 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pass v. State, Case No. 2D04-4522,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was charged with violation of Fla. Stat. § 322.341 (2001) for driving while his license was permanently revoked and he entered guilty pleas and was sentenced, his motion for postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 should have been granted, as Fla. Stat. § 322.341 was unconstitutional at the time of the alleged crimes.
|
|||||
| Peraza v. State, Case No. 2D05-4284,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Peyton v. Horner, Case No. 2D04-5710,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in granting property owners' motion for attorney fees under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 after awarding judgment to them in civic association's suit to prevent them from violating deed restrictions imposed on their subdivision because while association's position that it could enforce restrictions might have been incorrect, it was not frivolous.
|
|||||
| Reeves v. State, Case No. 5D04-2295,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant had been convicted of four third degree felonies, the trial court did not err in imposing a single prison releasee reoffender sentence followed by consecutive criminal punishment code sentences, even if defendant's crimes arose from a single criminal episode.
|
|||||
| Salyers v. State, CASE NO. 5D05-818,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Fla. Const. art. I, § 12, there was no probable cause for search warrant as, inter alia, (1) defendant never told officer that cocaine was being kept in his home; and (2) his past history of drug trafficking did not suggest that he was engaged in trafficking at time of incident, or suggest that drugs were being kept or sold out of his home.
|
|||||
| Schroeder v. Lawhon, Case No. 2D05-194,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a recommended partition by three appointed commissioners in a real property partition action was not shown to be substantially unequal in value, it was an abuse of discretion under Fla. Stat. § 64.061(1) for a trial court to decline to confirm the report; real estate tax liability should have been based on the parties' ownership interests.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, Case No. 2D03-3750,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court's written probation revocation order did not conform to its oral pronouncement, in which the court stated that it found defendant in violation of only one violation of condition number 5, remand was ordered with directions to the trial court to enter an order reflecting the same.
|
|||||
| Shepherd v. State, Case No. 2D05-2848,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant alleged that the habitual felony offender (HFO) sentences imposed on him under Fla. Stat. § 775.021(4)(a) were illegal and he sought correction thereof under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a), denial of the correction motion was proper because the trial court did not find that the claims were facially sufficient.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, Case No. 5D05-1501,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
