 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baker v. State, CASE NO. 1D06-6591,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 10, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for being an accessory after the fact to second-degree murder, in violation of ¿ 777.03(1)(c), was affirmed where the appellate court found that the information adequately alleged the offense of accessory after the fact and defendant fully understood the charges against him and was able to mount a defense to that charge.
|
|||||
| Dieujuste v. J. Dodd Plumbing, Inc., CASE NO. 1D08-1374,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 10, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no competent, substantial evidence, including a surveillance video, upon which to base a finding that a claimant, either orally or in writing, misrepresented his physical condition, pursuant to ¿¿ 440.09(4), 440.105(4)(b)1-3, Fla. Stat., and an order disqualifying the claimant from workers' compensation benefits was reversed.
|
|||||
| Edney v. State, CASE NO. 1D07-5823,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 10, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposition of two $ 2.00 costs under ¿ 938.15, Fla. Stat. was upheld, as a plain reading of ¿ 938.15 granted a county or municipality the authority to assess the $ 2.00 costs for state statute violations that occur within its jurisdiction. The plan language of ¿ 938.15 did not limit its reach to violation of county and municipal ordinances.
|
|||||
| Gregory v. Crum Staffing, CASE NO. 1D08-3389,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 10, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Leavins v. Crystal, CASE NO. 1D08-4836,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 10, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the circuit court did not comply with the procedural requirements of ¿ 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2008) when it allowed an inmate to skip a step and allege a claim for punitive damages without first properly seeking and receiving permission to do so, the food service employees, against whom the claim was made, were entitled to certiorari relief.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, CASE NO. 1D08-2887,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 10, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was improper to deny a driver certiorari review of the administrative suspension of his driver's license due to his DUI arrest. A hearing officer misread ¿ 322.2615(2), Fla. Stat. and violated the basic principles of due process when it considered inspection reports but denied the driver the right to cross-examine those who prepared the reports.
|
|||||
| Milord v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, CASE NO. 1D08-4064,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 10, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. XO Communs., CASE NO. 1D08-1153,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 10, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since judge of compensation claims' (JCC) order as to psychiatric impairment was unclear as to what part of claimant's impairment applied to preexisting condition, while expert's testimony clearly attributed 14 % impairment rating to workplace accident, remand was ordered for JCC to consider claim in light of restrictions attributable to accident.
|
|||||
| Northwest Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, CASE NO. 1D08-4993,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 10, 2009, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Water management district (WMD) was entitled to writ of quo warranto because community affairs department acted in excess of its authority by issuing violation notices regarding certain wells; expressed intention of legislature in ¿ 373.217, Fla. Stat. to provide the exclusive authority to WMDs for permitting the consumptive use of water was clear.
|
|||||
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. |
