|
| |
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 14, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Jaramillo, Case No. 2D06-3927,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 14, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendants were not entitled to dismissal, Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4), of, inter alia, forgery charges under § 831.01, Fla. Stat. because while case might not survive motion for judgment of acquittal, motion to dismiss did not defeat the elements of the charges considering circumstantial evidence that 2004 marriage certificate was not authentic.
|
|
| |
T.A. Enters. v. Olarte, Inc., Nos. 4D05-829 & 4D05-3052,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Absent evidence supporting the same in a trial de novo, damages and attorney's fees were erroneously awarded to a buyer, in its lawsuit under Florida's Lemon Law against a custom van manufacturer. Further, the buyer failed to show any entitlement to a new trial on damages.
|
|
| |
Udell v. Udell, No. 4D06-1169,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: As a husband failed to plead setoff, or a rental value offset, in his answer, affirmative defenses, counter-petition, or in any other pleading or motion, as required by both Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(h) and Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.140, the trial court erred in awarding him the same in its dissolution decree, as it lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
