 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Watson, No. 4D05-834,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Without an evidentiary hearing, there was no evidence that counsel's failure to object to the seating of three jurors was not a strategic decision, and defendant was relieved of showing that but for the attorney's alleged deficient performance, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.
|
|||||
| Thurston v. State, No. 4D05-4026,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The affirmation of the denial of the inmate's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3800(a) motion was proper where it was at least the third time that the inmate appealed the denial of the same frivolous claims. Because the inmate abused the right to pro se access to courts by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, the court further imposed sanctions.
|
|||||
| Turnberry Isle Condo. Ass'n v. Fla. Pritikin Ctr., CASE NO. 3D03-2437,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a company's longevity centers principally served the general public, they were not subordinate to, or incidental to, the principal use of a luxury development; therefore, the uses were illegal even if they complied with a city's zoning ordinance, and the trial court erred in determining that they were proper.
|
|||||
| Turner v. State, Case No. 2D05-2346,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United Grand Condo. Owners, Inc. v. Grand Condo. Ass'n, CASE NO. 3D05-1627,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a development was a mixed-use, rather than a residential condominium, a homeowners' association did not have to file its petition for injunctive relief against the owners with the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes for non-binding arbitration pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 718.1255.
|
|||||
| Valdes v. GAB Robins N. Am., Inc., CASE NO. 3D04-208,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although stress of being charged with workers' compensation fraud was understandable, insurers' behavior in allegedly falsely reporting recipient was not type of conduct that was so outrageous in character and extreme in degree to go beyond bounds of decency and be utterly intolerable in civilized society; thus, he failed to state cause of action.
|
|||||
| Wells v. State, No. 4D05-3731,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Williams v. State, Case No. 5D06-144,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Zvest, LLC v. Schwartz, CASE NOS. 3D04-3096, 3D04-3091,
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. |
