Florida Statute 7.15 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 7.15

7.15 Dixie County.—The boundary lines of Dixie County are as follows: Beginning at a point where township line between townships seven and eight south, intersects the Suwannee River, thence southerly down the thread of the main stream of said Suwannee River to the Gulf of America; thence along said Gulf of America, including the waters of said gulf within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, to the mouth of the Steinhatchee River; thence northerly along the thread of the said Steinhatchee River to the point where it is intersected by the section line between sections fifteen and sixteen, in township eight, south of range ten east; thence north on said section line and other sections to the township line between townships seven and eight south; thence east on said township line dividing townships seven and eight south, to the point of beginning.

History.—s. 1, ch. 8514, 1921; CGL 69; s. 5, ch. 2025-8.

F.S. 7.15 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.15 on CourtListener

Amendments to 7.15

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 7.15

Total Results: 12

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.

123 F.3d 1353, 38 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1494, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 26389, 1997 WL 568682

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 15, 1997 | Docket: 1088146

Cited 668 times | Published

Harper et al., The Law of Torts § 7.15 (2d ed.1986). Because the Chudasamas purchased

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.

123 F.3d 1353

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 15, 1997 | Docket: 74213

Cited 163 times | Published

generally 2 Fowler V. Harper et al., The Law of Torts § 7.15 (2d ed.1986). Because the Chudasamas purchased

Kovach v. McLellan

564 So. 2d 274, 1990 WL 103139

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 1990 | Docket: 1689139

Cited 11 times | Published

Harper, James and Gray, Law of Torts, Vol. II, § 7.15 (2d ed). Recission and damages were both pled here

Leopold v. Kimball Hill Homes Florida, Inc.

842 So. 2d 133, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1116, 2003 WL 239240

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 2003 | Docket: 1439881

Cited 8 times | Published

Larry R. Leiby, Florida Construction Law Manual, § 7:15 (4th ed.2001). The fact that the Stratmon V plans

Nunez v. Geico General Insurance

117 So. 3d 388, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 440, 2013 WL 3214401, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1315

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 2013 | Docket: 60232657

Cited 3 times | Published

No-Fault Law: Personal Injury Protection (PIP) § 7:15 (2011-12 ed.). . Geico attempts to distinguish

Abdoney v. York

903 So. 2d 981, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6952, 2005 WL 1125054

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 2005 | Docket: 64838952

Cited 1 times | Published

property.” Grant S. Nelson, Real Estate Finance Law, § 7.15, at 573 (4th ed. 2001). The lien of the senior

Hinnant v. AM. NAT. BANK & TRUST CO.

406 So. 2d 1206

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 25, 1981 | Docket: 450060

Cited 1 times | Published

court reasoned that the primary purpose of Section 7 (15 U.S.C. §§ 78g) was protection of the economy

Ballantrae Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Federal National Mortgage Association

203 So. 3d 938, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13268

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 2, 2016 | Docket: 4418860

Published

S. Nelson, Real Estate Finance Law, § 7.15, at 573 (4th ed.2001)). Here, the servicers

Merly Nunez v. Geico General Insurance Company

726 F.3d 1231, 2013 WL 4018601, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16379

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 8, 2013 | Docket: 1220446

Published

No-Fault Law: Personal Injury Protection (PIP) § 7:15 (2011-12 ed.). . Geico attempts to distinguish

Hinnant v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Ft. Lauderdale

406 So. 2d 1206, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21740

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 25, 1981 | Docket: 64586624

Published

court reasoned that the primary purpose of Section 7 (15 U.S.C. §§ 78g) was protection of the economy

In re Complaint of Twenty Grand Offshore, Inc.

328 F. Supp. 1385, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13132

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: May 25, 1971 | Docket: 66071253

Published

According to Gilmore & Black, The Law of Admiralty § 7-15, the operators of tugboats have long sought to

Home Owners Insurance v. Charles Sales Corp.

222 So. 2d 37, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5753

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 1, 1969 | Docket: 64509585

Published

88, 78 L.Ed. 577 (1933); Sterns on Suretyship, § 7.15, page 218 (5th ed. 1951). Appellant presents an