 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Accela, Inc. v. Sarasota County, Case No. 2D06-2195, 2D06-2289 Consolidated,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under "piggyback provision" of a county's procurement code, it could avoid competitive bidding and adopt terms of existing procurement contract between software vendor and Wisconsin government entity if certain conditions were met. But as terms of county-vendor contracts expanded those of Wisconsin-vendor contract, county's contracts were void.
|
|||||
| Bibi v. Royal Hidden Cove at the Polo Club Homeowners Ass'n, No. 4D07-291,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute over a settlement agreement involving a homeowner and homeowner's association, because the condition in the agreement of both the homeowner's association and a master association failing to approve plans to build a home did not occur, the trial court did not err in interpreting the agreement in favor of the homeowner's association.
|
|||||
| Brivis Enters. v. Von Plinski, No. 3D07-995,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Chapman v. State, No. 4D07-548,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a jury found an indigent sex offender to be a sexually violent predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act, the trial court erred in assessing fees and costs against him. The Act did not authorize this, and under § 394.929, Fla. Stat., the Florida Department of Children and Family Services was responsible for all costs.
|
|||||
| Cogar v. State, No. 4D06-3879,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Corzo Trucking Corp. v. West, No. 4D07-846,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court denied appellees' motion to vacate a default judgment and, more than 10 days later, it sua sponte entered an order granting the same motion, the second order was invalid because the time for filing a petition for rehearing or motion for new trial passed and it lost jurisdiction to modify its order.
|
|||||
| Cruz v. State, Case No. 2D06-5749,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| D.M. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., Nos. 3D06-2280 & 3D06-2291,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment terminating the parental rights of a mother and a father (§ 39.806(1)(c), Fla. Stat.) was affirmed, in light of the parents' refusal to seek treatment for drug abuse pursuant to a referral. While there was error in the trial court's research regarding a psychological issue, the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State , Case No. 2D07-5552,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate was not entitled under the rule announced in Spera v. State to have at least one opportunity to amend his Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion. Spera was a refinement of decisional law; it was not a "fundamental and constitutional law change" that had to be applied retroactively.
|
|||||
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. |
