 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Affinity Internet, Inc. v. Consol. Credit Counseling Servs., No. 4D05-1193,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While a contract at issue stated that it was subject to a collateral document found at an Internet website, that simple statement, without more, was insufficient to bind the parties to arbitrate, despite arbitration clause found at website. Contract contained no clear language evidencing intent to incorporate terms of the collateral document.
|
|||||
| Barrientos v. State, No. 4D04-3451,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's counsel failed to present witnesses who would have provided testimony that defendant allowed them and others to use his vehicle, and thereby implying that the firearm in the vehicle was not in defendant's control, the trial court erred in denying defendant's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion for postconviction relief.
|
|||||
| Blackmon v. State, No. 4D04-4049,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Two unsigned, unaddressed writings in defendant's handwriting were properly admitted in defendant's trial for the murder of his estranged wife to refute defendant's testimony that he was not angry when he went to see his wife, and that he did not intend to kill her.
|
|||||
| Blumberg v. Steve Weiss & Co., CASE NO. 3D05-1287,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a products liability action, given the complained-of product seller's lack of hands-on contact with the product, its purchase of that product overseas and resale to its shipper, and its status as a middleman, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the seller under both Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(b) and (f)(2).
|
|||||
| Burkey v. State, No. 4D04-3588,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a new trial after the erroneously exclusion of his non-hearsay statement rejecting a request to sell marijuana to a CI, as such was offered to show that he was not involved in a crime, and said statement was highly relevant and crucial to his defense that he did not participate in the crime, but that another acted alone.
|
|||||
| Cadle Co. v. Pegasus Ranch, Inc., No. 4D05-1636,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fla. Stat. § 77.041 supplemented, rather than replaced, Fla. Stat. § 222.12. Trial court erred when it narrowly focused on word "contest" in Fla. Stat. § 77.041 in dissolving garnishment writs. Assignee's replies were sufficient to "contest" a judgment debtor's claims of exemption, and the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing.
|
|||||
| Carnival Corp. v. Iscoa, CASE NO. 3D05-2125,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and permitted an injured passenger to amend his complaint to make a claim for punitive damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.72, the appellate court did not have certiorari jurisdiction to review the trial court's decision to permit the amendment.
|
|||||
| Collins v. Gov't Emples. Ins. Co., CASE NO. 3D05-1719,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's class action suit was properly dismissed, with prejudice, as: (1) she failed, year after year, to accept non-stacked uninsured motorist coverage, and due to the same, was presumed to have accepted stacked coverage under Fla. Stat. § 627.727(9); and (2) she received a benefit for the additional premiums she paid for said coverage.
|
|||||
| D.R. v. State, No. 4D05-2546,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
