|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Florida - January 17, 2007
|
| |
Randall v. Randall, No. 3D06-6,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A trial judge erred in holding a former wife in contempt for failure to satisfy debts to third parties ordered under § 61.075, Fla. Stat. (2006), as part of an equitable distribution, as enforcement through contempt of debts not involving support violated Fla. Const. art. I, § 11, which prohibited imprisonment for debt.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Spry v. State, Case No. 2D06-3448,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because an appellate court could not determine whether an officer's testimony, in context, was permitted, the matter had to be remanded to determine whether the officer testified as a qualified expert concerning whether the circumstances were consistent with possession for sale or for personal use, or whether he testified about defendant's intent.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Xpress Title, Inc. v. Jason M. Wandner, P.A., No. 3D05-1085,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a title company's liability as an escrow agent could not exceed the amount left over in the escrow, an unpaid creditor's damages were unliquidated; therefore, the trial court erred in denying the company's motion to vacate a default final judgment in favor of the creditor.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
