7.20

Gadsden County.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

7.20 Gadsden County.—The boundary lines of Gadsden County are as follows: Beginning at a point in the thread of the Apalachicola River where said river is intersected by the boundary line between the States of Georgia and Florida; thence east on said boundary line to the thread of the Ochlockonee River; thence southerly along the thread of the said Ochlockonee River to a point where the north boundary line of section sixteen, township one south, range four west, intersects said thread of said river; thence due west to the western bank of said river; thence southerly along the western bank of said river to a point where same is intersected by the north line of section twenty, township one south, range four west; thence west to the northwest corner of section nineteen, township one south, range four west; thence north to the southeast corner of section one, township one south, range five west; thence west to the southwest corner of section two, township one south, range five west; thence north to the southeast corner of section twenty-two, township one north, range five west; thence west to the range line between ranges five and six west; thence north on said range line to the southeast corner of township two north, range six west; thence west to the southwest corner of section thirty-five, township two north, range six west; thence north to the northwest corner of said section thirty-five; thence west to the range line between ranges six and seven west; thence north, to the northwest corner of township two north, range six west; thence west to the thread of the Apalachicola River; thence north, following the thread of said river, to the place of beginning.

History.—s. 1, June 24, 1823; s. 4, Dec. 29, 1824; s. 6, Nov. 23, 1828; ss. 1, 2, ch. 413, 1851; s. 1, ch. 1046, 1859; RS 19; GS 17; s. 1, ch. 5966, 1909; RGS 19; CGL 21; s. 1, ch. 16436, 1933.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1975–2016 · leading case: Roberts v. Gordy

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roberts v. Gordy (2016) flsd “Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nim-mer on Copyright § 7.20[B][1] at 7-212.(4)(3)-(4) (ed. 2015).”

MacKinlay v. City of Stuart (1975) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “The following rules of law contradict several of the positions taken by appellants and demonstrate them to be without merit: (1) Annexation ordinances are not invalid for lack of contiguity if their adoption results in the creation of islands or enclaves of unincorporated…”

In Re Estate of Gaspelin (1989) fladistctapp “Hanley, Elective Share, § 7.20, in Basic Practice Under Florida Probate Code (3d ed.”

Block State Testing Services, L.P. v. Kontractor's Prep Corp. (1997) flmd “Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 7.20, at 7-197-198 (1990). *1367 In the case at hand, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff “willfully and falsely misstated or omitted facts by fading to fill out sections (6)(a) to (b) which requires the applicant to complete both of those sections…”

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.