E.G., a child v. State of Florida

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the State was not entitled to rely on replacement cost of stolen phone because it presented no evidence that the market value of the phone could not be satisfactorily ascertained
• holding that the State was not entitled to rely on replacement cost of stolen phone because it presented no evidence that the market value of the phone could not be satisfactorily ascertained

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).