6.09
Boundary between Florida and Georgia.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
6.09 Boundary between Florida and Georgia.—
(1) The line run and marked by B. J. Whitner, Jr., on the part of Florida, and G. J. Orr, on the part of Georgia, is the permanent boundary line between the States of Florida and Georgia.
(2) The boundary line between the States of Florida and Georgia as described in subsection (1) herein shall be extended from a point 37 links north of Ellicott’s Mound on the Saint Marys River; thence down said river to the Atlantic Ocean; thence along the middle of the presently existing Saint Marys entrance navigational channel to the point of intersection with a hypothetical line connecting the seawardmost points of the jetties now protecting such channel; thence along said line to a control point of latitude 30°42′45.6″ N., longitude 81°24′15.9″ W.; thence due east to the seaward limit of Florida as now or hereafter fixed by the Congress of the United States; such boundary to be extended on the same true 90° bearing so far as a need for further delimitation may arise.
History.—s. 1, ch. 1017, 1859; Resolution No. 16, Feb. 8, 1861; RS 3; GS 3; RGS 3; CGL 3; s. 1, ch. 69-4.
Note.—Boundary.—Consent given by 84 Stat. 1094, October 22, 1970.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1985–2016 · leading case: Rubano v. Department of Transp.
Rubano v. Department of Transp. (1995)
“Sackman, Nichols' The Law of Eminent Domain § 6.09[2] (rev. 3d ed. 1995). In other words: *1271 Consequential damages to adjoining property owners in the way of diminution of business while construction is in progress does not constitute a taking of property for which…”
Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp. (1990)
“Sackman, Nichols' The Law of Eminent Domain § 6.09, at 6-55 (rev. 3rd ed. 1985) ("The modern, prevailing view is that any substantial interference with private property which destroys or lessens its value .”
Department of Transp. v. Weisenfeld (1993)
“Sackman, Nichol's The Law of Eminent Domain § 6.09, at 6-55 (rev. 3rd ed. 1985) ("The modern prevailing view is that any substantial interference with private property which destroys or lessens its value .”
Diaz v. Lopez (2015)
“9 Sweetwater Charter section 6.09 expressly incorporates the resign-to-run law.”
DEPT. OF AGR. & CONSUMER SERV. v. Polk (1990)
“[14] As one commentator has recognized: The modern, prevailing view is that any substantial interference with private property which destroys or lessens its value (or by which the owner's right to its use or enjoyment is in any substantial degree abridged or destroyed) is, in…”
Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. Polk (1990)
“As one commentator has recognized: The modern, prevailing view is that any substantial interference with private property which destroys or lessens its value (or by which the owner’s right to its use or enjoyment is in any substantial degree abridged or destroyed) is, in fact…”
Mukamal v. D.R. Horton, Inc. (In re Majorca Isles Master Ass'n) (2016)
“1 at Section 6.09). Further, the Master Declaration required the Directors of the Master Association to “prepare a roster of the Lots and Units, the Owners thereof and assessments applicable thereto, which shall be kept in the office of the Master Association and shall be open…”
Gardner v. Gardner (1985)
“Davidson, Legal Rights of Children, § 6.09 (1984). Dr. Gardner then sought to have the mother put in jail because of non-compliance with a visitation order.”
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.