7.08
Charlotte County.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
7.08 Charlotte County.—The boundary lines of Charlotte County are as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of township forty south, range twenty-seven east; thence south on range line dividing ranges twenty-seven and twenty-eight east, to the township line dividing townships forty-two and forty-three south, and Lee County; thence west on said township line to the waters of the Gulf of America; thence northerly and westerly along said Gulf of America, including the waters of said gulf within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, to the intersection therewith of the township line dividing townships forty and forty-one south; thence east on said township line to the southeast corner of township forty south, range twenty east; thence north on the range line dividing ranges twenty and twenty-one east to the northwest corner of township forty south, range twenty-one east; thence east on township line dividing townships thirty-nine and forty south to the place of beginning.
History.—s. 3, ch. 3770, 1887; s. 1, ch. 8513, 1921; CGL 62; s. 2, ch. 2025-8.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1977–2009 · leading case: State v. Hagan
State v. Hagan (1980)
“The appellees here are presented with no greater task than that generally *946 facing an individual in locating the physical boundaries of any jurisdiction to enable him to determine applicable law.”
Estate of Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc. (2009)
“§ 7.08 cmt. a. As explained in this Order, infra, sections 11(B)(1) — (2), Florida and Oklahoma have expanded tort liability for an apparent agent beyond what is permitted by the traditional common law rule and this Restatement provision.”
In Re Estate of Kavcic (1977)
“Redfearn, Wills and Administration *281 of Estates in Florida § 7.08 (4th ed. 1968). And American Law Reports states categorically: "Undoubtedly, to be effective the signing by the witnesses must occur in the testator's conscious presence.”
MAVERICK MEDIA GROUP v. Hillsborough County, Fla. (2007)
“at § 7.08.00. C. A brief review of the procedural history of this case may prove useful.”
Jones v. Hendrickson (1977)
“07(2), Florida Statutes (1973), and former Section 5460, C.G.L. 1927, which required witness subscription in the testator’s presence, but only for wills disposing of real estate.”
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.