 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bowman v. State, CASE NO. 1D06-4221,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 25, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's dismissal from a work camp did no more than trigger a requirement that he finish the remaining days in jail, the State proved no violation of any condition of probation at all; consequently, since defendant had already served the time necessary to complete his original probation, he was reinstated to probation.
|
|||||
| Burkhart v. State, CASE NO. 1D06-4658,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 25, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After defendant's sentencing hearing concluded, trial court improperly enhanced probation under ¿ 948.06, Fla. Stat. by imposing condition of electronic monitoring under ¿ 948.30(3)(c), Fla. Stat. in violation of double jeopardy as defendant's prior conviction of lewd and lascivious exhibition was not listed as qualifying offense in ¿ 948.30(3)(c).
|
|||||
| Clifton v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, CASE NO. 1D06-6298,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 25, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gopman v. Dep't of Educ., CASE NO. 1D07-1189,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 25, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate attorney's fees were imposed pursuant to, inter alia, ¿ 57.105, Fla. Stat., because, contrary to a student's claims, an ALJ's ruling disqualifying his counsel was proper, it was unnecessary for his counsel to conduct himself as he did to preserve issues for appeal, and his counsel's assertion that he behaved properly was unsupported.
|
|||||
| Hampton v. Fantastic Sam's, CASE NO. 1D06-6234,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 25, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: JCC erred in denying payment of a hairstylist's previously received psychiatric treatment because, earlier, the JCC accepted the psychiatrist's testimony as that of an authorized treating provider "for all purposes" by operation of law under ¿ 440.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat., and found that employer and carrier did not timely offer psychiatric care.
|
|||||
| M.B.T. v. Dep't of Children & Families, Case No. 5D07-703,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 25, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly determined that terminating mother's parental rights was in the manifest best interests of three children pursuant to ¿ 39.810, Fla. Stat. because placement with a relative was not available and the mother was devoid of any ability or disposition to provide the children with food, clothing, medical care or to meet their needs.
|
|||||
| McNeil v. Ramos-Perez, CASE NO. 1D07-4945,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 25, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Stanley v. State, CASE NO. 1D07-1535,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 25, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Young, CASE NO. 1D06-5798,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 25, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant, a pastor charged with possessing child pornography, had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in a church-owned computed accessed only by him and kept in his locked office, police search of computer's contents violated the Fourth Amendment and evidence obtained in search had to be suppressed as fruits of poisonous tree.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
