 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bailey v. State, Case No. 2D05-1697,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 7, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court should have suppressed two statements defendant gave to the police during a murder investigation. While defendant was advised of her Miranda rights before one statement, the warnings were deficient because they failed to inform her that she had a right to counsel during questioning, and no warnings were given before second statement.
|
|||||
| Burns v. State, Case No. 5D07-2624,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 7, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summarily denying inmate's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) motion to correct sentencing was error. If, as he claimed, had been sentenced under the unconstitutional 1995 guidelines, rather than the 1994 guidelines, and his sentence could not be imposed under 1994 guidelines without a departure, he was entitled to resentencing under the 1994 guidelines.
|
|||||
| C.A.F. v. State, Case No. 5D07-3982,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 7, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a juvenile delinquency case, as the trial court imposed "conditions of release," including dusk-to-dawn curfew, without conducting a risk assessment under § 985.245, Fla. Stat. (2007), and did not comply with Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.005 -.013, its pre-trial detention order was illegal.
|
|||||
| Carter v. State, Case No. 5D07-936,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 7, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's special condition of probation required defendant to complete any substance abuse or mental health counseling, vocation and rehabilitation programs, and therapy that his probation officer recommended. As this was a broad, rather than a circumscribed, delegation of judicial authority to the probation officer, it was improper.
|
|||||
| Coon v. State, Case No. 5D07-3109,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 7, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Johnson, Case No. 5D06-2931,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 7, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While ch. 98, § 223, Laws of Fla., which deleted a provision of § 322.271, Fla. Stat., that allowed person with four DUI convictions to apply for reinstatement of licence, violated the single subject rule, ch. 03, § 25, Laws of Fla., cured this defect. Thus, amended § 322.271, Fla. Stat., became operative on the effective date of 03 Fla. Laws 25.
|
|||||
| Fiore v. Hilliker, Case No. 2D06-1865,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 7, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute over a restrictive covenant, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to landowners' neighbor on the basis that a restrictive covenant was not reciprocal, as the law did not require reciprocal restrictions where property was not subdivided pursuant to a general scheme or plan.
|
|||||
| Howard v. State, Case No. 5D07-3265,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 7, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Islander Beach Club Condo. v. Skylark Sports, L.L.C., Case No. 5D06-503,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 7, 2008, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The attorney's fee provision in a lease agreement entered into between the parties was unenforceable. The provision as written made no sense and did not reflect any clear intention of the parties as to whom, when, and how attorney's fees or costs should be allowed.
|
|||||
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. |
