Florida Statute 7.33 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 7.33

7.33 Jefferson County.—The boundary lines of Jefferson County are as follows: Beginning at the point on the Gulf of Mexico where the line between ranges two and three east strikes said gulf; thence north on said line to the base parallel line; thence in a direction northeast to the point where the sections twenty-one, and twenty-eight and twenty-nine of township one north, range three east, corner; thence north on the section line dividing sections twenty and twenty-one and other sections of township one north, range three east, to township line dividing townships one and two north, range three east; thence east on said township line to the waters of the Miccosukee; thence up Lake Miccosukee to the south boundary of township three north, range three east; thence on said township line to the east line of section thirty-four in said township three north, range three east; thence north on the east line of section thirty-four and other sections in said township and said range to the boundary line between the States of Georgia and Florida; thence east along said boundary line to the northwest corner of lot number one hundred eighty, township three north, range seven east, or the west boundary of Madison County; thence south to the southwest corner of said lot number one hundred eighty; thence east on the south boundary of said lot number one hundred eighty to the northeast corner of section twenty-seven, township three north, range seven east; thence due south to the southeast corner of section ten, township two north, range seven east; thence due west to the southwest corner of the said section ten; thence due south to the southeast corner of section sixteen, township two north, range seven east; thence due west to the southwest corner of said section sixteen; thence due south to the southeast corner of section twenty, township two north, range seven east; thence due west to the southwest corner of section nineteen, township two north, range seven east; thence due south to the southeast corner of section twenty-five, township two north, range six east; thence due west to the southwest corner of section twenty-six, township two north, range six east; thence due south to the southwest corner of section thirty-five, township two north, range six east; thence due west to the thread of the Big Aucilla River; thence southerly along the thread of said river, concurrent with the west boundary of Madison and Taylor Counties, to the mouth of said Big Aucilla River; thence westerly through the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including the waters of said gulf within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, to the point of beginning.

History.—s. 1, Jan. 20, 1827; s. 13, Nov. 23, 1828; Nov. 14, 1829; s. 1, Feb. 13, 1831; s. 1, ch. 3176, 1879; s. 1, ch. 3304, 1881; RS 23; GS 21; RGS 23; CGL 25.

F.S. 7.33 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.33 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.33

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.33

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.33.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 7.33

Total Results: 17

Parra de Rey v. Rey

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-05-22

Citation: 114 So. 3d 371, 2013 WL 2221492, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8165

Snippet: demonstrated that the Wife should receive an additional $7,033,435 to equalize the proposed share of assets. Q

Las Olas Tower Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-01-06

Citation: 733 So. 2d 1034, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 110, 1999 WL 2811

Snippet: language that, for *1039the purposes of section 1*7-33.1,8 the term “setback” means the horizontal distance

STATE, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE v. Estabrook

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1998-05-13

Citation: 711 So. 2d 161, 1998 WL 236325

Snippet: Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992); Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-7.033(2)(f)2; or (3) the course of action pursued by the

Dept. of Revenue v. NU-LIFE HEALTH

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-08-30

Citation: 623 So. 2d 747

Snippet: section 212.18, the Department promulgated rule 12-3.007(33), Florida Administrative Code, setting out clear

State v. Kadivar

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1984-11-07

Citation: 460 So. 2d 391, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 151, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15711

Snippet: Responsibility Ethical Considerations 7-13, 7-14, 7-33 and 7-34. In argument at the hearing, respondent’s

Tillman v. Tillman

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1969-04-03

Citation: 222 So. 2d 218, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5772

Snippet: installed therein, $16 monthly for the furniture, and $7.33 monthly for insurance on the home, making a total

Rio Seco ex rel. Rio Seco v. Alfred Meyers Trucking, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-03-19

Citation: 208 So. 2d 265, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5738

Snippet: view of the evidence. De Salvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7, 33 So.2d 215 (1948); Martin v. Rivera, Fla.App.1958

Haines v. St. Petersburg Methodist Home, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1965-02-19

Citation: 173 So. 2d 176

Snippet: 66 residents. The deaths for that period averaged 7.33 a year, but for the last two years thereof the annual

Via v. Tillinghast

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1963-04-23

Citation: 153 So. 2d 59, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3685

Snippet: 778, 178 So. 865; De Salvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7, 33 So.2d 215; Tooley v. Margulies, Fla.1955, 79 So

Ward v. Baskin

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1957-05-01

Citation: 94 So. 2d 859, 66 A.L.R. 2d 1320

Snippet: So.2d 694. See also, De Salvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7, 33 So.2d 215. It was therefore error to give the instruction

Klepper v. Breslin

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1955-10-19

Citation: 83 So. 2d 587

Snippet: 113 So. 716, 719; De Salvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7, 33 So.2d 215. Likewise, negligence of a driver is not

Bessett v. Hackett

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1953-07-24

Citation: 66 So. 2d 694

Snippet: 571, 113 So. 716; De Salvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7, 33 So.2d 215. We conclude, therefore, that the trial

Astor Electric Service v. Cabrera

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1953-01-13

Citation: 62 So. 2d 759

Snippet: 125, 84 L.Ed. 524; De Salvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7, 33 So.2d 215. These cases recognize the relation of

Thomas Concrete Co. v. Lott

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1952-11-25

Citation: 62 So. 2d 695, 1952 Fla. LEXIS 1927

Snippet: Fla. 186, 17 So.2d 89; DeSalvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7, 33 So.2d 215; City of Miami Beach v. Silver, Fla.,

Bond v. Palm Beach Landscape Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1948-11-12

Citation: 37 So. 2d 536, 160 Fla. 933, 1948 Fla. LEXIS 969

Snippet: 150,19 So.2d 701. See DeSalvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7, 33 So.2d 215; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Watson, 94

Scott v. Nat. City Bk. of Tampa

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-11-30

Citation: 139 So. 370, 107 Fla. 818

Snippet: for $1,194.79 instead of a claim for the sum of $7,033.86 which would have included the sum for which the

Saucer v. Vincent

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1921-10-20

Citation: 82 Fla. 296, 89 So. 802

Snippet: the sum of $255.20, principal, $6.81 interest and $7.33 costs. On the 7th of March the defendant filed a