Ads
related to: cta case no 8607 search form floridacourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
legal.thomsonreuters.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
uslegalforms.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Because the Florida Supreme Court has predominantly discretionary jurisdiction (i.e., can choose which cases it wants to hear), the DCAs provide the final word on the vast majority of cases appealed in the State of Florida. Cases that are affirmed without comment by the district courts cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court, even as a request ...
Hence, the CTA is now composed of one Presiding Justice and eight Associate Justices. The CTA may sit en banc or in three divisions with each division consisting of three justices. The CTA, as one of the courts comprising the Philippine Judiciary, is under the supervision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines .
Famous cases heard in the district include the prosecution of former Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega, [4] the Elián González case, [5] notorious Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein, [6] a 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida case, [7] the prosecution of José Padilla, [8] and one of [9] the federal prosecutions of ...
The Florida circuit courts are state courts and trial courts [1] of original jurisdiction for most controversies. In Florida, the circuit courts are one of four types of courts created by the Florida Constitution (the other three being the Florida Supreme Court, Florida district courts of appeal, and Florida county courts).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (in case citations, N.D. Fla.) is a federal court in the Eleventh Circuit (except for patent claims and claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act, which are appealed to the Federal Circuit).
Florida v. Bostick (1991) - not "free to leave" but "free to decline" on bus; Florida v. Jimeno (1991) - can request officer to limit scope of search; Ohio v. Robinette (1996) - do not have to inform motorist is free to go; United States v. Drayton (2002) - police do not have to advise you of rights before search