Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 2.04 (2025)

Repealed statute not revived by implication.

✓ 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

2.04 Repealed statute not revived by implication.—No statute of this state which has been repealed shall ever be revived by implication; that is to say, if a statute be passed repealing a former statute, and a third statute be passed repealing the second, the repeal of the second statute shall in no case be construed to revive the first, unless there be express words in the said third statute for this purpose.

History.—Nov. 2, 1829; RS 62; GS 62; RGS 74; CGL 90.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1958–2022 · leading case: Davis v. State, 520 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Davis v. State, 520 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1988). · cites it 3× “Instead, the judge gave the standard jury instruction on expert witnesses, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases § 2.04(a). [*] During closing argument, defense counsel discussed the unreliability of polygraph results.”

Est. of Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (M.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 3× “§§ 2.04, 7.03, 7.07-.08. Specifically, “[a]n employer is subject to liability for torts committed by employees while acting within the scope of their employment.”

Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1978). “05(2)(a) and (b) coupled with the administrative safeguards imposed by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1975), alleviates any objection that the Administration Commission will act arbitrarily or capriciously in performing the function assigned by the legislature.”

Harry Rich Corp. v. Feinberg, 518 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). · cites it 2× “" Model Business Corporation Act Annotated § 2.04, at 131 (3d ed. 1987). This court, in Ratner v.”

North Am. Mtg. Investors v. Cape San Blas, 378 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1979). · cites it 2× “Section 2.04, Florida Statutes (1975), provides: *295 No statute of this state which has been repealed shall ever be revived by implication; that is to say, if a statute be passed repealing a former statute, and a third statute be passed repealing the second, the repeal of the…”

Orr v. Trask, 464 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1985). “Davis, Administrative Law of the Seventies § 2.04 at 30 (1976). We decline to adopt this thesis.”

Branford State Bank v. Hackney Tractor Co., 455 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). “Williams, Florida Law of Secured Transactions in Personal Property § 2.04 (1980); Zaretsky, Lapse of Perfection in Secured Transactions: A Search For a Consistent Approach, 27 B.”

Marr v. State, 470 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). “[3] Section 2.04, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 2d Ed.”

Bramlett v. Peterson, 307 F. Supp. 1311 (M.D. Fla. 1969). “The special act repeals Chapter 61-1646, and when the 1969 law expires by its own terms on June 30, 1970, the earlier statute will not be reactivated for the reason that no express reference to its revival is made in the new law as required by Florida Statutes, section 2.04…”

Dade Cnty. v. Young Democratic Club of Dade Cnty., 104 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1958). “" Section 2.04 Qualifications and Filing Fee.”

Disc. Sleep of Ocala, LLC v. City of Ocala, 200 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). · cites it 2× “See § 2.04, Fla. Stat. (2014). Therefore, while Ordinance 2010-43 repealed Ordinance 6015, it also triggered a new four-year limitations period beginning on May 4, 2010.”

Valdes v. State, 959 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). · cites it 3× “The jury instructions from Section 2.04 [1] and 3.9 [2] differ in only one respect with regard to weighing testimonial evidence.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— 2.04(a) — 1 case

Davis v. State, 520 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1988). “Instead, the judge gave the standard jury instruction on expert witnesses, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases § 2.04(a). [*] During closing argument, defense counsel discussed the unreliability of polygraph results.”

— 2.04(b) — 2 cases

Bird v. Eastman Kodak Co., 390 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (M.D. Fla. 2005).

Collins v. State, 418 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

— 2.04(o) — 2 cases

Am. Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Reg., Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty., 997 F. Supp. 1481 (M.D. Fla. 1998).

Am. Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Reg., Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty., 997 F. Supp. 1476 (M.D. Fla. 1998).

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.