 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Above All Roofing, LLC, Case No. 2D05-236,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured employee was not entitled to UM benefits under his employer's policy, because he: (1) was not a first-named insured; (2) was not physically occupying or getting into or out of an insured vehicle when injured; (3) did not fall under a close proximity situation when injured. Further, the term "occupying" was not ambiguous.
|
|||||
| Carr v. State, Case No. 5D05-2302,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying defendant's most recent Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800 motion because it was frivolous and an abuse of process where defendant raised a claim that had previously been raised and rejected. Future pro se filings by defendant were prohibited.
|
|||||
| Dep't of Corr. v. Cosme, Case Nos. 5D05-2807, 5D05-2808,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Fla. Stat. § 794.0235(1)(a) (2005) did not require the DOC to compensate a medical expert in "chemical castration" proceedings, and because the DOC had no adequate remedy by appeal and the issue was likely to recur, it was appropriate to grant a writ of certiorari.
|
|||||
| Grieco v. Grieco, Case No. 2D04-3444,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's pre-marital funds did not become a marital asset during two-year marriage where there was no intermingling with parties' other funds, and despite facts that wife's name was put on account for convenience, some of the funds were used to pay marital expenses, consolidated statements were issued, and wife had limited control of funds.
|
|||||
| Haselier v. State, Case No. 2D05-87,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress because defendant did not withdraw his consent to the search where he voluntarily removed the container from his pocket, returned it to the pocket, and gave it to the officer upon request. Also, he did not physically interfere with the officer's search, and he did not attempt to leave.
|
|||||
| Ivey v. State, Case No. 5D05-3365,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, Case No. 2D05-3325,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McHolder v. State, Case No. 5D04-3957,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a drug transaction was not completed, the cocaine was not available to be introduced into evidence, and because a subsequent sale occurred within 438 feet of a church where people were seen attending services, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of violating Fla. Stat. §§ 893.13(1)(e)1., 893.03(2)(a)4.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. State, Case No. 2D05-675,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The State failed to prove that the value of the property taken by defendant was more than $ 100 but less than $ 300, under Fla. Stat. ch. 812.014(2)(e), and his conviction for first-degree petit theft was reversed. No evidence was offered as to the condition, quality, or age of the items at the time they were stolen.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
