|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Florida - February 7, 2007
|
| |
W. Seven Seas, Inc. v. Few, Case No. 2D06-3324,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court erred in ordering a tenant to pay a portion of the ad valorem taxes on a property and to maintain a casualty insurance policy, because the landlord had elected double rent pursuant to § 83.06, Fla. Stat. (2004), during the course of the instant holdover proceeding, and was not entitled to additional relief.
|
|
| |
Waterhouse Constr. Group, Inc. v. 5891 SW 64th St., LLC, No. 3D06-1452,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court erred in denying defendants' motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims of violation of a joint venture agreement and defendants' breach of contract claims, as the agreement and the contract contained arbitration clauses which applied to all of the claims, which arose from alleged breaches of the agreement and the contract.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Wodzisz v. Live Oak Land, LLC, No. 4D06-23,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because genuine fact issues existed concerning when real estate contract's zoning contingency was waived and when contract expired, and because buyer failed to present evidence that it was ready, willing, and able to close before expiration of the contract, summary judgment in favor of the buyer commanding specific performance was improper.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|