 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hicks v. State, No. 3D07-1426,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 16, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hood v. Valle, No. 3D06-2991,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 16, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| James v. State, Case No. 2D04-5789,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 16, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, Case No. 2D05-4324,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 16, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of two offenses charged in the same information, and the trial court did not direct in its oral pronouncement that the sentences were to run consecutively. Therefore, in accordance with § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2004), the sentences were to run concurrently.
|
|||||
| Karnbach v. Karnbach, No. 4D07-1052,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order was reversed as language used in parties' agreement that child support would continue until "each child reache(d) 19 years of age, graduate(d) high school, die(d) or (became) emancipated" was not clear as to exact amount child support was to be reduced. Hearing was required to fix child support for remaining children under § 61.10, Fla. Stat.
|
|||||
| Landeverde v. State, No. 4D07-4016,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Leeks v. State, Case No. 2D06-3332,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 16, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probation violator's sentence was reversed, and the case was remanded for resentencing within the sentencing guidelines under § 921.0016(1)(b), Fla. Stat., because the circuit court failed to file written reasons for a departure from the guidelines in the sentence and the integrity of the sentencing process was thus violated.
|
|||||
| Lombardo v. Haige, Case No. 2D07-999,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 16, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The circuit court erred in dismissing the appeal without reviewing its merits as the landlord sought a timely rehearing after the filing of the final judgment and then timely appealed when rehearing was denied. Since the appeal was dismissed as untimely, not affirmed, the petition was treated as a writ of mandamus, under Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c).
|
|||||
| Mondy v. Sanchez, No. 3D07-1221,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 16, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the interested witness considerations went to the weight of the evidence, they did not impact on the admissibility of the evidence; consequently, specific performance of the sale of a duplex was properly ordered.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
