 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Gainesville v. Crapo, CASE NO. 1D05-4253,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 12, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to hold that a city's fiber optic network and Internet equipment were tax exempt under Art. VII, § 3(a), Fla. Const. because the trial court had not considered whether the services promoted the goals set forth in § 364.01(3), Fla. Stat. Communications towers and land were not exempt because they were used partly for private purposes.
|
|||||
| City of Jacksonville v. Westland Park Assocs., II, CASE NO. 1D05-5770,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 12, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of severance damages to a property owner was reversed because there was no substantially diminished access to the owner's property of the kind that constituted a compensable taking when a city took a strip of land for building a new sidewalk, curb, gutter, bicycle lane, turn lanes, and a median in a road.
|
|||||
| Massery v. State, CASE NO. 1D06-0637,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 12, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's prosecution was completed once trial court imposed true split sentence after conviction, Sixth Amendment right to confrontation did not apply to probation-revocation proceeding. Trial court did not err in admitting lab report results, over defendant's objection that report was hearsay and violated his right to confrontation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
