Larceny By Trick

32 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Casso v. State
  182 So. 2d 252· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-01-28 ·cited 60×
  Two defendants convicted of grand larceny for defrauding an elderly woman of $5,000 through a confidence game scheme appealed their convictions. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence of larceny by false pretenses was sufficient, the warrantless a
• David Crystal, Inc. v. The Cunard Steam-Ship Co. Ltd.
  339 F.2d 295· 2d Cir.· 1964-12-09 ·cited 57×
  The court should give effect to clear exculpatory language in a contract between sophisticated parties.
• Silver v. State
  174 So. 2d 91· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-03-16 ·cited 33×
  Sam Silver was convicted by jury of grand larceny for fraudulently obtaining a mortgage deed and promissory note by inducing an illiterate man to sign documents he believed to be a receipt for repair work. On appeal, Silver challenged the constitutionality of the larceny statute
• United States v. Dahl William Welborn
  322 F.2d 910· 4th Cir.· 1963-09-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that evidence of prior similar conduct was admissible to prove intent under the Dyer Act, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Ackerson v. United States
  185 F.2d 485· 8th Cir.· 1950-12-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding larceny by trick, as the evidence suggested the owner intended to part with title, making the offense false pretenses, not larceny.
• Stewart v. United States
  151 F.2d 386· 8th Cir.· 1945-10-15 ·cited 23×
  The court held that obtaining possession of a vehicle through fraudulent pretenses with the intent to convert it constitutes larceny, even if the owner initially consented to the possession.
• United States v. Bruton
  414 F.2d 905· 8th Cir.· 1969-08-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendants intended to deprive the owner of the automobile's rights and benefits of ownership, thus violating the Dyer Act.
• Herman v. United States
  220 F.2d 219· 4th Cir.· 1955-03-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for transporting stolen property in interstate commerce, and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence or in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Shoels
  685 F.2d 379· 10th Cir.· 1982-08-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the term 'steal or purloin' in 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) is to be construed broadly and includes obtaining property by false pretenses, not just common law larceny. The court also held that the appellant was not deprived of a fair trial due to appearing in prison cl
• United States v. Crutchley
  502 F.2d 1195· 3d Cir.· 1974-09-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government is not required to prove the defendant knew the property taken belonged to the United States, and that 18 U.S.C. § 641 encompasses larceny by trick.
• Sec. Ins. Co. OF Hartford v. Invs. Diversified Ltd., Inc.
  407 So. 2d 314· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-12-15 ·cited 15×
  Security Insurance denied coverage for theft of a fork lift obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation (larceny by trick), claiming the policy's exclusion for losses caused by dishonest acts of "any person to whom the property may be entrusted" barred recovery. The court held
• Lake v. United States
  338 F.2d 787· 10th Cir.· 1964-11-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while mere default on a promise to pay a mortgage is insufficient to infer fraudulent intent, the totality of circumstances, including the defendant's actions after acquiring the car, can support such an inference for the purposes of the National Motor Vehicle
• United States v. Chatham
  568 F.2d 445· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge improperly excluded relevant testimony regarding the defendant's "open account" defense and made disparaging remarks about the defense, requiring reversal. The court also noted that the jury instructions on the timing of intent formation were p
• United States v. Dickerson
  508 F.2d 1216· 2d Cir.· 1975-01-06 ·cited 12×
  A conviction based on vicarious liability for assault is improper if the underlying joint venture was merely larceny and the assault was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that venture.
• Graham v. United States
  187 F.2d 87· D.C. Cir.· 1950-12-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence supported a conviction for larceny by trick, and the jury charge was adequate.
• United States v. Tripp
  782 F.2d 38· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-16 ·cited 11×
  The court held that evidence of other card games was admissible as part of the conspiracy, that 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) does not require proof of overt acts, that the RICO statute is not unconstitutionally vague, and that rigged poker games constitute gambling under state law.
• M.H. Lipiner & SON, Inc. v. The Hanover Ins. Co.
  869 F.2d 685· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the jewelers' block insurance policy exclusion for loss caused by conversion on the part of any person to whom the property was delivered applied, and thus the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify.
• Collins v. State
  319 So. 2d 135· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-09-26 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the state failed to prove the elements of larceny by trick, specifically the reliance on deception for inducement, and thus the conviction for attempted grand larceny must be reversed.
• Merslich v. Schnellenberger
  578 So. 2d 725· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-02-12 ·cited 4×
• United States v. Johnson
  575 F.2d 678· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-18 ·cited 4×
  Taking money through trickery from a bank teller constitutes 'stealing' or 'purloining' under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), even if the teller willingly hands over the money.
• Ballard v. United States
  237 F.2d 582· D.C. Cir.· 1956-09-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's refusal to give a specific jury instruction on accomplice testimony corroboration and witness credibility criteria was not reversible error.
• The ORE & Chem. Corp. v. Eagle Star Ins. Co.
  489 F.2d 455· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurance policy's coverage for goods 'in due course of transit' did not terminate when the goods were temporarily stopped at a motel as part of a fraudulent scheme to steal them.
• United States ex rel. Kennedy v. Burke
  176 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1949-07-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner was not deprived of due process by not having counsel, as the proceedings were not complex and he understood the charges.
• Simon v. Pierre
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-07
  The court recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of the plaintiff's first amended complaint as a shotgun pleading, with leave to amend conditioned on payment of the filing fee.
• Simon v. Pierre
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-11-19
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint, which was a shotgun pleading and improperly brought a civil claim under a criminal statute, should be dismissed. The court also recommended consolidation of related cases and redaction of personal information.
• Schnellenberger v. Merslich
  622 So. 2d 148· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-08-10
  Schnellenberger appeals an award of attorney's fees to Merslich in the aftermath of fraud and civil theft litigation between the aunt and niece. The court reverses the fee award, finding that Schnellenberger's original civil theft claim had substantial factual and legal support,
• Mariner Charters, Inc. v. Foremost Ins. Co.
  316 So. 2d 602· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-07-08
  Mariner Charters sought recovery under an insurance policy for a vessel lost during a charter, claiming the charterer intended to steal the vessel. The court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, holding that the policy's exclusion for losses resulting from infidelity of per
• Genevra M. McALISTER v. Bache & Co.
  169 So. 2d 332· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-12-01
  The court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, finding that a defendant who acted as an agent for collection of bearer bonds, even if unaware of the principal's fraud, could be liable to the owner for aiding in the conversion of property.
• Levin v. United States
  338 F.2d 265· D.C. Cir.· 1964-06-30
  The court held that the trial court's erroneous rulings and charge regarding habit evidence were prejudicial and required reversal of the conviction.
• Flores v. United States
  260 F.2d 179· 9th Cir.· 1958-06-26
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction under the Hawaii statute for obtaining money by false pretenses, and the jury's finding was supported by substantial evidence.