Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 7.38 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
Statute is currently reporting as:
F.S. 7.38 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 7.38

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION
Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 7.38
7.38 Levy County.The boundary lines of Levy County are as follows: Beginning at the mouth of the most southern outlet of the Big Withlacoochee River, running in an eastwardly direction, including all the islands in the mouth of said river, along the thread of said river to where the range line dividing ranges seventeen and eighteen east intersects said river; thence north on said range line to the township line between townships fourteen and fifteen south; thence east on said township line to the middle line of township fourteen south, range nineteen east; thence north on said middle line to the township line between townships eleven and twelve south; thence west on said township line to the range line between ranges seventeen and eighteen east; thence north on said range line to the northeast corner of section thirteen, township eleven south, range seventeen east; thence west on the north line of said section thirteen and other sections to the range line between ranges sixteen and seventeen east; thence north on said range line to the township line between townships ten and eleven south; thence west on said township line to the range line between 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 on the north boundary of said section thirty-six to the northwest corner of said section thirty-six, thence north one half mile to the middle line of section twenty-six, township ten south, range fifteen east; thence west on the middle line of said section twenty-six and other sections to the range line between ranges fourteen and fifteen east; thence north to the northeast corner of section twenty-five, township ten south, range fourteen east; thence west on the north line of said section twenty-five and other sections to the thread of the Suwannee River; thence southerly along the thread of the main stream of said river to its mouth; thence south and easterly along the Gulf of Mexico, including all the islands, keys, and the waters of said gulf within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, to the point of beginning.
History.s. 1, Mar. 10, 1845; s. 1, ch. 106, 1846; s. 1, ch. 3060, 1877; RS 37; GS 35; s. 1, ch. 6243, 1911; s. 1, ch. 6509, 1913; RGS 38; s. 1, ch. 10778, 1925; CGL 40; s. 2, ch. 94-313.

F.S. 7.38 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.38 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.38


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.38
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.38.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 7.38

Total Results: 20

Juan Mendez, Jr., etc. v. Hampton Court Nursing Center, LLC.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-09-22

Citation: 203 So. 3d 146, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 394, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2074

Snippet: provisions. 8 Florida Construction Law Manual *154§ 7:38 (2015-2016 ed.) (“Ordinarily, a third party beneficiary

Delhall v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-07-12

Citation: 95 So. 3d 134, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 468, 2012 WL 2848691, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 1352

Snippet: 27 to September 7, 2001, when he was released at 7:38 pm. When the prosecutor objected, the trial court

Williams v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-04-08

Citation: 869 So. 2d 750, 2004 WL 741409

Snippet: patrol, the arresting officer stopped Williams at 7:38 p.m. for a window tint violation and an obscured

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 2004-01-21

Snippet: should be referred to the appropriate federal agency. 7 38 U.S.C. § 4317(a)(1), which provides that the maximum

IPC Sports, Inc. v. State, Department of Revenue

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-10-30

Citation: 829 So. 2d 330, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15717, 2002 WL 31422706

Snippet: it to lease or license the use of such property.[7] 38. The Legislature intended that county and municipal

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hagan

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-03-15

Citation: 813 So. 2d 167, 2002 WL 397212

Snippet: had teeth extracted by dentist who had AIDS). [7] 38 Am.Jur.2d, Fright, Shock, § 39; Bishop v. Mount

5500 North Corp. v. Willis

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-04-09

Citation: 729 So. 2d 508, 1999 WL 193159

Snippet: rights of his client. Fla. Bar Code Prof. Resp., E.C. 7-38. The proper functioning of the adversary system

Williams v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1998-03-18

Citation: 710 So. 2d 24, 1998 WL 116170

Snippet: majority opinion at 26 n.4, item 6. [37] See id. item 7. [38] See id. [39] See id. item 8. [40] See id. item

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1994-02-16

Snippet: the beneficiary to the fiduciary during such year. 7 38 C.F.R. Ch. 1, s. 13.55(a). 8 38 C.F.R. Ch. 1, s

John Brown Automation, Inc. v. Nobles

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1988-12-16

Citation: 537 So. 2d 614, 1988 WL 133891

Snippet: 1,523,007.38 McHan Manufacturing sought damages in the total

Randy Intern., Ltd. v. American Excess Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1987-01-13

Citation: 501 So. 2d 667, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 257, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6301

Snippet: Cari-Cargo International, Inc. (Cari-Cargo)[1] $7,038.50 to handle the shipment. Cari-Cargo in turn placed

Goslin v. Racal Data Communications, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1985-04-23

Citation: 468 So. 2d 390, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1047

Snippet: purchase 2625 shares of Milgo stock at the price of $7.38 per share in accordance with the following schedule:

Fraga v. DEPT. OF H & R SERV.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1985-02-12

Citation: 464 So. 2d 144, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12375

Snippet: requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 10C-7.38, which went into effect on January 1, 1980.[*] The

Fraga v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1984-05-15

Citation: 464 So. 2d 144, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13430

Snippet: requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule IOC-7.38, which went into effect on January 1, 1980.* The

Sanchez v. Sanchez

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1983-07-26

Citation: 435 So. 2d 347

Snippet: rights of his client. Fla.Bar Code Prof.Resp., E.C. 7-38. The proper functioning of the adversary system

STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH, ETC. v. Alice P.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1979-01-31

Citation: 367 So. 2d 1045

Snippet: services rendered to Medicaid recipients. Rules 10C-7.38 and 10C-7.39, F.A.C., are the Department's rules

Hinton v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1977-07-06

Citation: 347 So. 2d 1079

Snippet: 2d 120 (Fla. 1949). See Marlow v. State, 49 Fla. 7, 38 So. 653 (1905); Stewart v. State, 58 Fla. 97, 50

Johnson v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-02-02

Citation: 206 So. 2d 673, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 6098

Snippet: the evidence. In Marlow v. State, 1905, 49 Fla. 7, 38 So. 653, the trial court charged the jury, in effect

Felton v. City of Pensacola

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1967-07-06

Citation: 200 So. 2d 842

Snippet: See Florida Civil Practice After Trial, Section 7.38, page 430. Pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 59

State v. Weissing

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1958-03-21

Citation: 101 So. 2d 433, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2707

Snippet: 1036-37, par. 21; Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S