|
| |
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 1, 2006
|
| |
Russ v. State, CASE NO. 3D04-1056,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Sexual battery and related convictions were affirmed on appeal, except one, upon the State's proper concession of error, as the cumulative effect of an improper closing argument by the State, the admission of improper profile evidence, and the denial of defendant's request to introduce character evidence, did not warrant reversal.
|
|
| |
Segal v. State, No. 4D04-798,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided.
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where only full Faretta inquiry addressed only separate case of new charges against defendant, offer of counsel was not renewed at beginning of violation of probation (VOP) hearing, defendant was never informed in VOP case of possible penalties, and defendant proceeded pro se at VOP hearing, reversal of probation violation finding was required.
|
|
| |
Siegel v. NewAgeCities.Com, Inc., No. 4D05-251,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Summary judgment for employer and merger partner in employee's breach of employment contract case was improper where, inter alia, while affidavit of employer's president asserted that parties acted in conformity with unsigned letter purporting to modify the contract, employee's affidavit declared that the letter was never signed or implemented.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
