977,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an estate could not benefit financially, and a dispute could be resolved in a lawsuit between all of the interested parties without the estate being a party, the trial court properly dismissed the personal representative's declaratory judgment action under § 733.603, Fla. Stat. (2003).
|
|||||
| East Invs., L.L.C. v. Cyberfile, Inc., No. 3D06-247,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a non-resident limited liability company was not provided the notice required by § 57.011, Fla. Stat., because it allegedly complied with the requirements of § 608. 4511(7), Fla. Stat., and because its lack of standing could be cured by way of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a), the trial court erred in dismissing the company's motion for rehearing.
|
|||||
| Eggleston v. State, No. 4D06-4057,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hazen v. Allstate Ins. Co., Case No. 2D06-184,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Car owner sued insurer for breach of alleged agreement to repair her car, but did not allege she had obtained settlement or verdict against insured or permissive user of other vehicle. As she did not plead sufficient facts to allege either compliance with or inapplicability of nonjoinder statute, § 627.4136, Fla. Stat., suit was properly dismissed.
|
|||||
| Holcomb v. State, No. 4D05-3669,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant was at the scene of the crime and was the sole occupant and driver of a truck carrying stolen property, his constructive possession warranted a jury instruction on the inference that could be drawn from the possession of recently stolen property.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
