 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Johnson v. State, No. 3D04-3225,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The sentence imposed upon defendant on a conviction of robbery with a firearm was improper because the trial court erred in considering defendant's lack of remorse or culpability when he requested a downward departure sentence as a youthful offender pursuant to § 921.0026(2)(l), Fla. Stat. (2006).
|
|||||
| Kirlin v. Green, No. 3D06-1948,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for a writ of certiorari was granted and a court's order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint for pure bill of discovery was quashed because the pure bill of discovery was improperly utilized to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to render identified causes of action against identified defendants viable and/or nonfrivolous.
|
|||||
| L.D.G. v. State, No. 4D06-3020,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The testimony of the victim was prima facie proof by competent, substantial evidence that the damage due to the juvenile's criminal mischief exceeded $ 1,000, pursuant to § 806.13(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). The owner testified that she personally handed over to the company who repaired her vehicle the sum of $ 1,250 in payment of the repairs.
|
|||||
| Leedham v. State Unemployment Appeals Comm'n , No. 4D06-476,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claimant's willful and deliberate violation of his employer's policy to allow a search of his briefcase, especially after admitting that he had company property in his briefcase, amounted to misconduct connected with work within the meaning of § 443.036(29), Fla. Stat. Thus, claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
|
|||||
| Lorenzo v. State, No. 3D05-2522,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's initial statements were not the product of custodial interrogation, as defendant acknowledged on videotape that he was aware that he was not under arrest and that he was free to leave, the motions to suppress those statements and the subsequent Mirandized statements the following day, were properly denied.
|
|||||
| Matos v. State, No. 4D06-3917,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McGriff v. State, CASE NO. 1D06-1741,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Apprendi and Blakely were decided prior to appellant's resentencing becoming final, Apprendi and Blakely applied to appellant's case. Summary denial of appellant's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800 motion for post conviction relief was error.
|
|||||
| McLin v. State, No. 3D05-39,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's ruling on Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 post conviction relief motion met standards under decision of Supreme Court of Florida in an earlier appeal in the case, which held that a witness's recantation required a new trial only if trial court was satisfied that recantation was true and would have probably led to a different verdict.
|
|||||
| Mejia v. Santana, Case No. 2D06-1570,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to § 61.30(7), (8), Fla. Stat. (2005), a recalculation of child support was required based upon competent evidence of the parties' current net incomes, any day care expenses for the child related to the father's employment, and the cost of any health insurance for the child.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
