 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Elbert v. State, Case No. 2D05-5668,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ferris v. S. Fla. Stadium Corp., CASE NO. 3D05-177,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly rendered a judgment on the pleadings in a lawyer's tortious interference claims as the stadium's voicing displeasure with the positions taken by its vendor and co-defendant in a personal injury suit did not constitute wrongdoing; nor did insisting that the company terminate the lawyer for advancing unfavorable positions.
|
|||||
| Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass'n v. Mander, Case No. 2D05-4062,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610, the trial court erred in temporarily enjoining Florida High School Activities Association (FHSAA) from prohibiting a private-school student from playing volleyball on a public middle-school team because the FHSAA was not given reasonable notice or an opportunity to respond and the trial court failed to set a bond.
|
|||||
| Fla. Parole Comm'n v. Chapman, No. 4D04-4613,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because nothing in Fla. Stat. § 947.1745(1) or Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 23-21.015 bound the parole commission to "findings of fact" or required a parole examiner to make findings of fact, the commission was not bound by the examiner's determinations and had full authority to suspend an inmate's presumptive parole release date.
|
|||||
| Fletcher Jones W. Shara, Ltd., LLC v. Rotta, CASE NO. 3D05-56,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By negotiating with a Florida resident to sell him an expensive car on-line, a dealer acknowledged the foreseeability of being haled into court in Florida to answer for alleged misrepresentations; thus, jurisdiction was proper both under Fla. Stat. § 48.193 and due process principles.
|
|||||
| Gallagher v. Manatee County, Case No. 2D04-3724,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a county employee's gender discrimination action against the county, the trial court did not err in applying the cap in Fla. Stat. § 768.28(5) as his attorneys' fees, costs, compensatory damages award, and back pay award were collectively subject to the limitation on the total amount of recovery provided for in Fla. Stat. § 760.11(5).
|
|||||
| Grainger v. State, Case No. 2D05-5677,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Greene v. State, Case No. 2D05-2577,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite the omission of a written revocation order specifying the condition(s) of probation that appellant violated the judgment revoking probation and imposing sentence was affirmed; appellant's admission to the violation of probation was voluntary and informed, and his sentence was lawful.
|
|||||
| Grohs v. State, No. 4D04-2016,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for using computer services to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a minor into committing an illegal act in violation of Fla. Stat. § 847.0135(3) was reversed where the State failed to prove that any solicitation actually occurred on the computer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
