State v. Lloyd

How courts have described this case

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

• “The ultimate determination of whether a defendant is guilty of grand larceny because items stolen were in fact obtained in a single incident or pursuant to a common scheme or plan reflecting a single, continuing larcenous impulse or intent is, of course, for the jury to make.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Major
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1986-07-30· cited 50×
• State v. Gilbert
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 1987-04-10· cited 15×
• Brown v. State
  Wyoming Supreme Court· 2002-04-16· cited 11×
• State v. Zaitseva
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2000-10-31· cited 11×
• State v. Grinolds
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1992-02-27· cited 8×
• State v. Morrison
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2006-10-19· cited 5×
• State v. Gillespie- Sexually exploitative
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2013-12-30· cited 3×
• State v. Blair Olsen
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2016-12-21· cited 2×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Willie Decoster, Jr.
  D.C. Circuit· 1973-12-27· cited 525×
• State v. Tucker
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1975-07-22· cited 109×
• People v. Richardson
  California Court of Appeal· 1978-08-14· cited 45×
• State v. Barton
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1981-03-23· cited 29×
• State v. Roberts
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1972-12-09· cited 25×
• State v. Kombol
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1959-12-01· cited 16×
• State v. Sampson
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1980-03-31· cited 15×
• People v. Robinson
  New York Supreme Court· 1978-11-13· cited 14×
• Commonwealth v. Pina
  Massachusetts Appeals Court· 1973-07-16· cited 5×