Love v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that scienter was not an element of a statute prohibiting the possession of gambling devices
• where statute clearly does not require scienter, court may not require State to prove that element

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Beshore v. Department of Financial Services
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-04-13· cited 4×
• Metro Dade County, Consumer Protection Division v. Buy Wise, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1993-10-26

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Schultz v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1978-07-27· cited 30×