 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Roberts v. Sarros, Case No. 2D04-5578,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to a singular/plural clause in a trust, allowing one grantor to amend the trust from time to time, including after the other grantor's death, and absent evidence of any context which required otherwise, a trust amendment executed by the surviving settlor was valid, warranting reversal of a partial final summary judgment on this issue.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. Villarejo, No. 4D05-931,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because nothing in the record refuted a former wife's claimed lack of notice of a hearing for an injunction for protection against domestic violence, the trial court erred in denying the former wife's motion for rehearing without affording her an evidentiary hearing.
|
|||||
| State v. Armstrong, CASE NO. 3D05-2209,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's petition for a writ of certiorari to quash an order denying exclusion of the testimony from defendant's fingerprint was granted, as the expert's "informed hypothesis" was irrelevant to any material issue presented but was merely a creative attempt to attack the predicate for the admission of latent fingerprint comparison analysis.
|
|||||
| State v. Rabb, No. 4D02-5139,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Fourth Amendment and Fla. Const. art. I, § 12, search warrant was improperly issued for defendant's house because anonymous tip was unverified and evidence from traffic stop did not suggest fair probability of any broader criminal activity of actually growing marijuana. Thus, trial court did not err by granting defendant's motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| State v. Surin, CASE NO. 3D02-2473,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because State could meet its burden of proof of defendant's age through circumstantial evidence in sexual battery case, trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for judgment of partial acquittal; the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that defendant was 18 years of age or older at the time he violated Fla. Stat. § 794.011(2)(a).
|
|||||
| Trage v. 311 Meridian, CASE NO. 3D05-1890,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an assignee, who signed an assignment of rights to sales agreements with a buyer as secretary and president of an LLC, lacked any status as the managing member of the LLC, the assignment she purportedly made was invalid. Hence, the buyer was properly granted partial summary judgment on this issue.
|
|||||
| Walker v. State, CASE NO. 3D05-1420,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Warner v. State, No. 4D05-220,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Watts v. State, No. 4D04-265,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecutor's statement in closing, "Did you hear anybody else testify to dispute the officer's story?" was improper comment on defendant's failure to testify. Since the evidence was not clearly conclusive, the State was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that error did not affect the verdict, and defendant's conviction was reversed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
