Mauk v. State of Florida
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Hickman v. Pan-American Life Ins. Co. (La. 1937)
- Western Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Honeywell, Inc. (Miss. 1980)
- Brander v. Nabors (District Court, N.D. Mississippi 1978)
- Standard Life Insurance v. Hinton (Miss. 1963)
- Moody v. New York Life Insurance (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 1958)
- Myles v. National Life & Accident Insurance (Miss. 1955)
- Franklin Like Ins. v. Stribling (Miss. 1953)
- Cox v. Lamar Life Insurance (Miss. 1950)
- Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Winter (Miss. 1950)
- Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Eaves (Miss. 1939)
- Bott v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (Kan. 1938)
- Berry v. Acacia Mutual Life Assn. (Ariz. 1937)
- Lyford v. New England Mutual Life Insurance (Pa. Super. Ct. 1936)
- Cohen v. New York Life Insurance (Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas 1936)
- Reingold v. New York Life Ins. (9th Cir. 1936)
- Cochens v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Cal. Ct. App. 1935)
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Smith (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1935)
- &198tna Life Ins. Co. v. Roberts (Miss. 1935)
- State Life Ins. Co. of Indianapolis v. Parry (Tex. App. 1935)
- State Life Ins. Co. of Indianapolis Ind. v. Parks (Tex. App. 1935)
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NY v. Johnson (Supreme Court of the United States 1934)
- McCutchen v. All States Life Ins. Co. (Ala. 1934)
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. of California v. Paynter (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1934)
- Lavender v. Volunteer State Life Ins. (Miss. 1934)
- New York Life Ins. v. Ware (Miss. 1934)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff in error was indicted in the Circuit Court of Hernando County under an indictment in two. counts. At the trial the State elected to stand on the first count of the indictment. That count of the indictment appears to have been drawn under the provisions of section 5143 R. G. S., 7244 C. G. L.
The evidence fails to establish the essential element of an offense under this statute, to-wit: that the defendant was a bailee for hire. Therefore, the judgment must be reversed on authority of Tounsend v. State, 63 Fla. 46, 57 Sou. 611. It is so ordered.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in the result.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.