Florida Statute 1.02 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title I
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES

Chapter 1
DEFINITIONS

View Entire Chapter

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.

F.S. 1.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 1.02 on CourtListener

Amendments to 1.02

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 1.02

Total Results: 199

United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010)

2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15669

Cited 1837 times | Published

See Arthur W. Campbell, The Law of Sentencing § 1:2 (2009). The American tradition thus embraced four

Quality Foods De Centro America, S.A. And Duroparts De El Salvador, S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corporation, S.A., 711 F.2d 989 (11th Cir. 1983)

1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 25132

Cited 521 times | Published

bring this action under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, 2, and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 18, 19,

Joseph MacUba v. Matthew Deboer, Michael Youseff, Charlotte Commissioners, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, 193 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 1999)

15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1181, 45 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1251, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 27986, 1999 WL 982404

Cited 327 times | Published

Jan Winters. See Charlotte County (Fla.) Code § 1-2-80(H).9 Winters assigned Forgey the task of filling

Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003)

2003 WL 22682603

Cited 258 times | Published

one of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 2 , when it entered into settlement agreements

Sims v. State, 754 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2000)

2000 WL 193226

Cited 128 times | Published

by the Governor under s. 922.06. Fla. S.B. 10-A, § 1-2 (2000). Governor Bush signed the bill on January

United States v. Teresita Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas), LTD, 796 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015)

2015 A.M.C. 2525, 98 Fed. R. Serv. 81, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13541

Cited 128 times | Published

habitability, and maintenance purposes.” ASTM F1166-07 at § 1.2. The district court abused its discretion.

Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351 (11th Cir. 1995)

1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24150, 1995 WL 472369

Cited 98 times | Published

process of law....” U.S. Const.Amend. XIV, § 1. 2 . The district court determined that

Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2000)

2000 WL 1260014

Cited 77 times | Published

Constitution: (1) proposal by Legislature, section 1; (2) revision commission, section 2; (3) initiative

Joseph Richard Redner v. Charles S. Dean, Sheriff of Citrus County, Florida, Robert A. Butterworth, 29 F.3d 1495 (11th Cir. 1994)

1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 23252, 1994 WL 419484

Cited 72 times | Published

County Adult Entertainment Ordinance”. Section 1-2. Authority. The Adult Entertainment Ordinance

United States v. Madera, 528 F.3d 852 (11th Cir. 2008)

2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11078, 2008 WL 2151267

Cited 57 times | Published

Constitution: 1) the Non-Delegation Doctrine, Art. I, § 1; 2) the ex post facto clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3;

21 Employee Benefits Cas. 1625, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23936c, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 294 Harry L. Hunt v. Hawthorne Associates, Inc., Eastern Air Lines Variable Benefit Retirement Plan for Pilots Trust Administrative Committee of the Eastern Airlines Variable Benefit Retirement Plan for Pilots, 119 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 1997)

Cited 51 times | Published

...y drop a defendant from the case without obtaining a Rule 21 order if the defendant has not responded to the original complaint with an answer. See generally 3 Moore's Federal Practice, §§ 15.10, 15.11 (3d ed.1997); 4 Moore's Federal Practice, § 21.02[b] (3d ed.1997) (discussing the interrelationship of Rules 15 and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)....

Thigpen v. Bibb County, Georgia, 223 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2000)

Cited 47 times | Published

of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 2 Reeves v. Wilkes, Civ. Action

Taylor v. State, 355 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)

Cited 46 times | Published

without due process of law ..." U.S.Const. amend. XIV § 1 [2] "The right of the people to be secure in their

ITPE Pension Fund v. Roger Hall, 334 F.3d 1011 (11th Cir. 2003)

30 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1943, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 12477, 2003 WL 21403477

Cited 45 times | Published

...Our decision in Powhatan concerned the general rule, that unpaid employer contributions are not assets of an ERISA plan, and we had no occasion to consider in that case the effect of contrary plan language, which, as we have stated supra, is the exception to the rule. 6 A at § 1.02 (emph asis added)....

...According to the H alls, unpaid contributions, because they are unpaid, are not yet “held” or “acquired” by the Fund, and therefor e canno t be assets o f the fun d. We cannot accept the full extent of the Halls’ interpretation of § 1.02....

...Dictionary 24 (7th ed. 1999). Thus, even property which has not yet formally been transferred to the Plan’s physical control, but which the Plan owns or controls in a contractu al sense b y virtue o f the Ag reemen t, has been “acquired ” by the P lan. Section 1.02 is not conclusive of the Plan’s treatment of unpaid employer contributions. The F und arg ues that th e Agre ement es tablishes b y its langu age that u npaid employer contributions are assets of the Fund....

Adams v. State, 341 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1976)

Cited 45 times | Published

1 at 63; and Fla.Laws 1868, Ch. 1637, Subch. 3, § 1, 2 at 63. [6] Fla.Laws 1892, Ch. 2377-94 at 773-76

United States v. Anthony Chotas, 968 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir. 1992)

1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 18791, 1992 WL 181753

Cited 45 times | Published

defendants. See U.S.S.G., Ch. 1, Pt. A, at § 1.2-1.3; United States v. Rolande-Gabriel,

Bush v. Holmes, 919 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2006)

2006 WL 20584

Cited 44 times | Published

duty to provide education under article IX, section 1. 2. The Constitution Revision Commission The majority

United States v. Eugene Donald Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991)

1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 9299, 1991 WL 63745

Cited 41 times | Published

for whom action is to be taken,” id. § 1(2), and the “agent” is “[t]he one who is to act.”

Kendrick v. Everheart, 390 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1980)

Cited 40 times | Published

either parent. NOTES [1] U.S.Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. [2] Art. I, § 2, Fla. Const. [3] Art. I, § 21, Fla

American Home Assur. v. NAT. RR CORP., 908 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2005)

2005 WL 1580639

Cited 39 times | Published

subsidiary or affiliated system companies of [CSX]." Id. § 1.2. In the indemnification provision, KUA specifically

State v. City of Orlando, 170 So. 887 (Fla. 1936)

126 Fla. 251, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1449

Cited 38 times | Published

provided for by Section 5108 C.G.L., Chapter 11854, Section 1, 2, Acts 1927, if no petition for rehearing has

Duty Free World v. Miami Perfume Junction, 253 So. 3d 689 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

Cited 35 times | Published

certain others in equity. See, e.g., 1 Dobbs § 1.2, at 11; id., § 4.1(1), at 556; id.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Gonzalez-Gorrondona, 833 F. Supp. 1545 (S.D. Fla. 1993)

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5004, 1993 WL 401875

Cited 34 times | Published

unfounded."); but see 1987 Fla. Laws 1685, ch. 245, § 1(2) (June 30, 1987) ("The Legislature further finds

DEPT. OF AGR. & CONSUMER SERV. v. Bonanno, 568 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1990)

1990 WL 141444

Cited 29 times | Published

as a court within the meaning of article V, section 1.[2] 1A Nichols' The Law of Eminent Domain § 4.104

JCC, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 63 F.3d 1557 (11th Cir. 1995)

1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 26075, 1995 WL 514512

Cited 29 times | Published

§ 4, 10 and § 1.2 of the Commission’s regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2. As EDCO was acting as

Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2011)

36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 665, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 2764, 2011 WL 5864830

Cited 29 times | Published

for this agreement appear to be provided in section 1.2 of the Limitation of Liability. The benefit for

JORDAN CHAPEL FREEWILL BAPTIST CH. v. Dade County, 334 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)

Cited 28 times | Published

...not enacted in compliance with Florida Statute 166.041. Dade County contends that Section 166.041 provides a minimum standard to be followed by municipalities when enacting ordinances and it is therefore inapplicable. Dade County also maintains that Section 1.02 in its own Charter constitutes its controlling procedural requirements....

United States v. Madera, 474 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3029, 2007 WL 141283

Cited 28 times | Published

Constitution: (1) the Non-Delegation Doctrine, Art. I, § 1; (2) the Ex Post Facto Clause, Art I, § 9, cl. 3; (3)

Walton County v. Stop Beach Renourishment, 998 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2008)

2008 WL 4381126

Cited 27 times | Published

...[10] We recognize that the littoral rights to access, use, and view are different from so-called "true easements" in that littoral rights are incidental to littoral ownership and do not require a separate act of creation. See Jon W. Bruce, The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land § 1.02 (1995)....

Berry v. CSX Transp., Inc., 709 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)

1998 WL 85601

Cited 26 times | Published

scientific sophistication on the part of judges." Id. at § 1-2.3. "Whereas Frye require[s] judges to survey the

APA Excelsior III L.P. v. Premiere Technologies, Inc., 476 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2007)

2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 2269, 2007 WL 286258

Cited 26 times | Published

.... . the Stockholder shall vote (or cause to be voted) the Shares and the Other Securities [in Xpedite] in favor of the Merger [with Premiere]. . . . *** SECTION 1.02 IRREVOCABLE PROXY....

Armbrister v. Roland International Corp., 667 F. Supp. 802 (M.D. Fla. 1987)

1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7642

Cited 26 times | Published

injury to the plaintiff. See 15A C.J.S. Conspiracy § 1(2) (1967); Renpak v. Oppenheimer, 104 So.2d 642, 646

Movie & Video World, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 723 F. Supp. 695 (S.D. Fla. 1989)

1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12310, 1989 WL 120556

Cited 25 times | Published

entertainment establishments. Rules of Construction of Section 1-2 of the Palm Beach County Code shall govern. F

Marriott Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 383 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)

1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16695

Cited 25 times | Published

...Town of Monticello, 159 Fla. 134, 31 So.2d 905 (1947). To a large extent, the language of the charter of the municipality or, as in this case, the county, determines what action may be taken by resolution and what must be done by ordinance. The Dade County, Florida, Charter § 1.02(A) provides: The Board shall ......

City of Miami v. Keton, 115 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1959)

Cited 24 times | Published

...re charter. 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, and Section 16, Article III of the Constitution, none of which has been complied with....

Gfc v. Sg, 686 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)

1997 WL 24244

Cited 24 times | Published

crime in many jurisdictions. 2 C.J.S. Adultery § 1-2 (1972). Society was *1385 so scornful of bringing

Concord Florida, Inc. v. Lewin, 341 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)

Cited 24 times | Published

...aforementioned instruction amounted to a "negligence per se" charge. The Miami Beach Fire Code is one paragraph which adopts the Dade County Fire Prevention and Safety Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code). 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 the excepti...

United States v. Mason, 510 F. Supp. 2d 923 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37122, 2007 WL 1521515

Cited 21 times | Published

Constitution: (1) Non-delegation doctrine, Art. I, Section 1; (2) Ex Post Facto Clause, Art. I, Section 9, Clause

METROPOLITAN DADE CTY. BD. OF CTY. COMM'RS v. Rockmatt Corporation, 231 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)

Cited 21 times | Published

...d for in the county's ordinance, and averred that the action of the Commission was denial of the special permits which the plaintiff had requested. See footnote 2. The defendants averred their regulation of such businesses was under subsection 12 of section 1.02(A) of the Dade County Home Rule Charter, conferring authority to "Establish, co-ordinate, and enforce zoning and such regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public," and subsection 16 of that section of the charter, empow...

City of St. Petersburg v. Calbeck, 114 So. 2d 316 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)

Cited 20 times | Published

surrounding circumstances. 27 C.J.S. Disorderly Conduct § 1(2). In 4 Fla.Jur. 597, Breach of the Peace and Related

Quirk v. Anthony, 563 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)

1990 WL 52319

Cited 20 times | Published

Stat. (Supp. 1984) (corresponds to Ch. 84-41, § 1(2), Laws of Fla.). It is undisputed that Mr. Dignam

State v. Aiuppa, 298 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1974)

Cited 19 times | Published

definition of what material is obscene found in § 1(2) of Ch. 73-120, Laws of Florida, 1973, is sufficient

Cable Holdings of Georgia, Inc., D/B/A Smyrna Cable Tv v. Home Video, Inc., Wometco Cable Tv of Georgia, Inc., and S.M. Landress, 825 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir. 1987)

1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11527

Cited 18 times | Published

1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 1, 2). Moreover, Cable Holdings alleged that the merger

Jones v. State, 658 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)

1995 WL 385753

Cited 17 times | Published

...The trial bench needs a concise outline to assist it in: (1) addressing the necessary issues, (2) announcing the necessary conclusions of law with supporting findings of fact, and (3) providing the defendant the appropriate advice. See generally Bench Book for United States District Judges § 1.02-2 to -5 (3d ed....

...Caution should be used in denying the right to represent one's self on the defendant's failure to pass an informal bar exam. These questions may, however, be helpful in convincing a defendant that self-representation could be a mistake. Additional questions can be located in the Bench Book for United States District Judges, § 1.02-2 to -5 (3d ed....

Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Safemark Systems, LP, 931 F.3d 1094 (11th Cir. 2019)

Cited 16 times | Published

declaratory rulings. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2 (a) ("The Commission may ... issue

STATE, DEPT. OF COM., ETC. v. Matthews Corp., 358 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)

23 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 998

Cited 15 times | Published

rule was patterned essentially after 29 C.F.R. § 1.2(a) (1977), which in turn implements the Davis Bacon

Cardenas v. State, 867 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2004)

2004 WL 351171

Cited 15 times | Published

presumption of impairment to .08 percent. See ch. 93-124, § 1-2, 4, Laws of Fla. [8] DUI and DUBAL were originally

Mark S. Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 768 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2014)

61 Communications Reg. (P&F) 309, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18554, 2014 WL 4802457

Cited 14 times | Published

express consent exception. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2(a) (“The Commission may, in accordance with section

Miller's Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, Inc., 702 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2012)

105 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1345, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26049, 2012 WL 6629202

Cited 14 times | Published

McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition § 1:2 (4th ed. 2012). On the other hand, it creates a

Jacksonville Newspaper Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union No. 57 v. Florida Publishing Co., 340 F. Supp. 993 (M.D. Fla. 1972)

80 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2286, 16 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 972, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14070

Cited 14 times | Published

reference. The present controversy centers around Section #1(2) of the written contract: 1(2). It is further

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gibraltar Monetary Corp., 575 F.3d 1180 (11th Cir. 2009)

2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16598, 2009 WL 2150900

Cited 13 times | Published

should be held vicariously liable under 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 for Gibraltar Monetary Corporation, Inc.'s ("GMC")

Walker v. CASH REGISTER AUTO INS., 946 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)

2006 WL 3751489

Cited 13 times | Published

became effective July 1, 2002. See Ch. 2002-77, § 1-2, at 908-09, Laws of Fla. The primary purpose of

State v. City of Orlando, 170 So. 887 (Fla. 1936)

127 Fla. 280

Cited 12 times | Published

provided for by Section 5108 C.G.L., Chapter 11854, Section 1, 2, Acts 1927, if no petition for rehearing has

United States v. Campanella D'Angelo, 819 F.2d 1062 (11th Cir. 1987)

1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7861

Cited 12 times | Published

insufficient to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C.App. § 1?02(a)(1). 3 He argues that the evidence

Hall v. State, 752 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2000)

2000 WL 44045

Cited 12 times | Published

57.081, 57.085, Fla. Stat. (1999); ch. 96-106, § 1, 2, at 93-95. Quite importantly, these amendments

Shaktman v. State, 529 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)

1988 WL 26257

Cited 11 times | Published

undetected. J. Carr, The Law of Electronic Surveillance § 1.2(b) (2d ed. 1987). "[E]lectronic surveillance is

Maxwell Bldg. Corp. v. Euro Concepts, LLC, 874 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)

2004 WL 1196895

Cited 11 times | Published

became effective July 1, 2002. See Ch.2002-77, § 1-2 at 908-09, Laws of Fla. The primary purpose of section

Pinellas County v. Lake Padgett Pines, 333 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)

Cited 10 times | Published

373, enacted by the 1974 Legislature, Ch. 74-114, § 1(2), Laws of Florida, provided for creation of Regional

Payton Hlt. Care v. Est. of Campbell, 497 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)

Cited 9 times | Published

relating to the operation of the Nursing Home." Section 1.2 of Article II provides that Southeastern's staff

Gray v. State, 742 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)

1999 WL 461922

Cited 8 times | Published

[1] See Art. I, § 1; Art. II, § 1; Art. III, § 1. [2] Art. I, § 10, Fla. Const.; Art. I, § 9, Art.

Morley Music Co. v. Cafe Continental, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 1579 (S.D. Fla. 1991)

1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16919, 1991 WL 247170

Cited 8 times | Published

...limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. It is from this clause that the federal authority to enact copyright and patent legislation is derived. 1 Melville B. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.02 at 1-30 (1991)....

Mansur v. Eubanks, 368 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)

Cited 8 times | Published

immediately afterward, that it be securely closed. See § 1.2.10.11 of the National Fuel Code, adopted by § 17

O'Neal v. Fla. a & M University Ex Rel. Bd. of Trustees, 989 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)

2008 WL 2276307

Cited 8 times | Published

in certain others in equity. See, e.g., 1 Dobbs § 1.2, at 11; id., § 4.1(1), at 556; id., § 4.1(3), at

Geffken v. Strickler, 778 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2001)

2001 WL 81761

Cited 8 times | Published

57.081, 57.085, Fla. Stat. (1999); ch. 96-106, § 1, 2, at 93-95. The legislative history of these amendments

White Construction Co. v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29467, 2009 WL 961135

Cited 8 times | Published

Martin Marietta breached its implied duties. Section 1.2 of the MSA simply grants Martin Marietta the

Stanley v. United States, 574 F. Supp. 474 (S.D. Fla. 1983)

1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12217

Cited 7 times | Published

liberties. L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 1-2, at 3 n. 7 (1978) (relying on 14 The Papers of Thomas

Cenac v. Florida State Bd. of Accountancy, 399 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)

1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19992

Cited 7 times | Published

violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, 2 (1975), as well as violation of appellant's right

State v. McInnes, 153 So. 2d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)

Cited 7 times | Published

exceeding ten years. As amended Laws 1957, c. 57-254, § 1."[2] An analysis of the foregoing statute clearly reveals

Alachua County v. State, 737 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1999)

24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 212, 1999 Fla. LEXIS 803, 1999 WL 311324

Cited 7 times | Published

...ed by electric utilities within the county rights-of-way." Thus, Alachua County essentially concedes its argument by failing to contest that there is no nexus between its alleged "reasonable rental charge," Alachua County, Fla. Ordinance *1068 97-12 § 1.02(G) (Aug....

Hialeah Automotive, LLC v. Basulto, 22 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)

2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 566, 2009 WL 187584

Cited 7 times | Published

coercion, or unconscionability.” 1 Domke, supra, § 1:2, at 1-6. The First District has explained: Although

Florida Board of Pharmacy v. Webb's City, Inc., 219 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1969)

1969 Fla. LEXIS 2476

Cited 7 times | Published

decision of the trial court holding invalid Section 1(2) (f) of Chapter 67-521, Laws of Florida, which

Feltman v. Board of County Commissioners of Metropolitan Dade County (In Re S.E.L. Maduro (Florida), Inc.), 205 B.R. 987 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1997)

37 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1048, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 227, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 182, 30 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 469

Cited 7 times | Published

Escrow Account. Trustee's Exhibit C. Pursuant to section 1.2.2 of the APA, the monies deposited by I.T.O.

Coral Lakes Community Ass'n v. Busey Bank, N.A., 30 So. 3d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)

2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1799, 2010 WL 567251

Cited 7 times | Published

reasonably discoverable by the mortgagee. Ch. 2008-175, § 1-2, at 2034-35, Laws of Fla. Thus, instead of being

Dade County v. American Re-Ins. Co., 467 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)

10 Fla. L. Weekly 922

Cited 6 times | Published

increased to twelve per cent per annum. See ch. 82-42, § 1-2, Laws of Fla. [5] Although the date the trial court

Dzikowski v. United States Ex Rel. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Cummings), 381 B.R. 810 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7072, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94079, 2007 WL 4800642

Cited 5 times | Published

claim from and after the petition claim. (CP 204 § 1.2). The IRS and Tim Givens Building & Remodeling,

Najjar v. Reno, 97 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (S.D. Fla. 2000)

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8185, 2000 WL 726358

Cited 5 times | Published

enumerated in section 1(2) of this Act." ISA §§ 1, 22, 64 Stat. 987, 1006, 1008 (1950). Section 1(2)(C) of the

Willingham v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, 377 F. Supp. 1254 (S.D. Fla. 1974)

1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7912

Cited 5 times | Published

...[20] Record at 16. [21] Record at 15. [22] Record at 13. [23] 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, App. at 323-38 (1973). The criteria for establishing a mental impairment appear in § 12.00 of the appendix; for epilepsy, in § 11.00; for diabetes, in § 9.08 and for arthritis, in § 1.02....

Perkins v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERVICES, 452 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)

Cited 5 times | Published

necessary to implement the workfare pilot project" and § 1(2)(h) authorizes imposition of sanctions for non-compliance

Dennis v. Kline, 120 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)

2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9614, 2013 WL 3014115

Cited 5 times | Published

Trawick’s Redfearn Wills & Admin. in Florida, § 1.2 (2010-11 ed.)), rev. granted, 103 So.3d 138 (Fla

Thomas v. City of West Palm Beach, 299 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1974)

Cited 5 times | Published

the Plumbing Code (chapter 36). (Ord.No. 983-67, § 1, 2-13-67.)" "Sec. 27-22. Same Authority of building

Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Curtiss, 327 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)

1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14644

Cited 5 times | Published

extinguished by the settlement. ..." Ch. 75-108, § 1(2)(b), (d) (emphasis added). Under § 1(4)(b), enforcement

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hagan, 750 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)

1999 WL 1082472

Cited 5 times | Published

2d 1200 (1994); 38 Am.Jur.2d, Fright and Shock, § 1, 2.; Comment Restatement of Torts (Second) § 436A

Loubna Elkaousi Mendoza v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 851 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2017)

2017 WL 1208415, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5739

Cited 5 times | Published

marriage. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(l)(ii); see 8 C.F.R. § 1.2 (defining “director” to include -district director)

Timoney v. City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel, 990 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)

2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13452, 2008 WL 4058028

Cited 4 times | Published

of police and the public; ... (Ord. No. 12188, § 1, 2-14-02) [emphasis added]. [3] Sec. 11.5-31. Procedures

Rudolph F. Matzer & Associates, Inc. v. Warner, 348 F. Supp. 991 (M.D. Fla. 1972)

1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11666

Cited 4 times | Published

the meaning of applicable regulations. 41 C.F.R. § 1-2.404-2(a) (1969). The Court of Appeals held, further

Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Barnett Bank of Marion County, NA, 524 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)

5 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 879, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 774, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1158, 1988 WL 23644

Cited 4 times | Published

...417, 206 A.2d 49 (1965); White and Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 22-5 (2d ed. 1980). [10] See Nat'l Surety Co. v. State Nat'l Bank of Frankfort, 454 S.W.2d 354 (Ky. 1970). [11] See McAtee v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 401 F. Supp. 11 (N.D.Fla. 1975); Williams, 1 Florida Law of Secured Transactions in Personal Property, § 1.02 at 53 (1980)....

Apthorp v. Detzner, 162 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)

2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2461, 2015 WL 733322

Cited 4 times | Published

Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice, § 1:2 (2015 ed.) (acknowledging the appellate court’s

Carr v. Crosby Builders Supply Company, Inc., 283 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)

1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6588

Cited 4 times | Published

Stat. 1971, repealed Fla.Laws 1972, ch. 72-1 § 1. [2] Fla. Standard Jury Instr. in Civil Cases, Instr

Miller v. Hayman, 766 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)

2000 WL 1175682

Cited 4 times | Published

Am. Jur.2d, Abatement, Survival, and Revival, § 1. [2] Our holding is limited to costs awarded under

Chemical Bank v. First Trust of New York (In Re Southeast Banking Corp.), 156 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 1998)

Cited 3 times | Published

creditors); see also 1 David G. Epstein et ah, Bankruptcy § 1-2, at 3, § 1-7, at 12 (West 1992) (describing these

Compucredit Holdings Corp. v. Akanthos Capital Management, LLC, 661 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011)

2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22662, 2011 WL 5419663

Cited 3 times | Published

pleadings is affirmed. AFFIRMED. NOTES [1] 15 U.S.C. § 1. [2] We recite the facts in the light most favorable

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Sidoti, 178 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 1999)

1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13610, 1999 WL 407022

Cited 3 times | Published

§ 4, and CFTC Rule 1.2, codified at 17 C.F.R. § 1.2; 2. Wuensch individually with liability for Trinity’s

Red-Eyed Jack, Inc. v. City of Daytona Beach, 165 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (M.D. Fla. 2001)

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21588, 2001 WL 1044897

Cited 3 times | Published

calendar days from the date of submittal." Art. 3 § 1.2 provides the following general procedure for the

Hunt v. Hawthorne Associates, Inc., 119 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 1997)

21 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1625, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 20761, 1997 WL 437161

Cited 3 times | Published

...y drop a defendant from the case without obtaining a Rule 21 order if the defendant has not responded to the original complaint with an answer. See generally 3 Moore's Federal Practice, §§ 15.10, 15.11 (3d ed.1997); 4 Moore's Federal Practice, § 21.02[5][b] (3d ed.1997) (discussing the interrelationship of Rules 15 and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)....

Pacheco De Perez v. AT&T Co., 139 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 1998)

1998 WL 207890

Cited 3 times | Published

8 Ga.Code. Ann. § 1-2-10 (1990). Defendants argue that under § 1-2-10, plaintiffs cannot proceed

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Palm Beach Mall, LLC, 177 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14520, 2015 WL 5712341

Cited 2 times | Published

Count II, Wells Fargo argued that, pursuant to section 1.2(a) of the Guaranty, Simon was liable for PBM’s

Brechner v. INC. VIL. OF LAKE SUCCESS, 25 Misc. 2d 920 (Fla. 1960)

208 N.Y.S.2d 365

Cited 2 times | Published

services, restaurants serving the general public. Section 1.2 of the ordinance established "performance standards"

State v. Rendon, 832 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)

2002 WL 31422852

Cited 2 times | Published

protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. IV, § 1. [2] Title I of the ADA provides that "No covered

City of Jacksonville Beach v. Albury, 291 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)

Cited 2 times | Published

...he properties (of whatever nature), rights, capacities, privileges, powers, franchises and immunities, and be subject to all of the liabilities, obligations and duties of the former governments from and after the effective date of this charter... . "Section 1.02....

In Re Fontainebleau Las Vegas Contract Litigation, 716 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

2010 WL 2164183

Cited 2 times | Published

and conditions hereof." (Cr. Agr. § 2.1(c)). Section 1.2 states that "hereof . . . shall refer to this

Seminole County v. City of Winter Springs, 935 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)

2006 WL 1459775

Cited 2 times | Published

of the Charter. That section would provide: Section 1.2. Rural Boundary and Rural Area a. There is hereby

Tavormina v. Timmeny, 561 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)

1990 WL 62895

Cited 2 times | Published

compensation and severance payments contemplated by section 1.2, quoted above. Timmeny moved for summary judgment

Newman v. Eli Witt Co. (In Re Eli Witt Co.), 20 B.R. 778 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1982)

1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4130

Cited 2 times | Published

...Considering the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that Newman was a "terminated member" under the Plan and because disability benefits under the Plan were available only to "active members", Newman is not entitled to the relief he seeks. This conclusion is based on the following: Section 1.02 of the Plan, page 3-A, sets forth the classes of members under it. According to § 1.02(a), "active members" are those who are "in service" and who have not reached [their] Normal Retirement Date." "Service" is defined in § 1.02(a), page 3, and in § 1.01(A)(a), page 3-2, as "employment as an employee" with Eli Witt....

...Because the Plaintiff has not worked for the company in more than six years and because he is now only 53 years of age, the Plaintiff is clearly not an "active member" under the Plan. Instead, the Plaintiff is a "terminated member" under the Plan. § 1.02(b) defines a "terminated member" as a former active member who is not in service, who is entitled to non-forfeitable benefits under the Plan, and who has not reached his normal [or early] retirement dates....

PMI Investment, Inc. v. Rose (In Re Prime Motor Inns, Inc.), 167 B.R. 261 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1994)

Cited 2 times | Published

set forth in the PMI Loan. (See PMI Exh. 6 at Section 1.2.) Under the PMI Loan, one method by which the

BD., CTY. COM'RS, SARASOTA v. Webber, 658 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)

1995 WL 385684

Cited 2 times | Published

construction and excavation may not occur. Id. at § 1.2. The Board, however, has the discretion to grant

Holderbaum v. Carnival Corp., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182319, 2015 WL 728362

Cited 2 times | Published

(See Edmond Depo., D.E. 82-1 at 193-95, 216.) Section 1.2.3.2 of the IMO’s International Safety Management

In Re Yates Development, Inc., 258 B.R. 36 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000)

45 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 980, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 159, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 1641, 37 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 74, 2000 WL 33128671

Cited 2 times | Published

...Class 2 Claims-Allowed Secured Claims-This class consists of the claim of Wisne. III. Class 3 Claims-Allowed Unsecured Claims-This class consists of Old Kings' unliquidated, unsecured claim. IV. Class 4 Interests-This class consists of interests of holders of common stock of Debtor. *41 (Doc. 66.) 32. Section 1.02 of the Plan defines an Allowed Claim with respect to any class as a claim: (i) that has been allowed by a Final Order, (ii) that (x) either is scheduled, other than a Claim that is scheduled as disputed, contingent or unliquidated or (y)...

...ates and defines. Old Kings points out that because the claim is contingent and unliquidated and because Debtor has appealed the Court's Order Overruling Objection to Old King's Amended Proof of Claim, the claim is not an allowed claim as defined by Section 1.02 of the plan....

M & B Printing Equipment Corp. v. Atlantic National Bank (In Re M & B Printing Equipment Corp.), 18 B.R. 411 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1981)

1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2429

Cited 2 times | Published

32 Am.Jur.2d, Factors and Commission Merchants, § 1, 2, 17-23. "The law regulating the transactions of

Frates v. Nichols, 140 So. 2d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)

Cited 2 times | Published

Barrett & Seago, Partners and Partnerships, Ch. 9, § 1.2. The appellant must be considered as having "voluntarily"

Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners v. an Accountable Miami-Dade, 208 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)

2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14069

Cited 1 times | Published

comply with the publication requirements of Section 1.02(B) of the Charter. . This Court takes judicial

Smyl, Inc. v. Gerstein, 364 F. Supp. 1302 (S.D. Fla. 1973)

1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11899

Cited 1 times | Published

at the definition of obscenity contained in Section 1(2) of the state law: Material is obscene if considered

State v. Saylor, 625 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)

1993 WL 407931

Cited 1 times | Published

enacted by the legislature in 1967. Ch. 67-308, § 1(2)(c), Laws of Fla. Thus, whatever right section 3

F/S Airlease II, Inc. v. Air Florida, Inc. (In Re Air Florida, Inc.), 44 B.R. 798 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1984)

1984 Bankr. LEXIS 4517

Cited 1 times | Published

...in a contest between Swig and a state law attachment creditor that levies on Engine 093 and Swig, the attaching creditor's claim to title would have priority over Swig's claim of title. E. Transfer of Ownership of Engine 093 28. Pursuant to Section 11.02 of the Master Lease, Air Florida was required to promptly notify FSA in writing that Engine 929 had been destroyed and to "replace such Engine as soon as reasonably possible" by duly conveying to the owner of the destroyed engine (Swig) title to a replacement engine free and clear of all liens....

...d at the time (the existence of which we need not address here), Air Florida would have been entitled to retain the insurance proceeds it received with respect to Engine 929, but even then only if it "shall have fully performed the terms of Section 11.02," and in particular, conveyed a replacement engine to Swig....

...Air Florida's duty to convey title to a replacement engine for Engine 929 is a duty to sell goods to Swig in exchange for valuable consideration (the insurance proceeds received by Air Florida and the other rights generally of Air Florida under the User Lease). 31. The Court holds that Sections 11.02 and 12.03(B) of the Master Lease clearly evidence the general intent of the parties that Air Florida must convey title to a replacement engine as quickly as possible when a leased engine is destroyed and that if Air Florida promptly notifies FSA...

...r to the commencement on July 3, 1984 of Air Florida's Chapter 11 case and that in any event Air Florida is estopped by its conduct from asserting that title was not so transferred. 32. The Court holds further that, in light of the requirement under Section 1.02 of the Master Lease that title to a replacement engine be transferred free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and in light of the fact that Lockheed Finance Corporation ("Lockheed") is a record lienholder and Heleasco is a record le...

...1½ years and that it ought to be deemed to have transferred title to it to Swig. However, the Court holds that when Engine 880 was damaged, it did not suffer an "Event of Loss" as defined in Section 1.12 of the Master Lease and as used in Section 11.02 thereof, and therefore Section 11.02 with respect to replacing engines did not apply....

Payne v. City of Miami, 913 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)

2005 WL 3054154

Cited 1 times | Published

effective on Tuesday, July 6. See Miami City Code § 1-2 (stating rules for computation of time). The fact

Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. United States, 642 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 2011)

2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10705, 2011 WL 2084069

Cited 1 times | Published

separation of powers in Article II, § 8 and Article V, § 1; (2) the right to trial by jury under Article I, §

High Point, LLLP v. National Park Service, 850 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2017)

2017 WL 908200, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4080

Cited 1 times | Published

Park Service later responded that under 36 C.F.R. § 1.2(a)(3), ownership of the marshlands makes no difference

In Re Harloff, 247 B.R. 523 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000)

13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 164, 43 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1834, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 378, 2000 WL 390416

Cited 1 times | Published

...In support of this proposition the Disbursing Agent relies on the Order of Confirmation of the Joint Plan which, according to the Disbursing Agent, operates as a complete bar of any and all claims of Textron. The particular provisions of the Joint Plan relied on by the Disbursing Agent provides: *527 Pursuant to Article I, section 1.02, the Textron Claim is defined as follows: The RH Class 9 Claim and the RHP Class 5 Claim of Textron against each of Roger Harloff and Harloff Packing, as joint and several obligors, under the Textron Loan documents, which Claim is (I) in...

Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. United States, 134 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014)

39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 104, 2014 WL 959180, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 933

Cited 1 times | Published

guarantee in article II, section 3 and article V, section 1; (2) the right to trial by jury under article I

Danner Construction Co., Inc. v. Hillsborough Cty., 608 F.3d 809 (11th Cir. 2010)

2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 11803, 2010 WL 2301117

Cited 1 times | Published

that the county’s ordinance conflicts with Section 1.2 The majority is also correct in noting that

State Ex Rel. Davis v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 140 So. 817 (Fla. 1932)

103 Fla. 1204

Cited 1 times | Published

in question stopped under the provisions of Section 1 (2) of the act; (c) that this Court acquired jurisdiction

State ex rel. Davis v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 103 Fla. 1204 (Fla. 1932)

140 So. 817

Cited 1 times | Published

in question stopped under the provisions of Section 1 (2) of the act; (c) that this Court acquired jurisdiction

Schvaneveldt v. MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC., 306 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (S.D. Fla. 2004)

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2242, 2004 WL 305594

Cited 1 times | Published

other half in the form of Defendant's stock. Section 1.2(d) of the Agreement treats Defendant's stock

Anderson Engines, Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., 531 F. Supp. 1155 (M.D. Fla. 1982)

1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12029

Cited 1 times | Published

and Magneto, Inc. in violation of Sherman Act Section 1. (2) Plaintiff was terminated as an ASD pursuant

City of Miami v. Airbnb, 260 So. 3d 478 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

Cited 1 times | Published

rental or lease basis for limited periods of time.” § 1.2 (emphasis added). Generally speaking, therefore

USA Interactive v. Dow Lohnes & Albertson, P.L.L.C., 328 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15608, 2004 WL 1769263

Cited 1 times | Published

full interest in Jovon to a proposed trust.[51] Section 1.2(B) of the shareholder agreement provides that

Manorcare Health Services, Inc. v. Stiehl, 22 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)

2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11756, 2009 WL 2568264

Cited 1 times | Published

for this agreement appear to be provided in section 1.2 of the Limitation of Liability. The benefit for

PMI, by and through its special servicer, Orix Capital Markets, LLC v. Palm Beach Mall, LLC, Simon Property Group, LP., a/k/a Simon Property Group, L.P., d/b/a DeBartolo Realty Partnership, LTD. and Simon Palm Beach, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

Published

Count II, Wells Fargo argued that, pursuant to section 1.2(a) of the Guaranty, Simon was liable for PBM’s

State v. Williams, 227 So. 2d 331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5090

Published

as authorized by Florida law. (Ord.No. C-2010, § 1, 2-18-64)” The similar state statute provides: “F

Chemical Bank v. First Trust (11th Cir. 1998)

Published

see also 1 David G. Epstein et al., Bankruptcy § 1-2, at 3, § 1-7, at 12 (West 1992) (describing these

Smith v. Williams, 819 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (M.D. Fla. 2011)

52 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1045, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109173, 2011 WL 4459184

Published

Administrator is defined as the Employer (id. at § 1.2), which in turn is defined as Orion Bancorp, Inc

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 2011)

Published

2011.See s. 2, Ch. 2011-109, Laws of Fla. 3 Section 1(2)(a), Ch. 2011-109, Laws of Fla. 4 See s. 1, Ch

Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners v. an Accountable Miami-Dade (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Published

comply with the publication requirements of Section 1.02(B) of the Charter. 4 This Court takes judicial

In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 239 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1970)

1970 Fla. LEXIS 2480

Published

election 1970. Laws of Florida (1970) Ch. 70-80, § 1(2), requires the resignation of the holder of an *250office

Kojo Khayrallah v. State of Florida (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)

Published

action. Cf. 1 W. LAFAVE, SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW § 1.2(c) (2d ed. 2003) (observing that “many crimes are

State ex rel. Lehman v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4930

Published

requirements of title and notice, as set out in § 1.02(b) of the Metro Charter.2 See 62 C.J.S. Municipal

Samantha Helfrich, individually and etc. v. City of Jacksonville and the Board of etc., 204 So. 3d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)

2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14746

Published

Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice, § 1:2 (2016 ed.) (acknowledging the appellate court’s

Keene v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 22 So. 3d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)

2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16130, 2009 WL 3485968

Published

...enforced to regulate the various land use categories in the Plan. Specifically, the Development Code provides: "This Land Development Code is enacted pursuant to the requirements and authority of Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes. . . ." Dev. Code § 1.02....

Samantha Helfrich, individually and etc. v. City of Jacksonville and the Board of etc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Published

Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice, § 1:2 (2015 ed.) (acknowledging the appellate court’s

Macuba v. County of Charlotte, FL (11th Cir. 1999)

Published

Jan Winters. See Charlotte County (Fla.) Code § 1-2- 80(11).9 Winters assigned Forgey the task of filling

Macuba v. County of Charlotte, FL (11th Cir. 1999)

Published

Jan Winters. See Charlotte County (Fla.) Code § 1-2-80(11).9 Winters assigned Forgey the task of filling

Capeletti Bros., Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 776 F. Supp. 1561 (S.D. Fla. 1991)

1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19346, 1991 WL 220606

Published

...On each individual construction project, the department must also suggest what types of race-conscious measures, if any, should be utilized on the project in light of the number and types of Black-owned firms likely to be available to participate in the project. § 1.02....

Gibson v. Wright, 179 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)

1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 3748

Published

* * * As stated in [8] Am.Jur., Boundaries, Section 1.02, page 819: ‘The object of a resurvey is to furnish

United States v. Matthew William Wheeler (11th Cir. 2021)

Published

Lowenfels, Bromberg & Lowenfels on Securities Fraud § 1:2 (2d ed.). USCA11 Case: 17-15003 Date Filed:

MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., 344 F. Supp. 3d 1377 (S.D. Fla. 2018)

Published

the assignee must be approved by the Client" (id. § 1.2), here referring to FHCP. B. Plaintiff Lacks Standing

Rush v. Department of State, 748 F. Supp. 1548 (S.D. Fla. 1990)

1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13629, 1990 WL 157769

Published

classifying the documents. D. Section 1.2, Classification Authority Section 1.2 of Executive Order 12356 enumerates

Doty v. City of Tampa, 947 F. Supp. 468 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17681, 1996 WL 683649

Published

substantive due process, U.S. Const, amend. XIV § 1, (2) a denial of Doty’s “day in court,” U.S. Const

CompuCredit Holdings Corporation v. Akanthos Capital Management, LLC (11th Cir. 2011)

Published

issued in 2005. 1 15 U.S.C. § 1. 2 We recite the facts in the light most

Luria v. ADP, Inc. (In re Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp.), 593 B.R. 862 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2018)

Published

Id. at 1301. Doc. 157, Ex. C (MSA Annex C § 1.2). Doc. 157, Ex. C (MSA at Annex C, § 1). This

Ronald Colbert v. United States, 785 F.3d 1384 (11th Cir. 2015)

2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7511, 2015 WL 2119080

Published

Department of Personnel Management.... (AFA § 1.2). The Government argues that, in light of the need

Citizens for Smart Growth v. Peters, 716 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54284, 2010 WL 1817332

Published

historical, current, and planned growth." Id. at Section 1.2, "Need for the Action," AR 7250. FDOT referred

Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. United States (11th Cir. 2011)

Published

separation of powers in Article II, § 3 and Article V, § 1; (2) the

Bailey v. State, 246 So. 3d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

Published

Legislature amended section 776.032(4). See Ch. 2017-72, § 1-2, Laws of Fla. As amended, the statute now provides

Downs v. Ledoux-Nottingham, 219 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)

2017 WL 2200229, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7179

Published

1 . U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 1. 2 . Pub. L. 96-611, §§ 6-10, 96 Stat.

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1977)

Published

In 1976 the city adopted a home rule charter. Section 1.02, Art. I of the new charter provides that all

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Pamela Ciccone, etc., 190 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. 2016)

41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 118, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 630, 2016 WL 1163361

Published

the case individually.” Newberg on Class Actions § 1:2 (5th ed.); see also 67A C.J.S. Parties § 23 (“The

James Clay v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (11th Cir. 2021)

Published

regulations” in certain circumstances. 25 C.F.R. § 1.2. But of course, the Settlement Act is a statute—not

BB INLET PROPERTY, LLC v. 920 N. STANLEY PARTNERS, LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)

Published

of another.’” Id. (RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROP. § 1.2 cmt. a. (AM. LAW INST. 2000)). Upland owners

Danner Construction Co., Inc. v. Hillsborough Cty. (11th Cir. 2010)

Published

that the county’s ordinance conflicts with Section 1.2 The majority is also correct in noting that

Danner Construction Co., Inc. v. Hillsborough Cty. (11th Cir. 2010)

Published

that the county’s ordinance conflicts with Section 1.2 The majority is also correct in noting that

Gustavo Bojorquez, etc. v. State of Florida (Fla. 2025)

Published

of such certificate or permit.” Ch. 2012-247, § 1(2), Laws of Fla. And it said that, subject to PTC

CFTR v. Trinity Financial Group, 178 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 1999)

Published

§ 4, and CFTC Rule 1.2, codified at 17 C.F.R. § 1.2; 2. Wuensch individually with liability

CFTR v. Trinity Financial Group, 178 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 1999)

Published

§ 4, and CFTC Rule 1.2, codified at 17 C.F.R. § 1.2; 2. Wuensch individually with liability

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1989)

Published

the total millage shall not exceed 1 mill." Section 1(2)(b), Art. V, Ch. 87-498, Laws of Florida, states:

Haslett v. State, 225 So. 2d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5408

Published

require or authorize him to collect public money”. Section 1(2) of the 1957 Act, now F.S. § 219.01(2), F.S.A

William T. Thigpen, Jr. v. Larry Justice, 216 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2000)

Published

” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 2 protection claims constitute

United States v. William Irey (11th Cir. 2010)

Published

See Arthur W. Campbell, The Law of Sentencing § 1:2 (2009). The American tradition thus embraced four

Darnell Perkins Washington v. State of Florida (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)

Published

establishing entitlement to immunity. See Ch. 2017-72, § 1-2, Laws of Fla. Now, once a defendant makes a prima

American Civil Liberties Union of Florida Inc. v. Dixie County Florida, 797 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (N.D. Fla. 2011)

2011 WL 2784238

Published

monument must submit an application to the Board. Id. § 1.2. As a condition for approval, Commissioners may

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1998)

Published

"State Requirements for Educational Facilities." Section 1.2(46) of the publication defines "Impact or Service

Sanibel-Captiva Taxpayers' Ass'n v. County of Lee, 132 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1961)

1961 Fla. LEXIS 2014

Published

does no more than implement Chapter 159 and Section 1.02(E) of the resolution, which was authorized by

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 2001)

Published

with procedures set forth in Chapter 2001-01, section 1(2), Laws of Florida. 3. When showing autopsy photographs

Heidig v. Heckler, 608 F. Supp. 135 (S.D. Fla. 1985)

1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23595

Published

purview of 20 C.F.R. Section 404 Appendix 1 section 1.02 and 10.04. Those sections state: 1.02 Active

Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development v. Target Corporation (11th Cir. 2016)

Published

movement in the history of the United States.” Id. at § 1(2). 2 So significant to the Civil

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1987)

Published

) Section 1(5), Ch. 81-405, Laws of Florida. Section 1(2) of the act recognizes that "the property comprising

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Yarbrough, 57 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1909)

Published

(3rd ed.) § 17, 71; Joyce on Law of Nuisances, § 1, 2, 368; Graves v. Shattuck, 35 N. H. 257, 69 Am.

Florida Savings Bank & Real Estate Exchange v. Smith, 21 Fla. 258 (Fla. 1885)

Published

Hicks & Bro.; description of property, parts of section, 1, 2, 9, Brooklyn, valuation, 800, 20.00 aid.” Neither

Crossroads Lounge, Inc. v. City of Miami, 195 So. 2d 232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 5332

Published

variance from Ordinance No. 6871, Article XXVII, Section 1 (2) to permit relocation of liquor license from

United States v. Doe, 957 F. Supp. 1244 (M.D. Fla. 1997)

1997 WL 117683

Published

recommendation of the Pardon Attorney. According to Section 1-2.108 of the United States Attorneys Manual, “[t]he

Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners v. Rockmatt Corp., 231 So. 2d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6884

Published

of such businesses was under subsection 12 of section 1.02(A) of the Dade County Home Rule Charter, conferring

Gogoleva v. Soffer, 187 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)

2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2230, 2016 WL 626131

Published

C6-APV, on November 22, 2012 (“Accident”). Section 1.2 of the Release also included a provision that

SAVE CALUSA INC. v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)

Published

...“Parent” is statutorily defined as “the mother, a man presumed to be the father, a man legally determined to be the father, a man who has been adjudicated to be the father by a court of competent jurisdiction, a man who has acknowledged his paternity under applicable law, or an adoptive mother or father.” 4 Id. § 101.024(a) (West 2019)....

...e was not presumed to be D.D.’s father, he had not been legally determined to be the father, he had not been adjudicated to be D.D.’s father, and he did not acknowledge his paternity under applicable law. See id. § 101.024(a)....

...paternity”), 160.302(a) (West 2022) (setting forth requirements for valid acknowledgment of paternity); see also id. § 160.312(a)(1) (West 2022) (requiring vital statistics unit to prescribe forms for acknowledgment of paternity). Appellant does not argue that Sections 101.024 and 107.013 of 5 The record indicates that during the first nine months of the case, the trial court conducted the adversary hearing, a status hearing, and an initial permanency hearing....

...he argue that due process mandates greater protection than those statutes provide. We hold that the trial court did not deprive Appellant of a right to court-appointed counsel and, therefore, did not deprive Appellant of procedural due process. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 101.024, 107.013(a)(1), (3), (4)....

City of Miami v. Airbnb (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

Published

rental or lease basis for limited periods of time.” § 1.2 (emphasis added). Generally speaking, therefore

Village of Palmetto Bay, Florida v. Miami-Dade County, Florida (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)

Published

determined that the Bridge Resolution violated section 1.02 of the Miami-Dade Charter, which provides that

8330 Tokyo Valentino, LLC v. City of Miami, 990 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (S.D. Fla. 2013)

2013 WL 6869393, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182178

Published

“Specified Anatomical Areas” as herein defined in Section 1.2 of this Code. Such establishment may or may not

Antoinette Tynes v. State of Florida, 262 So. 3d 851 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

Published

overcome a defendant’s claim of immunity. Ch. 2017-72, § 1-2, Laws of Fla. Now, after the defendant makes a prime

Florida College of Business v. Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges & Schools, 954 F. Supp. 256 (S.D. Fla. 1996)

1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20423, 1996 WL 775111

Published

cannot show that it satisfies the requirements of Section 1-2-100(a).[1] FLORIDA began its Cosmetology Program

Miller's Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, Inc. (11th Cir. 2012)

Published

McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition § 1:2 (4th ed. 2012). On the other hand, it creates a

Benny Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. (11th Cir. 2010)

Published

be illegal.” 15 U.S.C. § 1. 2 distributors and by engaging

Gillyard v. State, 704 So. 2d 165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13934, 1997 WL 777699

Published

United States District Court Judges, vol. 1 section 1.02(C) (Federal Judicial Center, 4th ed.1996).

State ex rel. Ervin v. Mellick, 68 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1953)

1953 Fla. LEXIS 1800

Published

the provisions of the Ordinances of the City.” Section 1.02, Code, City of Lake Wales-. (Emphasis supplied

RONALD HIGHT, JR. v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 253 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

Published

the bill into law on June 9, 2017. Ch. 2017-72, § 1-2, Laws of Fla. The amendment shifted the burden

Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (11th Cir. 2015)

Published

violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; (2) conspiracy to monopolize, in violation of § 2

Hunt v. Hawthorn Associates, Inc. (11th Cir. 1997)

Published

...the amended complaint simply replicated the allegations and prayers for relief contained in the original complaint. For example, as before, Count I was titled “Failure to Provide Practice, §§ 15.10, 15.11 (3d ed. 1997); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 21.02[5][b] (3d ed....

Basile v. Aldrich, 70 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)

2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13243, 2011 WL 3696309

Published

Trawick’s Redfeam Wills and Administration in Florida, § 1.2 (2010-11 ed.), “[t]he Legislature created the Florida

Florida, Department of Business Regulation v. United States Department of the Interior, 768 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir. 1985)

Published

in the best interest of the Indians.” 25 C.F.R. § 1.2. On January 16, 1981, the Department took title

Odulene Dormescar v. U.S. Attorney General, 690 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2012)

2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17158

Published

§ 1101 (a)(20); accord 8 C.F.R. § 1.2. 2 . This area of the law is plagued

Odulene Dormescar v. U.S. Attorney General (11th Cir. 2012)

Published

laws.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20); accord 8 C.F.R. § 1.2. 2 This area of the law is plagued

Scottsdale Insurance v. Lock Towns Community Mental Health Center, Inc., 442 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (S.D. Fla. 2006)

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57041, 2006 WL 2349176

Published

the standpoint of the insured." CGL Policy, Section 1.2 Section II, titled "Who is an Insured," defines

De Perez v. AT&T Company, 139 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 1998)

Published

this state. Ga. Code. Ann. § 1-2-10 (1990). Defendants argue that under § 1-2-10, plaintiffs cannot proceed

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.