 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Robinson v. State, Case No. 5D07-3888,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant claimed that his counsel failed to filed a motion to suppress cocaine found in a car where consent was not given, the claim was not waived by his plea; therefore, the trial court erred in summarily denying defendant's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion for postconviction relief.
|
|||||
| Stuckey v. State, Case No. 5D06-3630,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Suarez v. City of Tampa, Case No. 2D05-3869,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 1, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As property owners' inverse condemnation and trespass claims against a city, based on its dumping garbage on their land decades earlier, could have accrued no later than 14 years before they filed suit, when they demanded that the city resolve the contamination problem, their claims were time-barred by ¿ 95.11(3)(g), (p), Fla. Stat. (2002).
|
|||||
| TSE Indus. v. Larson & Larson, P.A., Case No. 2D07-1872,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 1, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment award to a law firm in a legal malpractice action was reversed and remanded because the statute of limitation under ¿ 95.11(4)(a), Fla. Stat., did not begin to run until the date on which the parties filed a stipulation in the underlying action in which the law firm represented the client to dismiss the action with prejudice.
|
|||||
| Winthrop v. State, Case No. 2D07-1782,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 1, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because ¿ 775.084(1)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (1995) provided that defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual felony offender for violating ¿ 893.13, Fla. Stat., relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance, the trial court erred in summarily denying his Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) motion to correct the sentence as illegal.
|
|||||
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. |
