 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Networkip, LLC v. Spread Enters., CASE NO. 3D05-1150,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a distributor's act of terminating the services it provided to its buyer was done to protect its own economic interest, such did not amount to an intent to damage necessary to support an intentional interference with a business relationship claim. Further, a third party was not an intended beneficiary in the underlying contract.
|
|||||
| Oscar v. State, No. 4D04-2860,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Parker v. State, No. 4D05-3510,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Florida required clear jury finding that firearm was discharged before court was authorized to enhance sentence on that basis pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 775.087(2)(a)3. Lack of jury finding that defendant discharged firearm prevented the trial court from enhancing his sentence for his conviction of attempted second degree murder with a firearm.
|
|||||
| Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Devitis, No. 4D05-3179,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fla. Stat. § 324.021(9)(b)(2) (2002), which made no reference to PIP coverage, did not create PIP coverage for pedestrian injured when struck by driver operating rented vehicle. Trial court erred in holding that driver's insurer was obligated to provide PIP coverage when policy excluded PIP coverage for the pedestrian under these circumstances.
|
|||||
| RCA Records Label, Inc. v. Reyes, CASE NO. 3D05-1079,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ramos v. State, No. 4D04-4308,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Reitman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, No. 4D06-392,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. State, No. 4D04-4447,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rojas v. State, CASE NO. 3D04-2212,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant and his attorney agreed to present a consent defense to sexual battery charges, the evidence supported the trial court's finding in defendant's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion that the defense attorney did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to seek suppression of DNA evidence or to object to its admissibility.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
