 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| M.E.K. v. R.L.K., Case Nos. 5D05-1775, 5D05-2144,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an adoption proceeding brought pursuant to Fla. Stat. ch. 63, an indigent mother facing involuntary termination of her parental rights had a constitutional right to appointment of trial and appellate counsel under Fla. Const. art. I, § 9.
|
|||||
| M.F. v. State, Case No. 2D05-682,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because nothing in the record showed that a juvenile defendant had any role in shortening counsel's preparation time, and because counsel's defense was admittedly inadequate as a result, the trial court erred in denying defendant's Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.100(d) motion for a continuance.
|
|||||
| M.T.S. v. State, Case No. 5D06-181,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Marcy v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Case No. 5D05-1495,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) did not conflict with either Fla. Stat. § 768.79 or Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 in connection with the issue of attorneys' fees. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting attorneys' fees to an automobile manufacturer after car buyers brought an unsuccessful claim against the manufacturer under the MMWA.
|
|||||
| Mercedes Homes, Inc. v. Rosario, Case No. 2D05-3153,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the parties contracted to vest an arbitrator with the power to determine which issues were subject to an arbitration clause, the trial court erred in denying a builder's motion to compel arbitration.
|
|||||
| Muir v. Muir, Case No. 5D05-1998,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due to a reduction in income, a husband utilized the formula in a provision of the parties' marital settlement agreement and reduced his alimony payments; based on the language of the agreement, the election was effective on the date the husband reduced the alimony payments, and any arrearage award based on the date of his motion was improper.
|
|||||
| Myers v. Siegel, Case No. 5D05-161,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed a default judgment and held the trial court abused its discretion in denying an individual's motion for a continuance under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460 made on the morning of trial as one of her attorneys was hospitalized and the other attorney was sight-impaired and could not represent the individual by himself.
|
|||||
| Shepheard v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., Case No. 5D04-2369,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a foreclosure action against debtors, a husband and a wife, the court reversed the order of foreclosure against the wife because service of process was never properly perfected against her and she did not voluntarily appear in the lawsuit; because the husband voluntarily appeared, the final judgment against him was proper.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, Case No. 5D05-3017,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for credit for time-served filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) was facially sufficient, as the written sentencing documents only reflected credit for 42 days time-served but his sentencing transcript reflected that the trial court intended for him to receive 18 months of credit.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
