S.P. v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• “We recognize that in some circumstances, the fact-finder can infer from life experience and from the self-evident nature of the repairs that a statutory damage threshold has been met.”
• “[EJven though the damage amount is not an element of the offense of criminal mischief, it is relevant to the severity of the crime.” (citing Valdes v. State, 510 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (emphasis supplied)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Marrero v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2011-09-15· cited 39×
• T.B.S. v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-08-09· cited 5×
• B.J.M. v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2016-02-12· cited 4×
• TBS v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-08-09
• SP v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-07-14

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Valdes v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1987-07-28· cited 19×
• Clark v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2001-02-08· cited 16×
• Clark v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-12-29· cited 16×
• R.A.P. v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-02-20· cited 11×
• A.D. v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-02-18· cited 7×