Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 7.07 (2025)
Calhoun County.
✓ 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
7.07 Calhoun County.—The boundary lines of Calhoun County are as follows: Beginning at a point in the thread of the Apalachicola River where the northern boundary of township two north, range seven west, crosses said river; thence west on said township line to the thread of the Chipola River; thence southerly down the thread of the stream of the said Chipola River to a point where a line drawn through the center of township two north, crosses said river; thence west on said middle township line to the range line between ranges eleven and twelve west; thence south on said range line, concurrent with the east boundary of Bay County, to the southwest corner of section nineteen, township three south, range eleven west; thence east on the south line of said section nineteen and other sections across ranges eleven west, ten west and a portion of nine west to where said section line intersects the thread of the Apalachicola River between sections twenty-three and twenty-six, township three south, range nine west; thence follow the thread of said river to the place of beginning.
History.—s. 1, Jan. 26, 1838; s. 1, ch. 1850, 1873; s. 1, ch. 2061, 1875; RS 17; ss. 1, chs. 4576, 4577, 1897; GS 15; s. 1, ch. 6506, 1913; RGS 17; s. 1, ch. 10132, 1925; CGL 19.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Est. of Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (M.D. Fla. 2009).
Riffle v. Carnival Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2025). “2021) (citing Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 7.07 (2006)); see Mitchell v. Carnival Corp.”
Cardinal Point, LLC v. Edgewood Partners Ins. Ctr., Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2023). “Further, although reputational damages may be barred by section 7.07 of the APA for a breach of that document — which, to be clear, the Court does not determine — EPIC does not demonstrate that section 7.”
Est. of Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (M.D. Fla. 2009). “§ 7.07(3)(a). Thus, “employee” is a narrower category than “agent,” and a principal’s vicarious tort liability is necessarily narrower than its contractual liability for an agent’s dealings.”
MAVERICK MEDIA Grp. v. Hillsborough Cnty., Fla., 508 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (M.D. Fla. 2007). “at § 7.07.01(A). Permit application review and time limits are set forth within the new sign regulations.”
Bush v. Holmes, 886 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). “The respondents brought suit against Boca Raton to enjoin its contribution to the center on the basis that it violated Section 7.07 of the city's charter, stating: "No city funds shall be expended in any manner whatsoever to accrue either directly or indirectly to the benefit of…”
Retail Credit Co. v. Dade Cnty., Florida, 393 F. Supp. 577 (S.D. Fla. 1975). “1, § 7.07 (A) (12) (21)-(23), (B) (1957). See also, Comment, Municipal Powers in Florida: By Constitutional Right or Legislative Grace, City of Miami Beach v.”
— 7.07(3)(a) — 1 case
Est. of Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (M.D. Fla. 2009). “§ 7.07(3)(a). Thus, “employee” is a narrower category than “agent,” and a principal’s vicarious tort liability is necessarily narrower than its contractual liability for an agent’s dealings.”
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.