Skip to main content

Hunter v. State

Citations

  • 48 So. 3d 174
  • 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18025
  • 2010 WL 4740187

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a restitution award was error, in part because “the victim testified that she paid $1000 for repairs to her home, but did not indicate what repairs were actually performed”
  • holding that it was error for the trial court to award restitution where “the victim testified that she paid $1000 for repairs to her home, but did not indicate what repairs were actually performed.”
  • “Restitution must be proved by substantial, competent evidence and this evidence must be greater than mere speculation.”
  • “Restitution must be proved by substantial, competent evidence and this evidence must be greater than mere speculation.”
  • “The trial court erred in establishing the amount of restitution because the victim could not identify all of the items that had been taken, relied on hearsay evidence to establish value, and failed to take into account depreciation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ciklin, Hazouri, Taylor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.