Florida Statute 7.58 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 7.58

7.58 St. Johns County.—The boundary lines of St. Johns County are as follows: Beginning at a point on the Atlantic coast, at a point where the section line between ten and fifteen, in township three south of range twenty-nine east, intersects the said Atlantic coast; thence west on the said section line to a point where said section line would intersect the range line between ranges twenty-eight and twenty-nine east; thence south on said range line to a point where said range line intersects the township line between townships four and five south; thence west on the township line between townships four and five south, in range twenty-eight east, to a point where said township line intersects the range line between ranges twenty-seven and twenty-eight east; thence north on said range line to where the same intersects Durbin Creek; thence along the south bank of Durbin Creek to Julington Creek; thence along the thread of Julington Creek to the mouth thereof; thence due west to the west margin of the main channel of the St. Johns River and boundary line of Clay County; thence southwardly along the west margin of the main channel of said river and boundaries of Clay and Putnam Counties to a point due west of the mouth of Deep Creek; thence due east to the mouth of Deep Creek; thence up the center of Deep Creek to the point of intersection of Deep Creek with the range lines between ranges twenty-seven and twenty-eight east; thence south on said range line to a point where the south boundary line of section eighteen, in township ten south, range twenty-eight east, intersects said range line; thence east on said section line to the range line between ranges twenty-nine and thirty east; thence north on said range line to the middle of Pellicer’s Creek; thence easterly on an imaginary line down the middle of said creek to the mouth of said creek; thence northeasterly on an imaginary line extending from the mouth of Pellicer’s Creek to a point on the extension of township line between townships nine and ten south, range thirty-one east and immediately north of Summer Haven on the Atlantic coast; thence northwardly along said Atlantic coast, including the waters of the Atlantic Ocean within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, to place of beginning.

History.—s. 1, Ord. July 21, 1821; s. 1, Aug. 12, 1822; s. 9, Dec. 29, 1824; s. 1, ch. 289, 1848; s. 1, ch. 2068, 1875; RS 35; GS 33; s. 1, ch. 5730, 1907; s. 1, ch. 7399, 1917; RGS 35; CGL 37.

F.S. 7.58 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.58 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.58

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.58

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.58.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 7.58

Total Results: 14

Rodriguez v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-12-13

Citation: 237 So. 3d 1069

Snippet: 3D16-1529 Lower Tribunal No. 07-58-A-P ________________

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-01-04

Citation: 211 So. 3d 221, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 50

Snippet: a $25 million punitive damages award that bore a 7.58 to 1 ratio to the $3.3 million compensatory damages

Insko v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-12-30

Citation: 181 So. 3d 1260, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 19431, 2015 WL 9487590

Snippet: Hillsborough County Jail until February 15, 2005, at 7:58 p.m., when the State initiated commitment proceedings

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Joan Schoeff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Edward Schoeff

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-11-04

Citation: 178 So. 3d 487, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16577

Snippet: 3d 1060, 1071-72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (approving a 7.58 to 1 ratio); Owens-Corning Fiberglas v. Ballard

Citizens of the State of Florida, etc. v. Florida Public Service Commission

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-08-28

Citation: 146 So. 3d 1143, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 519, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 2581, 2014 WL 4257733

Snippet: of technology resulted in a cost per customer of $7.58; FPL’s cost per customer for billing expenses is

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-09-04

Citation: 123 So. 3d 67, 2013 WL 4734565, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14155

Snippet: punitive to compensatory damages award ratio of 7.58 to 1); Campbell, 538 U.S. at 424-25, 123 S.Ct. 1513

Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-06-22

Citation: 126 So. 3d 1155, 2012 WL 2361748, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10122

Snippet: affirmed a punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio of 7.58 to 1: We find the $25 million award here is not

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-02-14

Citation: 90 So. 3d 307

Snippet: damages. See Liggett Group, 60 So.3d at 1078. . The 7.58 to 1 ratio referenced in Martin was based on the

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-12-14

Citation: 53 So. 3d 1060, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19008, 2010 WL 5074839

Snippet: fact. The punitive-to-compensatory ratio here is 7.58 to 1. Yet the trial court denied RJR's motion for

State v. Meeks

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-07-12

Citation: 789 So. 2d 982, 2001 WL 776488

Snippet: at 5:35 p.m.; (2) 12/15/96, not at residence at 7:58 a.m.; (3) 12/22/96, not at residence at 5:25 p.m

STATE, DEPT. OF HIGHWAY SAFETY v. Jones

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-02-28

Citation: 780 So. 2d 949, 2001 WL 194915

Snippet: the money was used in a drug transaction. See $7,058.84 in U.S. Currency v. State, 30 S.W.3d 580, 588

Albertson's, Inc. v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1995-07-11

Citation: 658 So. 2d 134, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7344, 1995 WL 405278

Snippet: Co., 439 U.S. 96, 102 n. 7 [99 S.Ct. 403, 408 n. 7, 58 L.Ed.2d 361] (1978); and Fireside Nissan, Inc. v

Butler v. MacDougal

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1960-05-26

Citation: 120 So. 2d 832, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2573

Snippet: Reversed. HORTON, C. J.,' and PEARSON, J., concur. . § 7(58.05, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides: “A railroad company

Penton v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1958-10-17

Citation: 106 So. 2d 577

Snippet: That’s all the questions. “ (The jury retired at 7:58.) “(The jury returned at 8:02.) “The Court: I find