 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Orlando Police Dep't v. Rose, Case No. 5D07-2393,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Dinkins v. State, Case No. 5D07-3527,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Duck Dog, L.C. v. Brownstar Props., LLC, Case No. 2D07-1834,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a contract for sale of real estate was ambiguous and did not clearly show that parties intended buyer to pay special assessment on the real estate, trial court erred in awarding seller the buyer's deposit as liquidated damages for its failure to close. As there was no meeting of the minds on an essential term, there was no enforceable contract.
|
|||||
| Flores v. State, Case No. 5D07-1512,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where destruction of a car was subject of both arson and evidence tampering charges, defendant's acquittal of arson count did not render his conviction of evidence tampering inconsistent, as arson (§ 806.01, Fla. Stat.) required damage by fire or explosion, but evidence tampering (§ 918.13, Fla. Stat.) could be established by other means.
|
|||||
| Luckey v. State, CASE NO. 5D06-3851,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although inmate's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion claim that counsel was ineffective for allowing inmate to proceed to trial while incompetent or for failing to raise available insanity defense was facially insufficient, summary denial of the claim was reversed because inmate should have been allowed an opportunity to correct the insufficiency.
|
|||||
| Mann v. State, Case No. 5D07-675,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate, incarcerated on several sex crimes, was entitled to be resentenced under a corrected sentencing scoresheet because his original scoresheet had assessed victim injury points based on penetration for all four counts the inmate had pled guilty to when only one of the four counts specifically alleged penetration of the victim.
|
|||||
| McMillan v. McMillan, CASE NO. 5D06-1614,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a trial court's determination of the amount of alimony former wife needed was supported by substantial evidence, and the former husband was able to pay the alimony, the award was reversed because the trial court failed to take the former wife's tax liability into consideration when setting alimony.
|
|||||
| Murphy v. YMCA of Lake Wales, Inc., Case No. 2D07-1324,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Waiver stating that a health club was not liable for "any claims based on negligence," but which also suggested that the club would take "every reasonable precaution" against accidents, was confusing. Therefore, it did not clearly and unequivocally release the club from liability and was not enforceable against a member in her negligence suit.
|
|||||
| Patricia Weingarten Assocs. v. Jocalbro, Inc., Case No. 5D06-4233,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As tax collector had record owners correct address, under Jones v. Flowers, clerk's failure to make further efforts to provide notice of a tax deed sale to the record owner after certified letters sent to it were returned unclaimed, other than publishing notice in a paper, violated record owner's due process rights and rendered tax sale invalid.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
