Rodriguez v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing conviction under section 815.06 because evidence only established that the defendant accessed a “computer function” that he was not authorized to access
• “The mere speculation or opinion of a victim as to the amount of their loss is insufficient to sustain a restitution order.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Gonzalez v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2010-07-14· cited 14×
• Soriano v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-11-21· cited 14×
• Fernandez v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2012-10-10· cited 9×
• D.E.M. v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-03-28· cited 6×
• J.C. v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2008-12-12· cited 3×
• Mario Crapps v. State of Florida
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-12-07· cited 2×
• Mark Anthony Tolbert v. State of Florida
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2019-04-22· cited 2×
• JC v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2008-12-12
• Umhoefer v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-12-20

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Hawthorne
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1991-01-03· cited 121×
• Glaubius v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1997-02-20· cited 94×
• Bennett v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-12-20· cited 24×
• Peters v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-01-17· cited 19×
• Walters v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-12-03· cited 8×
• Pizzo v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-07-22· cited 7×
• State v. Summerlot
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-04-22· cited 4×