State v. Diaz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that grand theft cannot be based on a continuing offense and denying state’s contention that submission of twenty-three invoices over a period of eleven months was part of common scheme or plan
• finding each invoice to be a separate taking and, therefore, only the final invoice was within the statute of limitations
• as to grand theft, “[t]he statute is silent on the issue of continuing offenses, with no suggestion that the legislature intended to make grand theft a continuing offense,” finding that each invoice was a “separate taking”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Nooe v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-01-07· cited 3×
• Reyes v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-11-24· cited 2×
• State v. Dominguez
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2010-02-17· cited 2×
• State v. Davis
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-01-19· cited 1×
• Nooe v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2006-05-04

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Toussie v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1970-03-02· cited 806×
• United States v. Michael A. Yashar
  Seventh Circuit· 1999-02-22· cited 105×
• United States v. Larry Dwight Jaynes and April Marie Jaynes
  Tenth Circuit· 1996-02-05· cited 75×
• State v. King
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1973-07-31· cited 40×
• O'MALLEY v. Mounts
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-09-11· cited 8×
• Rosen v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-04-26· cited 5×
• United States v. Yashar
  N.D. Illinois· 1998-04-30· cited 1×