|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Holland, Case No. 2D07-1091,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: As police found drugs in plain view in defendant's bedroom, in close proximately to her insurance card and other belongings, the State sufficiently established an element of constructive possession, dominion and control over the contraband, to survive her motion to dismiss the drug charges.
|
|
| |
T.W. v. Dep't of Children & Families, No. 4D07-4781,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a proceeding to terminate a mother's parental rights, under Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.255(d)(2)(C), trial court was not required to make any findings in support of its refusal to permit children to testify, as their attorney told the court that they did not wish to do so, and Rule 8.255(d)(2)(C) applied only where an in-camera examination had occurred.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Tyrrell v. State, No. 4D05-183,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: In sexual battery case, trial court ordered victim to produce dildo and certain medical records, but she never complied. Defendant's rights to due process and confrontation were not violated because it was the victim, not the State, who was ordered to produce the items, and defendant never moved to hold the victim in contempt.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
