 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Advisory Opinion to the AG re: 1.35% Property Cap, Nos. SC08-1153 & SC08-1239,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, January 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an initiative petition was exempt from the single-subject requirement pursuant to Art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const., the ballot summary of a proposed constitutional amendment did not comply with § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. The summary not only omitted material facts, but it also differed in material ways from the provisions of the amendment itself.
|
|||||
| Bates v. State, No. SC07-611, No. SC08-66,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, January 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A postconviction relief court properly denied defendant's motion for DNA testing, pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853, since, based on being found at the scene of the crime just minutes after the murder, the victim's ring being found on him, and his admissions, it was reasonable to conclude that the testing would not produce exoneration.
|
|||||
| Beach-Mathura v. Miami-Dade County Pub. Schools/Norland Middle Sch., CASE NO. 1D08-4625,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 30, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Brock v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, Case No.2D08-3126,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 30, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cernak v. State, Case No. 2D08-123,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 30, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As prior ruling that 1995 sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional meant that either inmate or the State would suffer unanticipated consequences of plea bargain entered into under those guidelines, inmate's motion for postconviction relief would be decided on the merits as a motion to enforce the plea bargain under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850.
|
|||||
| Clarence Bros. v. McNeil, CASE NO. 1D08-2805,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 30, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| E.A.R. v. State, No. SC08-506,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, January 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under § 985.433(7)(b), Fla. Stat., juvenile court improperly disregarded recommendation to place petitioner juvenile in a moderate-risk residential commitment as court made decision on same facts, such as alleged gang affiliation, as noted in recommendation without explaining why one level was better suited to serving ch. 985, Fla. Stat. goals.
|
|||||
| Fla. Bd. of Bar Examiners re Webster, No. SC08-296,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, January 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney who was disbarred in foreign jurisdictions, and who was then disbarred in Florida pursuant to reciprocal discipline, was not eligible to seek readmission to the Florida Bar pursuant to Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 2-13.1 until he was readmitted in the other jurisdictions; his application for readmission was properly dismissed.
|
|||||
| Gessa v. Manor Care of Fla., Inc., Case No. 2D07-192812,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 30, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly directed action against nursing home company to arbitration based on arbitration agreement; the arbitration provisions were not procedurally unconscionable and after the trial court properly found that a limitation of liability provision was severable, the agreement was not substantively unconscionable either.
|
|||||
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. |
