Florida Statute 7.21 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 7.21

7.21 Gilchrist County.—The boundary lines of Gilchrist County are as follows: Beginning at a point where the range line between ranges sixteen and seventeen east, is intersected by the township line between townships ten and eleven south; thence west on the township line dividing townships ten and eleven south, to the range line dividing ranges fifteen and sixteen east; thence north on said range line to the northeast corner of section thirty-six, township ten south, range fifteen east; thence west to the northwest corner of said section thirty-six; thence north on the section line between sections twenty-five and twenty-six, township ten south, range fifteen east, one half mile, to the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of said section twenty-five; thence due west through the center of section twenty-six and other sections in township ten south, range fifteen east, to the range line dividing ranges fourteen and fifteen east; thence north on said range line one half mile to the northeast corner of section twenty-five, in township ten south, range fourteen east; thence due west on the north boundary line of said section twenty-five and other sections to the thread of the Suwannee River; thence northerly up the thread of the Suwannee River to the thread of the Santa Fe River; thence north and easterly up the thread of the said Santa Fe River to a point where the same is intersected by the range line dividing ranges sixteen and seventeen east; thence south on said range line to the place of beginning.

History.—s. 1, ch. 11371, 1925; CGL 78.

F.S. 7.21 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.21 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.21

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.21

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.21.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 7.21

Total Results: 20

In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar - Subchapter 4-7 Information About Legal Services

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-06-22

Snippet: subject to the requirements of this rule and rule 4-7.21, a listing of lawyers associated with the firm

FLORIDA REALTORS AND FLORIDA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. vs ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BILL COWLES, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ORANGE COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2022-10-27

Snippet: it does say. See Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 21 (Fla. 2000) (concluding that “ballot language in

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases - Report 2019-12

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2020-02-27

Snippet: 2020. -7- 21.19(c) MALICIOUSLY [HARASSING] [TEASING] [INTERFERING

GURIN GOLD, LLC v. CHARLES DIXON

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-07-10

Snippet: aggravated or exacerbated by the motor collision dated 7/21/2014.” During opening statements at trial,

Sadlak v. Nationstar Mortgage

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-07-18

Citation: 252 So. 3d 302

Snippet: said, inside her car at 9353 Southwest 227th Street 7-21 (which is the address of the property subject to

Rodney Renard Newberry v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-04-06

Citation: 214 So. 3d 562, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 440, 2017 WL 1282108, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 757

Snippet: the phone number he had stored as Newberry’s at 7:21 p.m., five minutes before the 911 call reporting

Brady v. Cypress Communications of South Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-07-29

Citation: 169 So. 3d 1283, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11423, 2015 WL 4557041

Snippet: claimant counsel expended from the filing of the PFB on 7/21/2014 that convinced the carrier that Dr. Ellowitz’s

In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating Florida Bar-Subchapter 4-7

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-01-31

Citation: 108 So. 3d 609, 2013 WL 388185

Snippet: (Exemptions From the Filing and Review Requirement); 4-7.21 (Firm Names and Letterhead); 4-7.22 (Lawyer Referral

Salabarria v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-10-31

Citation: 100 So. 3d 231, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18882, 2012 WL 5350006

Snippet: to reconsider its ruling in the matter denied on 7/21/11. The present motion should be denied because

Mortimer v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-08-29

Citation: 100 So. 3d 99, 2012 WL 3711413, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14492

Snippet: him to keep his mouth shut. A short time later, at 7:21 p.m., a codefen-dant’s brother fired numerous shots

Moore v. Gillett

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-07-18

Citation: 96 So. 3d 933, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11662, 2012 WL 2913937

Snippet: ” Complex regional pain syndrome (Apr. 26, 2012, 7:21 a.m.), http://en.wikipedia.Org/w/ index.php?tit

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 2010-09-02

Snippet: circumstances.3 This office, in Attorney General Opinion 07-21, stated that while section 119.071(4)(d)1., Florida

Florida Department of State v. Mangat

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-08-31

Citation: 43 So. 3d 642, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 463, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1451, 2010 WL 3398820

Snippet: ballot language. Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7, 21 (Fla.2000); see also Askew, 421 So.2d at 155. Our

Pierre v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2009-11-18

Citation: 22 So. 3d 759, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 17251, 2009 WL 3836820

Snippet: following exchange occurred (Transcript, page 5, lines 7-21):2 [Questioning by Det. Campbell] Q Do you want

Patchen v. FLORIDA DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-04-14

Citation: 906 So. 2d 1005, 2005 WL 856890

Snippet: during the term of the emergency; ...," see § 570.07(21), Fla. Stat. (2000); and remove not only diseased

Winkler v. Moore

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-04-25

Citation: 831 So. 2d 63, 2002 WL 717819

Snippet: 20 07/21/1988

Klinger v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-04-12

Citation: 816 So. 2d 697, 2002 WL 537594

Snippet: at 895 (quoting Daughdrill v. State, 113 Ala. 7, 21 So. 378, 387 (1897)). Applying this principle in

Wike v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-01-24

Citation: 813 So. 2d 12, 2002 WL 87380

Snippet: therefore, we reject Wike's claim on this basis.[7]*21 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial

Donohue v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-10-31

Citation: 801 So. 2d 124, 2001 WL 1335419

Snippet: adopted the rule from Daughdrill v. State, 113 Ala. 7, 21 So. 378 (1897), in which the issue was whether the

Nash v. General Motors Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-04-28

Citation: 734 So. 2d 437, 1999 WL 246471

Snippet: content of .15 percent at 6:07 p.m. and .14 percent at 7:21 p.m. Thus, at the time of the accident, approximately