 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Canete v. State, No. 4D03-2915,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements because although defendant was not expressly told that he had the right to have an attorney present "during" questioning, the language used by the officer in advising defendant was the functional equivalent of that required in Miranda.
|
|||||
| Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Wise, CASE NO. 3D05-1352, CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 3D05-754,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a property owner did not rent her house "now and then," there was no coverage under her insurance policy for an injury to her lessees' son. The owner's two-year rental of the premises to the lessees was the only time that it was rented out and it was rented as part of the owner's effort to sell the property.
|
|||||
| City of Pompano Beach v. Forman, No. 4D04-3737,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the use of the term "funding" within the language of Fla. Const. art. V, § 14 was ambiguous with regard to the cities' exemption or exclusion from the payment of filing fees, the trial court erred in not considering extrinsic evidence regarding the legislative history and background of the constitutional amendment to aid in interpretation.
|
|||||
| Club Med Brasil, S.A. v. Sicurella, CASE NOS. 3D05-486, 3D04-3220,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a) because the parties' agreement provided that disputes between plaintiffs and defendants had to be brought in Miami; plaintiffs would not be able to sue defendants in Brazil, or any other location.
|
|||||
| Cranney v. Coronado, Case No. 2D04-2609,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appointing a parental coordinator and requiring the children's father and grandmother to meet with the coordinator to resolve their visitation issues violated the father's right to privacy under Fla. Const. art. I, § 23 as it subjected him to an unwarranted inquiry into his private decision-making process regarding his children's best interests.
|
|||||
| Cullen v. State, No. 4D04-4100,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Deerbrooke Invs., Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of State, No. 4D01-5043,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Operator of gambling cruise ship could prorate its use tax liability, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 212.08, for revenues to the extent they related to activities that took place outside the three-mile limit, as such activities, even on "cruises to nowhere," could not be taxed as Florida mileage.
|
|||||
| Denmark v. State, No. 4D05-2328,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Dessesseau v. State, Case No. 2D05-5708,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
