8.02
New counties.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
8.02 New counties.—When any new counties are created, such new counties shall become a part of the congressional district in which the territory for such new county is located.
History.—s. 6, ch. 6472, 1913; RGS 69; CGL 85; s. 7, ch. 16876, 1935; s. 8, ch. 21975, 1943; s. 10, ch. 26484, 1951.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2022 · leading case: City of Coral Gables v. Puiggros
City of Coral Gables v. Puiggros (1979)
“The dispute between the parties centers upon the application to the Puiggros property of § 8.02 of the city zoning code, which this court considered in King v.”
Celotex Corp. v. AIU Insurance Co. (In Re Celotex Corp.) (1996)
“In the 1966 and 1973 standard-form GCL occurrence policies, occurrence was defined as: an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the…”
Davis v. MacEdonia Housing Authority (1994)
“Refund actions may be filed within four years of January 1 of the tax year for which the taxes were paid.”
State v. Buchanan (1968)
“In his order of 24 February 1967, which is the order here appealed, the trial judge found: "The State claims BUCHANAN waived immunity; BUCHANAN claims the waiver was involuntary in view of the provisions of Section 8.02 of the Charter of Metropolitan Dade County, [2] and the…”
Holladay v. City of Coral Gables (1980)
“2058 passed in 1973, the Zoning Code (Section 8.02) had provided that a building site consisting of two or more platted fifty-foot lots upon which a single family residence had been constructed should not be diminished, and if the existing residence was demolished or removed no…”
King v. City of Coral Gables (1978)
“However, they were informed by officials in the Building and Zoning Department that the provisions of Section 8.02 of the Coral Gables Zoning Code, as amended by Ordinance No.”
Englander v. State (1971)
“" The trial court, on motion to dismiss the information for bribery against Englander, held that the waiver of immunity signed by Englander was invalid because not freely and voluntarily made due to the office-forfeiture provision § 8.02 of the Charter of Metropolitan Dade…”
U.S. Philips Corp. v. Windmere Corp. (1987)
“” 3 Von Kalinowski, Antitrust Laws & Trade Regulation § 8.02[4] (1986). If a business’ conduct is unlawful, or in context evidences a willful, deliberate or conscious acquisition or retention of monopoly power, a general intent to monopolize will be inferred.”
Mukamal v. D.R. Horton, Inc. (In re Majorca Isles Master Ass'n) (2016)
“Section 8.02.03 of the Master Bylaws; and e.”
City of Coral Gables v. Puiggros (1982)
“The issues to be resolved, this court held, were as follows: (1) whether the structure on Lot 27 which was removed by Puiggros was in fact a part of a building “constructed on a building site containing two or more platted fifty (50) foot lots,” which, under § 8.02 of the city…”
State v. Levine (1970)
“” At the hearing on the motion to dismiss the information Englander stated that he agreed to testify before the Grand Jury and to waive immunity because of the provisions of the Charter of Metropolitan Dade County, which provides: "Section 8.02 Waiver of Immunity Any county or…”
Show Me Hospitality, LLC v. Tim Hortons USA, Inc. (2022)
“§ 8.02 (emphasis added)). While THUSA had discretion in managing TNAP and allocating funds, it was required to act “with reasonable discretion.”
— 8.02(b) — 1 case
Show Me Hospitality, LLC v. Tim Hortons USA, Inc. (2022)
“§ 8.02 (emphasis added)). While THUSA had discretion in managing TNAP and allocating funds, it was required to act “with reasonable discretion.”
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.