 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adams v. State, No. 3D06-1211,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's denial of defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) upon reconsideration did not violate defendant's double jeopardy rights, because while the trial court initially granted the motion, it did not vacate the sentence or resentence defendant, and thus no new sentence was imposed.
|
|||||
| Balkaran v. State, No. 4D04-4196,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite defendant's failure to move for withdrawal of his plea based on a sentencing error, because his counsel accepted the sentence, and because the sentence was not illegal, the appeals court was constrained to affirm the trial court's 15-year probation order. But, prohibiting him from the use of his land was an invalid probation condition.
|
|||||
| Bank of Am. N.A. v. Evans, No. 3D06-1458,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cardholder's denial of having received agreement containing arbitration clause created fact issue, notwithstanding rebuttable presumption of receipt from testimony as to issuer's practice of including agreement whenever it sent card, and, so appellate court could not have interfered with trial court's resolution of issue in favor of cardholder.
|
|||||
| Bloodsaw v. State, No. 3D05-1982,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed because, although the trial court was required by Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(5) to renew its offer of assistance of counsel at the commencement of the trial after defendant chose to represent himself and standby counsel was appointed, the court's noncompliance with the rule was harmless error.
|
|||||
| Brady v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla., Inc., CASE NO. 1D06-2103,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Directed verdict for a funeral service was reversed and remanded as the parents, under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(b), in their amended negligence count, properly alleged willful and wanton conduct and sought noneconomic damages under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190. Thus, their negligence action fell outside of the impact rule for purposes of noneconomic damages.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, No. 4D07-209,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Bryan v. State, No. 4D07-319,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cardona v. Lynstar Corp., No. 3D05-1234,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a buyer did not meet its burden of proving the absence of genuine issues of material fact on agreement on a closing date and, therefore, the existence of a contract for the sale of the property, the order of specific performance was reversed.
|
|||||
| Chessmasters, Inc. v. Chamoun, No. 4D06-3362,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because lease renewal provisions did not contain unambiguous and explicit language providing for renewals in perpetuity, the trial court erred by declaring that the provisions were void as unreasonable restraints on alienation due to perpetuity. Further, the tenant was therefore entitled to one renewal under each of the lease agreements.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
