 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aetna Health, Inc. v. 21st Century Oncology, Inc., CASE NO. 1D05-0143,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By the plain language of Fla. Stat. § 408.7057, the dispute resolution program only applied to unresolved claim disputes. Because the parties had resolved their claim disputes at issue, Fla. Stat. § 408.7057(4) did not prohibit the Agency for Health Care Administration from vacating its prior final order to facilitate the parties' settlement.
|
|||||
| Battles v. State, CASE NO. 1D05-1068,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order revoking probation was affirmed, as the appeal was not the proper forum for arguing the merits of a previous modification order. Had appellant wished to contest the modification of probation, he should have appealed the modification order; the most likely reason he did not contest the modification was that he actually requested it.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, Case No. 5D05-1572,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court erred by failing to correct judgment to reflect that defendant's conviction for armed burglary was stricken as result of earlier appeal, and record failed to contain defendant's original judgments and sentences, trial court was in a better position to make the necessary correction to defendant's judgment, and remand was needed.
|
|||||
| Butler v. State, Case No. 2D05-1005,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's revocation of defendant's probation was proper where the State presented evidence to support the determination that defendant had committed the new offenses of felony battery and tampering with a witness; however, as no evidence was presented that defendant possessed cocaine, revocation on that basis was error.
|
|||||
| C.L.W. v. State, CASE NO. 1D05-3552,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony from a police officer in regard to a statement which a witness made to the officer should have been admitted into evidence because it was offered to impeach the witness's testimony that he observed the juvenile enter the burglary victim's home.
|
|||||
| Canovas v. Sugar Supply, Inc., CASE NO. 1D05-2027,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cohen v. State, Case No. 2D05-1760,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's imposition of a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) sentence on defendant upon his conviction for robbery by sudden snatching, in violation of Fla. Stat. ch. 812.131(1) (2002), was illegal, as the PRR Punishment Act only referred to "robbery" as a qualifying offense pursuant to Fla. Stat. ch. 775.082(9)(a)(1)(g) (2002).
|
|||||
| County of Volusia v. City of Deltona, Case No. 5D05-1032,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in denying a county's request for certiorari review of a city's annexation ordinance, because the city and property owners attempted shoestring annexation by using a narrow corridor to connect the city to an outlying, noncontiguous area it desired to annex, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 171.031(11).
|
|||||
| Cunningham v. Cunningham, Case No. 2D04-5730,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although there was evidence that the husband earned more income than the amount he claimed at trial, since it was undisputed that the wife had significantly higher earnings, the husband's misrepresentations did not provide a legal basis to completely deny his claims for permanent periodic alimony under Fla. Stat. § 61.08.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
