 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rosenstein v. Rosenstein, No. 4D07-2595,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the absence of a specific provision requiring former husband to pay former wife's rent, two marital settlement agreements should not have been interpreted to require such payment. The trial court could not change the terms of the agreements to achieve what it might have thought was a more appropriate result.
|
|||||
| Salm v. Salm, No. 4D06-3691,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an ex-husband's appeal of an Amended Final Judgment entered in a dissolution of marriage, and the ex-wife's cross-appeal, there was no error in the trial court's order with the exception of two areas in need of correction or clarification on which both parties agreed.
|
|||||
| Sheppard v. State, Case No. 2D06-4557,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pro se motion to withdraw plea under Fla. R. Civ. P. 3.170(l) filed by inmate who was represented by counsel was a nullity, as inmate did not move to discharge counsel, and counsel, instead of adopting pro se motion and representing inmate, testified against him. Instead of holding hearing, court should have stricken motion.
|
|||||
| UTC Indus. v. Presidential Fin. Corp., Nos. 3D07-1071; 3D07-473,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allegations in complaint that financial companies conspired with the business associate of a company to defraud the company was sufficient to withstand motion to dismiss; complaint alleged an agreement to defraud the company, the improper valuation of the company's property as the underlying tort, and improper transfer of property as an overt act.
|
|||||
| Valentin v. State, No. 4D07-1785,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the State presented circumstantial evidence as consistent with personal possession as with an intent to sell, and presented no evidence showing an intent to sell within a park, the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant's conviction under ¿ 893.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. was reversed.
|
|||||
| Whittingham v. State, No. 4D06-3975,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving multiple acts of sexual abuse of a child over a period of years, it was not fundamental error to submit to the jury several counts that included multiple, distinct acts. Therefore, as defendant failed to object to the instructions at trial, he could not raise the issue for the first time on appeal.
|
|||||
| Young v. Kurlansik, No. 4D06-4982,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by reforming a promissory note to include omitted terms and awarding appellee damages based on appellants' tortious conduct in omitting those terms. The awards were inconsistent, as appellee could not affirm the note by obtaining its reformation, and at the same time disavow it by claiming damages.
|
|||||
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. |
