7.02
Baker County.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
7.02 Baker County.—The boundary lines of Baker County are as follows: Beginning at a point at center of township four south, on range line dividing ranges eighteen and nineteen east; thence north on said range line to the Georgia line; thence easterly on said Georgia line to the St. Marys River, and then down said river, concurrent with the boundary line between the States of Georgia and Florida, to where the said river intersects with range line dividing ranges twenty-two and twenty-three east; thence south on said range line to the center line of township four south; and then west on said township line to the point of beginning.
History.—s. 1, Feb. 4, 1832; s. 1, Mar. 15, 1844; s. 3, ch. 895, 1858; ch. 1039, 1859; s. 1, ch. 1185, 1861; RS 31; GS 29; s. 1, ch. 6244, 1911; RGS 31; CGL 33.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2022 · leading case: In Re Managed Care Litigation
In Re Managed Care Litigation (2000)
“§ 7.02 provides that any dispute that is not resolved through the dispute resolution process described in § 7.”
Abreau v. Cobb (1996)
“[3] See § 7.02, Art, 7, Dade County Charter (no requirement that petition state grounds for recall).”
MAVERICK MEDIA GROUP v. Hillsborough County, Fla. (2007)
“See § 7.02.02 (emphasis added). Also prohibited was any sign not erected, maintained, compatible with or not in compliance with county, state, or federal law.”
Gordon v. Leatherman (1971)
“Section 7.02 fails to provide for notice of the charges and therefore is unconstitutional.”
Barker v. Board of Medical Examiners, Dept. of Prof. Reg. (1983)
“17 (quoting from 1 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, Section 7.02 at 413). [4] Although both Sections 395.”
Matheson v. Miami-Dade County (2015)
“On May 4, 2005, the Amendment Committee approved the amendment to allow the lighted ball fields to remain beyond 2005 but 4 Section 7.02, “Restrictions and Exceptions,” of Article 7 of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter – “PARKS, AQUATIC PRESERVES, AND PRESERVATION LANDS,”…”
Campero USA Corp. v. STPC Partners, L.P. (2006)
“02. However, STPC does argue that Campero did not properly provide it with notices of its default and therefore this matter does not fall within the exception to arbitration provided by § 7.”
Farmhand, Inc. v. Brandies (1976)
“2 Harper and James, Law of Torts, 1542 (1956); 1 Frumer and Friedman, Products Liability, § 7.02 (1975); See also Noel, Manufacturer's Negligence of Design or Directions for Use of a Product, 71 Yale L.”
City of Punta Gorda v. Morningstar (1959)
“Antieau, Municipal Corporation Law, Volume 1, Section 7.02 summarizes the reasoning of the various State Courts in this regard as set out in the brief of appellant as follows: "The validity of every Zoning Ordinance is to be tested as applied to a particular piece of property at…”
Southwest Gulfcoast, Inc. v. Allan (1987)
“[6] Section 7.02 of the labor agreement provides that the "functions of the arbitrator shall be to interpret and apply the Agreement and he shall have no power to add to or subtract from or to modify any of the terms of the Agreement.”
20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. M.V. Ship Agencies, Inc. (1997)
“02(a) provides that in an in personam action, a defendant shall be considered “not found within the district” if it cannot be served within the district as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Lalor v. Dade County (1972)
“The Board of County Commissioners of Dade County on January 28, 1972, adopted a resolution calling for an election in Dade County pursuant to section 7.02 of the Charter of Metropolitan Dade County, *844 Florida.”
— 7.02(2) — 1 case
Abreau v. Cobb (1996)
“[3] See § 7.02, Art, 7, Dade County Charter (no requirement that petition state grounds for recall).”
— 7.02(7) — 1 case
Abreau v. Cobb (1996)
“[3] See § 7.02, Art, 7, Dade County Charter (no requirement that petition state grounds for recall).”
— 7.02(a) — 1 case
20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. M.V. Ship Agencies, Inc. (1997)
“02(a) provides that in an in personam action, a defendant shall be considered “not found within the district” if it cannot be served within the district as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
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.