 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Coggins v. State, CASE NO. 1D04-5333,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a jury never had the option of choosing whether a sexual battery occurred through union with or penetration of the victim's vagina, it never made a specific finding that penetration occurred; thus, the trial court erred by assessing defendant 80 points for sex penetration, and by denying defendant's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2) motion.
|
|||||
| Coney v. State, No. 4D05-4748,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Consol. Energy, Inc. v. Strumor, No. 4D04-2717,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court correctly found that an attorney and company were not subject to the long-arm statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193; alleged communications were not the basis of the action, the attorney's bar membership did not amount to minimum contacts, and the forum selection clause alone was insufficient to create jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Dawson v. State, CASE NO. 1D05-3900,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a circuit court's order revoking a probationer's probation term was based solely on hearsay evidence, said order was reversed.
|
|||||
| Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Gonzalez-Zaila, CASE NO. 3D05-511, CONSOLIDATED: 3D04-2386,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While DMV had authority to order driver with five DUI convictions to install ignition interlock device as condition of reinstating his license for employment purposes without a court order under Fla. Stat. § 322.271(2)(d), DMV could only order such a requirement at the time it reviewed the reinstatement application and granted the hardship license.
|
|||||
| Douglas v. Fla. Power & Light, Inc., CASE NO. 1D05-1688,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied employee's petition for certiorari review of order from Florida Judge of Compensation Claims compelling him to submit to vocational evaluation by expert retained by employer and its insurance carrier where Fla. Stat. § 440.15(1)(e)1 was amended in 2003 to provide that carrier had right to conduct testing by expert of carrier's choice.
|
|||||
| Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., No. 4D04-4761,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute regarding insurance coverage, summary judgment in an insurer's favor was reversed as genuine issues of material fact remained as to who selected the repair company to perform mold remediation and whether any additional mold discovered by the insureds' consultant was from certain walls not included in the original repair areas.
|
|||||
| Duggins v. State, CASE NO. 3D05-1871,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As there was competent substantial evidence in the record to support a commissioner's finding that an inmate did not timely request his attorney to file an appeal, the inmate's request to file a belated appeal under Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c) was denied.
|
|||||
| Escoto v. Drehobl, CASE NO. 3D04-1520,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
