Legal Opinion

Driggers v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided October 9, 1925PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The conviction herein of the statutory offense of fraudulently altering the marks of an animal with intent to claim same (See 5176 Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920) is in accord with controlling rules of law as to the charges given, see Atzroth v. State, 10 Fla. 207; Williams v. State, 40 Fla. 480, text 483, 25 South. Rep. 143; as to charges refused being covered by charges given, Groover v. State, 82 Fla. 427, 90 South. Rep. 473; as to admission of objectionable evidence where it is in substance otherwise admitted in evidence, Mercer v. State, 83 Fla. 555, 92 South. Rep. 535, as to general objections…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Wallace v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1899
  2. Groover v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1921
  3. Redman v. MurrelSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1906
  4. Hopkins v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1906
  5. State ex rel. Stillman v. MerrittSupreme Court of Florida · 1923

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Vila v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011
  2. Fouts v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
  3. Melton v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1947
  4. Blythe v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1967
  5. Grice v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API