|
|
| |
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 Courts -
Florida - March 5, 2008
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Blackburn v. Bartsocas, Nos. 4D06-2267, 4D06-2407 & 4D06-2787,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Appellees' claim against a decedent's estate for "sweat equity" was actually a claim for past wages and was thus partially time-barred under ¿ 95.11(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001), which provided that an action to recover wages had to be commenced within two years. Therefore, wages owed to appellees were limited to the two years before they filed suit.
|
|
| |
|
| |
C.B. v. Dep't of Children & Families, CASE NO. 5D07-2049 & 5D07-2409,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: As protective supervision had been terminated with no adjudication of a mother's children as dependent, under ¿ 39.507(5), Fla. Stat., a trial court was without jurisdiction to later reinstate supervision and remove the children from their mother. To do so, the Department of Children and Families was required to file a new dependency petition.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Chipman v. Chipman, No. 4D06-3935,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Under ¿ 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006), trial court erred in imputing income to a voluntarily unemployed former wife of $ 77,000 per year, as it failed to make the requisite findings concerning her work history, qualifications, and the prevailing earnings in the area for jobs available to her, and she testified she could only earn $ 30,000 a year.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
