 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Higgs v. State, Case No. 2D06-1193,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 23, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the pleadings and the evidence adduced at trial supported a lesser-included offense instruction under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.510(b), because the jury declined to exercise its "pardon power" by convicting defendant of a violation of § 316.1935(1), (2), Fla. Stat. (1995), the trial court's refusal to give the requested instruction was harmless.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Shaw, Case No. 5D06-1046,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 23, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Matias v. Matias, Case No. 2D05-4721,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 23, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dissolution action, because the parties' children had been separated and living in the primary residence of their respective parents for more than four years, the trial court properly continued the separation; however, the detailed evidence necessary to make a proper child support calculation under § 61.30, Fla. Stat. (2005), was overlooked.
|
|||||
| Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Schultz, Case No. 5D06-444,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 23, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The use of a multiplier failed as there was no evidence that the insured had any difficulty obtaining competent counsel to represent him in the PIP suit and it was a fairly unremarkable contract case involving a dispute over $ 1,315. Thus, the award of attorney's fees of $ 193,750 was not reasonable under § 627.428(1), Fla. Stat.
|
|||||
| Rollins v. State, Case No. 2D06-397,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 23, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no evidence that a probationer knew that a hotel's parking area was a place where drugs were unlawfully sold, dispensed, or used, the police did not have probable cause to arrest him for violating a condition of his probation; therefore, the cocaine found during a search incident to that arrest should have been suppressed.
|
|||||
| Rudd v. State, Case No. 5D06-2341,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 23, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Ballard, Case No. 2D07-407,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 23, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Comments made by a trial court judge regarding suitability of death penalty in accused's case could have reasonably led the State to conclude that the trial court judge had prejudged the issue of whether it was appropriate to impose the death penalty in the case. Trial court was directed to grant State's Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(f) motion.
|
|||||
| State v. Woldridge, Case No. 2D06-2466,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 23, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an internet service provider was the only tipster, and its compliance with a federal law mandating that it report defendant's activities to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children provided a presumption of reliability akin to that afforded a citizen informant, the trial court erred in finding there was no probable cause.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. State, Case No. 5D06-931,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 23, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was properly denied as a greenhouse in his backyard did not lie within the curtilage of his residence; therefore, the actions of sheriff's agents in approaching and peering into the greenhouse did not infringe upon any Fourth Amendment right. Defendant also then voluntarily consented to a warrantless search.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
