 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Laroche v. Nehama, No. 3D07-1077,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though a tenant's option to buy leased premises was initially supported by consideration--his agreement to rent the property for two years--when parties amended their agreement, terminating his obligation to pay rent, option was no longer supported by valuable consideration. Thus, the option became revocable offer which landlord properly withdrew.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Oceans Casino Cruises, Inc., No. 3D06-1843,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a negligence and wrongful death suit, trial court abused its discretion by granting appellees a new trial based on the alleged improper impeachment of appellees' expert witness by widower's counsel, as appellees' counsel did not object during the cross-examination of the expert or at anytime thereafter on the basis of improper impeachment.
|
|||||
| Leighty v. State, No. 4D04-2686,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Without notice that defendant was intending to use girlfriend's discovery deposition testimony as substantive evidence, State lacked motive to test reliability of her testimony by rigorous cross-examination. As deposition did not comply with Fla. R. Crim. P. ¿ 3.190(j), it was not admissible as exculpatory evidence under ¿ 90.804(2)(a), Fla. Stat.
|
|||||
| M.F. v. Dep't of Children & Families, No. 4D07-3741,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father, who tested positive for cocaine, testified he did not use drugs in his children's presence; he provided them food, shelter, and clothing; and they were thriving. As Department of Children and Families failed to refute that testimony, it failed meet its burden under ¿ 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat., to prove children were at risk of neglect.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. S. Bayshore Tower, L.L.L.P., No. 3D07-340,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Developer abandoned a condominium project and returned the purchasers' deposits with a letter stating that cashing the check would serve as an accord and satisfaction, terminating the parties' rights and obligations under the contract. As the purchasers cashed their checks, their suit against the developer was properly dismissed.
|
|||||
| Nolte v. Paris Air, Inc., Nos. 4D07-546 and 4D07-603,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Olsten Health Servs. v. Cody, No. 3D07-212,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical negligence case, photos of the patients pressure ulcer, taken six years after his last treatment by a nurse, were relevant to show the progression of the injury caused by the nurse's breach of standard of care, and under ¿ 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2006), their probative value outweighed any prejudice.
|
|||||
| Perry v. Perry, No. 4D07-601,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As each count of sons' petition to revoke probate of part or all of a decedent's will rested on one transaction--the decedent's execution of a will which exercised the power of appointment in favor of his widow rather than his sons--they could not file a piecemeal appeal from the dismissal of one of those counts.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. State, No. 3D06-893,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
