 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Porter v. State, CASE NO. 3D05-2603,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Randall v. State, No. 4D04-3711,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Victim's testimony that defendant merely stated that he wanted to lick her genital area was not an act of solicitation. Thus, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 777.04(2), and 800.04(6)(a) and (b), the State, as a matter of law, failed to elicit sufficient competent evidence to sustain his conviction for lewd or lascivious conduct by way of solicitation.
|
|||||
| Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., CASE NO. 3D05-243,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an apparel business's breach of fiduciary duty and fraud in the inducement action against its supplier, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of the business's expert witness on damages as the expert relied on speculative information and used an incorrect date in determining the market value of the business.
|
|||||
| Tittsworth v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, No. 4D04-3888,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although family emergency exception to Fla. Stat. § 443.101(1)(a) could apply in appropriate cases, it did not prevent finding of ineligibility where employee failed to establish that she requested permission before leaving to care for a sick relative.
|
|||||
| Ulcena v. State, No. 4D05-4094,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of appellant's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion based on newly discovered evidence was affirmed, as the court could conceive of no circumstances under which Roberts v. State could be the basis of such a claim, and the decision was not retroactive.
|
|||||
| Valley v. State, No. 4D04-1711,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prior crimes evidence that had not been admissible under Fla. Stat. § 90.404, because of irrelevance, in an earlier prosecution of defendant on an earlier robbery charge was equally inadmissible in a later prosecution based on a different robbery.
|
|||||
| Ventura v. Allstate Ins. Co., CASE NO. 3D05-1330,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Weaver v. State, Case No. 2D04-1003,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer in violation of Fla. Stat. § 784.07(1)(a), it was fundamental error to instruct jurors regarding slightly different elements of a similar offense codified at Fla. Stat. § 784.03(1)(a)(1).
|
|||||
| Webster v. State, Case No. 2D05-5699,
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. |
