 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Goldman v. State, No. 4D04-596,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reversal of defendant's conviction for leaving the scene of the accident was required because conviction on that count along with conviction of DUI manslaughter/leaving the scene violated double jeopardy.
|
|||||
| Griffin Bros. Co. v. Mohammed, No. 4D04-2802,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the corporation would not have been able to obtain coverage for its "true intentional acts," there was no detrimental reliance as to the alleged failure of the insurance company agent to inform the corporation that intentional acts would not be covered under the employer liability compensation policy.
|
|||||
| Hampton v. State, CASE NO. 3D04-3024,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the record did not conclusively refute the claim of defendant that he would be exonerated by postconviction DNA testing under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853, as the State never made any inquiry at a crime lab regarding the DNA samples and whether any testable material still existed, the trial court erred in summarily dismissing the petition.
|
|||||
| Harris v. State, No. 4D05-4291,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Horne v. State, Case No. 2D05-2681,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Fla. R. Crim. P. 9.141(c) petition was granted in part because defendant was improperly resentenced by a successor judge, and appellate counsel's failure to preserve the sentencing error for review by neglecting to file a Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2) motion in the trial court constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
|
|||||
| J.D. v. State, No. 4D04-3074,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since calling a student out of class to investigate a report was a reasonable and minimal step in that investigation, the trial court correctly determined that the stop, which resulted in the student disclosing that she had five bags of marijuana on her person, was reasonable under all of the circumstances and did not violate U.S. Const. amend. IV.
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. State, Case No. 2D03-4713,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police had probable cause to search and arrest defendant, and the manner of the search of his person did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Although the strip search of defendant violated the privacy requirement of Fla. Stat. § 901.211, application of the exclusionary rule for violations of § 901.211 could not be justified.
|
|||||
| Junior v. State, No. 4D04-3540,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Knight v. State, CASE NO. 3D03-2967,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the record reflected that many other prospective jurors interacted more than the challenged juror, and four females were picked as jurors and two females were picked as alternates, the record supported the trial court's finding that the peremptory challenge of the female juror was not pretextual.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
