 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gould v. State, Case No. 2D06-3831,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an inmate's first Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion alleged four ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on grounds that were different than those alleged in his second motion, the postconviction court erred in finding that the second motion was successive.
|
|||||
| Harding v. Rosoff, No. 4D06-8,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no impropriety by personal representatives who had opposed a beneficiary's challenge to a testatrix's exercise of a power of appointment in a will. The personal representatives lost the litigation, but that outcome thwarted the testatrix's apparent intent. Beneficiary was not entitled to surcharge against personal representatives.
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. Gil, No. 3D06-622,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a son challenged the administration of his mother's will and sued the executrix/trustee in clear contravention of the express terms of a global settlement agreement (GSA), the trial court did not err in finding that the son breached the GSA and in deeming that son predeceased his mother.
|
|||||
| Juega v. Davidson, No. 3D05-2785,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an administrator ceased to act in his representative capacity when the testator's estate was closed, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a), he did not have standing a year later to raise claims on behalf of the estate.
|
|||||
| Lecroy v. State, No. 4D06-403,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lehman v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Lehman, No. 4D06-1056,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the language used in a child order supported the conclusion that the Department of Revenue intended child support be allocated amongst a father's three children, on rehearing, the appellate court determined that its prior order reversing the denial of the father's motion to vacate was proper.
|
|||||
| Lenhart v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 4D06-359,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment to an insurer was reversed because coverage for a family member existed under an insurance policy. If the insurer's objective was not to cover an underage, unlicensed member of the insured's family, then the policy had to state such an intention explicitly and plainly; however, the policy failed to make such a statement.
|
|||||
| Marbulk Shipping, Inc. v. Bhagat, No. 3D06-2773,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because trial court's order did nothing more than allow for the taking of the deposition of a law firm on a narrow issue, it did not depart from essential requirements of law by denying the motion for protective order of the taking of law firm's deposition; therefore, petitioners, clients of the law firm, were not entitled to a writ of certiorari.
|
|||||
| Markin v. Markin, Nos. 4D02-4214 & 4D03-465,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a former husband received a sizeable credit for money he had remitted toward an equalizing payment, his appeal of a dissolution judgment did not upset the final judgment in any regard; consequently, the trial court erred in finding that he was the prevailing party for purposes of an award of appellate costs under Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(c).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
