 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bongiorno v. Yule, CASE NOS. 1D04-3887/1D05-1119/1D05-2736,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although contempt was not available in Florida to enforce equitable distribution, it was available in case of nonpayment of alimony. Therefore, it was properly used against former husband who failed to pay lump sum alimony, even though alimony was awarded only after husband failed to make share of equitably distributed property available to wife.
|
|||||
| C.N.H. v. State, Case No. 5D05-1392,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since an alternative "high risk" school's plan for even-handed daily searches of all of the students and their purses constituted a neutral plan for the execution of the searches and there was a compelling governmental interest in conducting the searches, the administrative searches did not result in a violation of U.S. Const. amend. IV.
|
|||||
| Cunnell v. State, Case No. 2D05-5539,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of prohibition was granted as more than four years elapsed between date of commission of alleged offenses and service of the capias on defendant, a violation of statutes of limitations, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 775.15, and State failed to prove it had executed the capias without unreasonable delay or statutes of limitations were tolled.
|
|||||
| D.M. v. Dep't of Children & Families, Case No. 5D05-2885,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The entry of the default consent in the termination of parental rights hearing was an abuse of discretion as the efforts of the mother, who lived in Arkansas and had health problems, to attend by telephone were reasonable and she should have been allowed to attend by telephone.
|
|||||
| F.J.R. v. State, Case No. 5D05-1625,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine and resisting an officer without violence were reversed as an officer had no basis for arresting defendant for failing to return to a car that had been stopped for a traffic violation where defendant was a passenger and officer did not have a basis for ordering defendant back to the car.
|
|||||
| Freeman v. Phillips, CASE NO.: 1D05-763,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Giles v. State, CASE NO.: 2D05-6191,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gollie v. Econ River Hosp., CASE NO. 1D05-3025,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Harris v. Sch. Bd., CASE NO. 1D05-0984,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to a school board as to breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims by school bus contractors, as the contract was unambiguous and did not require the board to purchase the buses in question and there was no promise on the part of the board to buy the buses.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
