Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 1.02 (2025)
Legal time.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
1.02 Legal time.—In all laws, statutes, orders, rules and regulations of this state, relating to the time of performance of any act by any officer or department of this state, whether in the legislative, executive or judicial branches, or relating to the time within which any rights shall accrue or determine, or within which any act shall or shall not be performed, by any person subject to the jurisdiction of this state, it shall be understood and intended that the said time shall be the United States standard time of the zone within which the act is to be performed or the right shall accrue or determine.
History.—s. 1, ch. 3916, 1889; RS 1307; GS 1739; s. 1, ch. 6938, 1915; RGS 2954; CGL 4681.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Jones v. State, 658 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Jones v. State, 658 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). “See generally Bench Book for United States District Judges § 1.02-2 to -5 (3d ed. 1986); Randall B. Bateman, Federal and State Perspectives on a Criminal Defendant's Right to Self-Represent, 20 J.”
Walton Cnty. v. Stop Beach Renourishment, 998 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2008). “Bruce, The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land § 1.02 (1995). However, once acquired, the nature of the two different categories of easements is generally the same.”
Legg v. Voice Media Grp., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 3d 1370 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “at 5/ While this contractual language is not dispositive of whether VMG in fact had sufficient control over Phaz2’s actions to render VMG vicariously liable, see Restatement (Third) of Agency *1378 § 1.02 .(2006), at a minimum it raises an issue of fact sufficient to preclude…”
Jordan Chapel Freewill Baptist Ch. v. Dade Cnty., 334 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). “Dade County also maintains that Section 1.02 in its own Charter constitutes its controlling procedural requirements.”
Concord Florida, Inc. v. Lewin, 341 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). “The pertinent portion of said Code is Section 1.02(1) which provides that: "The provisions of this Code shall apply equally to new and existing conditions except that existing conditions not in strict compliance with the terms of this Code shall be permitted to continue where…”
Marriott Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 383 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). “The Dade County, Florida, Charter § 1.02(A) provides: The Board shall ... decide which actions of the Board shall be by ordinance or resolution, .”
Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. an Accountable Miami-Dade, 208 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “The record shows that although the next regular Board of County Commissioners meeting would have been on May 3, 2016, the item was scheduled on the May 17, 2016 meeting in order to comply with the publication requirements of Section 1.”
Newman v. Eli Witt Co. (In Re Eli Witt Co.), 20 B.R. 778 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1982). “This conclusion is based on the following: Section 1.02 of the Plan, page 3-A, sets forth the classes of members under it.”
City of Miami v. Keton, 115 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1959). “In conclusion, appellant points out that it does not question the power of Dade County under the metropolitan charter to repeal any part of the city charter, but it contends that such repeal must be accomplished in the manner provided by Section 1.02(b), Metropolitan Charter,…”
Alachua Cnty. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1999). “Furthermore, the cases this Court cited in support of the above principle stand for the proposition that local governments have the authority to require that utilities be licensed pursuant to their police power, and that governments may require a reasonable fee to cover the cost…”
Sanibel-Captiva Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Cnty. of Lee, 132 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1961). “Appellee says that the Kinzie agreement does no more than implement Chapter 159 and Section 1.02(E) of the resolution, which was authorized by the resolution in that cost includes “the acquisition of land or interests therein or any other properties deemed necessary or…”
Morley Music Co. v. Cafe Cont'l, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 1579 (S.D. Fla. 1991). “Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.02 at 1-30 (1991). 14. Acting on that authority, the very first Congress enacted a federal copyright protection statute in 1790.”
— 1.02(1) — 1 case
Concord Florida, Inc. v. Lewin, 341 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). “The pertinent portion of said Code is Section 1.02(1) which provides that: "The provisions of this Code shall apply equally to new and existing conditions except that existing conditions not in strict compliance with the terms of this Code shall be permitted to continue where…”
— 1.02(A) — 4 cases
Marriott Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 383 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). “The Dade County, Florida, Charter § 1.02(A) provides: The Board shall ... decide which actions of the Board shall be by ordinance or resolution, .”
Metro. Dade Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Rockmatt Corp., 231 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
Metro. Dade Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. Rockmatt Corp., 231 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
Vill. of Palmetto Bay, Florida v. Miami-Dade Cnty., Florida (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
— 1.02(B) — 3 cases
Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. an Accountable Miami-Dade, 208 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “The record shows that although the next regular Board of County Commissioners meeting would have been on May 3, 2016, the item was scheduled on the May 17, 2016 meeting in order to comply with the publication requirements of Section 1.”
Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. an Accountable Miami-Dade (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
Vill. of Palmetto Bay, Florida v. Miami-Dade Cnty., Florida (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
— 1.02(C) — 1 case
Gillyard v. State, 704 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
— 1.02(E) — 1 case
Sanibel-Captiva Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Cnty. of Lee, 132 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1961). “Appellee says that the Kinzie agreement does no more than implement Chapter 159 and Section 1.02(E) of the resolution, which was authorized by the resolution in that cost includes “the acquisition of land or interests therein or any other properties deemed necessary or…”
— 1.02(G) — 1 case
Alachua Cnty. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1999). “Furthermore, the cases this Court cited in support of the above principle stand for the proposition that local governments have the authority to require that utilities be licensed pursuant to their police power, and that governments may require a reasonable fee to cover the cost…”
— 1.02(a) — 1 case
Newman v. Eli Witt Co. (In Re Eli Witt Co.), 20 B.R. 778 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1982). “This conclusion is based on the following: Section 1.02 of the Plan, page 3-A, sets forth the classes of members under it.”
— 1.02(b) — 3 cases
City of Miami v. Keton, 115 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1959). “In conclusion, appellant points out that it does not question the power of Dade County under the metropolitan charter to repeal any part of the city charter, but it contends that such repeal must be accomplished in the manner provided by Section 1.02(b), Metropolitan Charter,…”
Newman v. Eli Witt Co. (In Re Eli Witt Co.), 20 B.R. 778 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1982). “This conclusion is based on the following: Section 1.02 of the Plan, page 3-A, sets forth the classes of members under it.”
State ex rel. Lehman v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.