|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Florida - February 21, 2007
|
| |
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. M.A. & F.H. Props., No. 3D06-1278,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an action denying an insurer's motion to vacate an order confirming an appraiser's award, because a homeowner's appraiser was "competent" to render an appraisal, as that term was ordinarily used, no abuse of discretion resulting in denying the insurer relief from said order, filed pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Costa v. Costa, No. 4D06-688,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: While the record supported the finding that the wife was in need of alimony, under § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat., the trial court should have awarded bridge-the-gap or temporary alimony rather than permanent periodic alimony. Since the wife indicated that she needed alimony until the children reached the age of majority, the award exceeded her needs.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Leons, Nos. 4D06-4773, 4D06-4774, 4D06-4775, 4D06-4990, 4D06-4991, 4D06-5079, 4D06-5080, 4D06-5081, and 4D06-5082,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: As order requiring Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) to treat incompetent criminal defendants pursuant to § 916.106(7), Fla. Stat., did not direct DCF as to what treatment to deliver or how to deliver it, or require it to enter into contractual obligations for these services, the order did not violate separation of powers doctrine.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
