 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Ins. Co., CASE NO. 1D06-2159,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a excess insurer's bad faith action, a primary insurer was erroneously granted summary judgment, because under Florida law, an excess insurer incurred the same duty to pay that the insured would have had in the absence of an excess insurer, and thus, the excess insurer had as much of a right to sue primary insurer for bad faith as insured did.
|
|||||
| Rashdi v. State, No. 4D06-3190,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. State, No. 4D06-1143,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police lacked requisite reasonable suspicion of criminal activity for stop. Defendant's vehicle was stopped because its passenger was a black male within a quarter mile of robbery that took place a little more than a half hour before. None of other relevant details referenced in "be on the lookout" dispatch were ascertainable before the stop.
|
|||||
| Rouse-Miami, L.L.C. v. Bentley's Luggage Corp., No. 3D06-990,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a tenant was not obligated to indemnify the landlord against a personal injury claim by the tenant's employee, because the tenant failed to obtain the required nondeductible general liability insurance, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the tenant on that issue.
|
|||||
| Said v. State, No. 3D05-1670,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a trial judge erred in basing defendant's sentence for violation of probation on unspecified aggravating circumstances, the sentence was reversed and the matter was remanded for an evidentiary hearing based strictly upon the terms of the plea agreement underlying the probation violation as outlined in the record.
|
|||||
| Sanchez v. Nerys, No. 3D05-2434,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a passenger's counsel improperly attacked a defense expert's credibility, and made an improper and inflammatory closing argument, in violation of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4)(A), §§ 90.608, 90.702, Fla. Stat. (2005), the trial court erred in awarding the passenger attorneys' fees and costs under § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2005).
|
|||||
| Santos v. State, No. 4D06-812,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Schmitz v. Schmitz, Nos. 4D05-2991 & 4D05-4166,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because parties did not have separation agreement or otherwise agree on alternative date, under § 61.075(6), Fla. Stat., trial court should have identified marital assets and liabilities as of date of filing of petition for dissolution. Including husband's post-filing debts for litigation expenses in equitable distribution was also error.
|
|||||
| Sell v. Sell, No. 3D06-994,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Art. X, § 4, Fla. Const., did not prohibit imposition of lien on former husband's homestead interest marital home; husband's actions--depletion of assets, failure to obey court orders to turn property over to former wife, being jailed for contempt, and filing a baseless bankruptcy--was contemptuous conduct that nullified homestead protection.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
