Florida Statute 11.03 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title III
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH; COMMISSIONS

Chapter 11
LEGISLATIVE ORGANIZATION, PROCEDURES, AND STAFFING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 11.03

11.03 Proof of publication of notice.—

(1) Affidavit of proof of publication of such notice of intention to apply therefor, may be made, in substantially the following general form, but such form shall not be exclusive:

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF

Before the undersigned authority personally appeared , who on oath does solemnly swear (or affirm) that she or he has knowledge of the matters stated herein; that a notice stating the substance of a contemplated law or proposed bill relating to

(here identify bill)

has been published at least 30 days prior to this date, by being printed in the issues of (here state day, month and year of issue or issues) of the , a newspaper or newspapers published in County or Counties, Florida (or) there being no newspaper, by being posted for at least 30 days prior to this date at three public places in County or Counties, one of which places was at the courthouse of said county or counties, where the matter or thing to be affected by the contemplated law is situated; that a copy of the notice that has been published as aforesaid and also this affidavit of proof of publication are attached to the proposed bill or contemplated law, and such copy of the notice so attached is by reference made a part of this affidavit.

Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this day of , (year) , by (name of person making statement) .

(Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida)

(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public)

Personally Known OR Produced Identification

Type of Identification Produced

(2) Such affidavit of proof of publication shall be attached to the contemplated law when it is introduced into the Legislature. A true copy of the notice published or posted shall also be attached to the bill when introduced, but it shall not be necessary to enter said published or posted notice, or proof thereof, in the journals. The fact that such notice was established in the Legislature shall in every case be recited upon the journals of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and the notice published and affidavit of publication thereof shall accompany the bill throughout the Legislature and be preserved as a part thereof in the Department of State.

History.—s. 2, ch. 3708, 1887; RS 67; GS 68; RGS 79; CGL 95; s. 1, ch. 13791, 1929; s. 1, ch. 21635, 1943; ss. 10, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 6, ch. 95-147; s. 11, ch. 98-246.

F.S. 11.03 on Google Scholar

F.S. 11.03 on CourtListener

Amendments to 11.03

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 11.03

Total Results: 58

Peer v. Lewis

606 F.3d 1306, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10296

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 20, 2010 | Docket: 7273

Cited 119 times | Published

James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 11.03 (3d ed.2010) (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx

United States v. Jackie McLeod

53 F.3d 322, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 12949, 1995 WL 275973

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 26, 1995 | Docket: 1046269

Cited 88 times | Published

Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure, § 11.3, at 546 n. 4 (2d Hornbook ed. 1992). 7

United States v. Robert Blackman, Marvin Hinsey, Kenny Thompson, Salathiel Calvin Thompson

66 F.3d 1572, 43 Fed. R. Serv. 211, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 29772, 1995 WL 584712

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Oct 20, 1995 | Docket: 850936

Cited 85 times | Published

584, 116 L.Ed.2d 609 (1991); 4 LaFave, supra, § 11.3(a) at 282 (1994 Supp. at 68), they were not entitled

Palmer & Cay, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

404 F.3d 1297, 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1279, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5243, 2005 WL 737048

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 1, 2005 | Docket: 213065

Cited 70 times | Published

not included on the list. Id. at 105, § 11.3(d). Additionally, the agreement contains a merger

Tillman v. State

934 So. 2d 1263, 2006 WL 1837903

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 2006 | Docket: 1460659

Cited 56 times | Published

home); but see 6 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.3(b), at 156 (4th ed.2004) (suggesting that "if the

Mahon v. United States Department of Agriculture

485 F.3d 1247, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 11017, 2007 WL 1365976

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 10, 2007 | Docket: 398916

Cited 42 times | Published

benefits under, any program of an agency[.]” 7 C.F.R. § 11.3 (2002). C. With respect to John and Shelby Mahon

Bostick v. State

554 So. 2d 1153, 1989 WL 145515

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 1989 | Docket: 1693460

Cited 38 times | Published

governmental intrusion." 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.3(e), at 571 (1978). See also J. Choper, Y. Kamisar

American Viking Contractors, Inc. v. Scribner Equipment Co., Inc., Scribner Equipment Co., Inc. v. Henry F. Nelson

745 F.2d 1365, 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1354, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17043

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 5, 1984 | Docket: 268018

Cited 37 times | Published

an antecedent obligation of any kind.” O.C.G.A. § 11-3-408 (1982). This section is clearly applicable

United States v. Juan Delgado, Dagoberto Silva, Henry Escobar

903 F.2d 1495, 30 Fed. R. Serv. 1038, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 10078, 1990 WL 75081

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 25, 1990 | Docket: 996342

Cited 36 times | Published

the business.” 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.3, at 566 (1978). Indeed, it appears that, where

Cox v. State

219 So. 2d 762

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 1969 | Docket: 1705282

Cited 21 times | Published

to hearsay testimony. See 30 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 11.03 and 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 494. By his cross-examination

State Ex Rel. Watson v. City of Miami

15 So. 2d 481, 153 Fla. 653, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 726

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 1943 | Docket: 3269332

Cited 19 times | Published

office of the Secretary of State, as required by Section 11.03 Florida Statutes 1941. The Journal entry of

Allison v. Vintage Sports Plaques

136 F.3d 1443, 46 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1138, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5026, 1998 WL 119796

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 18, 1998 | Docket: 236776

Cited 17 times | Published

The Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 11.3 (1997). Because Allison resides in Alabama, treatment

Great Southern v. First Southern

625 So. 2d 463, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1522, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 525, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1630, 1993 WL 391614

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 1993 | Docket: 1517542

Cited 17 times | Published

result is a "coined" or "fanciful" mark. McCarthy, § 11.03[1] (footnote omitted).[8] KODAK, POLAROID and XEROX

Floyd v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

872 F.2d 1462, 1989 WL 44826

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 5, 1989 | Docket: 66244080

Cited 14 times | Published

alone. See Kreindler, 1 Aviation Accident Law § 11.03[2][b] at 11-42. Several cases have held that Article

Pro-Fab, Inc. v. Vipa, Inc., and Community Bank

772 F.2d 847, 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1779, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23448

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Oct 3, 1985 | Docket: 490321

Cited 14 times | Published

which would make it a holder in due course (Code Section 11-3-302) and in an appropriate case would make it

State v. Beja

451 So. 2d 882

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 16, 1984 | Docket: 1741278

Cited 13 times | Published

(See generally LaFave, Search and Seizure, Vol. 3, § 11.3 (1978).) The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of

Sims v. NEW FALLS CORP.

37 So. 3d 358, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7302, 2010 WL 2077145

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 2010 | Docket: 1239327

Cited 8 times | Published

difference between Fla. Stat. § 673.1181 and Ga. Stat. § 11-3-118(a), does not seem to have such far reaching

Hicks v. State

929 So. 2d 13, 2006 WL 197200

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 2006 | Docket: 1421869

Cited 8 times | Published

expectation of privacy. Wayne LaFave, Search & Seizure § 11.3(e), at 204 (4th ed. 2004) ("The officer's belief

Allison v. Vintage Sports Plaques

136 F.3d 1443

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 18, 1998 | Docket: 422491

Cited 8 times | Published

Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 11.3 (1997). Because Allison resides in Alabama, treatment

Nieminski v. State

60 So. 3d 521, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6058, 2011 WL 1599572

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 2011 | Docket: 60300260

Cited 6 times | Published

Search & Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 11.3 (4th ed. 2004). In this case, however, the "standing”

Haymons v. Williams

795 F. Supp. 1511, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17735, 1992 WL 119985

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1992 | Docket: 167514

Cited 6 times | Published

deficiencies of Underhill were described as follows: Section 11.3, Medicaid Home Health Provider Handbook states

State v. Scott

481 So. 2d 40, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 19

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 1985 | Docket: 464975

Cited 6 times | Published

initial stop or arrest); LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.3 (1978), and cases collected at 282-91 (Supp. 1985)

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Lambros

1 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16283, 1998 WL 154629

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 1998 | Docket: 2435683

Cited 4 times | Published

Defendant compels a modification of the award under § 11. [3] The Court notes that Plaintiffs have asserted

Coulter Electronics, Inc. v. Commercial Bank of Cobb County

727 F.2d 1078, 38 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 239, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24251

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 23, 1984 | Docket: 782368

Cited 4 times | Published

conversion of the checks under Official Ga.Code Ann. § 11-3-419(l)(c) (1982) (“An instrument is converted when

Dean v. State

430 So. 2d 491

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 1983 | Docket: 1508834

Cited 4 times | Published

(5th Cir.1975); 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.3 at 565-66 (1978). Moreover, the defendant made

Ferox, LLC v. Conseal International, Inc.

175 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 2016 WL 1242165

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 2016 | Docket: 64308002

Cited 3 times | Published

Agreement also contains an integration clause under Section 11.3, which reads: Entire Agreement; Amendment. This

PROGRESSIVE EXP. INS. CO., INC. v. Menendez

979 So. 2d 324, 2008 WL 723848

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 2008 | Docket: 1408057

Cited 2 times | Published

have a later effective date. See Ch. 2001-271, § 11(3), at 2948, Laws of Fla. (applying a later effective

Peachtree Cas. Ins. v. Prof. Massage Servs.

923 So. 2d 548, 2006 WL 536612

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2006 | Docket: 1496607

Cited 2 times | Published

rendered before October 1, 2001. See Ch.2001-271, § 11(3), Laws of Fla.[3] If, on the other hand, the county

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. West Gables Open MRI Services, Inc.

846 So. 2d 538, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2616

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 2003 | Docket: 1301457

Cited 2 times | Published

2001. This October 1, 2001 date appears in section 11(3) of the Act and provides: "Paragraphs (4)(b)

Ameritrust Company, N. A. v. White

73 F.3d 1553, 75 A.L.R. 5th 725, 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1277, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 1597, 1996 WL 21067

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 6, 1996 | Docket: 563487

Cited 2 times | Published

reaching its decision, the court relied on O.C.G.A. § 11-3-104(1), which reads: “Any writing to be a negotiable

Chavous v. Goodbred

30 So. 2d 370, 158 Fla. 826, 1947 Fla. LEXIS 644

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 1947 | Docket: 3266672

Cited 2 times | Published

sufficiency of the substance under another question. Section 11.03, Fla. Stat., 1941. F.S.A., imports no binding

Thomas v. State

596 So. 2d 518, 1992 WL 63446

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 1992 | Docket: 2213134

Cited 1 times | Published

(1978); see also 4 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 11.3(i) pgs. 359, 360 (1987). AFFIRMED. GOSHORN, C.J

Seritage SRC Finance, LLC v. the Town Center at Boca Raton Trust

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 18, 2024 | Docket: 69171804

Published

parcel, adjacent to the mall. The REA’s section 11.3 is the focus of the dispute before us. That

MidAmerica C2L Incorporated v. Siemens Energy, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 15, 2022 | Docket: 63002809

Published

20-11266 additional fee. Second, under § 11.3.1, the 2012 LSA allowed Sie- mens to terminate

JAVIER ALONSO-LLAMAZARES, M.D. v. INTERNATIONAL DERMATOLOGY RESEARCH, INC., etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 19, 2022 | Docket: 62607497

Published

no reason.” (emphasis added). Additionally, section 11.3, entitled, “Effects of Termination” includes

Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 31, 2021 | Docket: 60326089

Published

Park Rules deals with enforcement. Specifically, § 11.3, entitled “Trespass,” says that “[a]ny person or

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Ocean Reef Charters LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 6, 2021 | Docket: 59887025

Published

circumstances in which it occurred.” See id. at § 11(3). If there are still “special reasons for keeping

Robert Emerson v. Hillsborough County, Florida, etc. & Stacy White v. Hillsborough County, Florida, etc.

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 25, 2021 | Docket: 59682242

Published

effect for a period of thirty (30) years.” Id. § 11.03. Article 11 contains an elaborate scheme

Christian S. Gherardi v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 17, 2020 | Docket: 18446855

Published

Modification, not relevant here, is governed by 9 U.S.C. § 11. 3 Like several of our sister circuits, we previously

Estate of David Bass v. Regions Bank, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jan 21, 2020 | Docket: 16731925

Published

section of the Georgia UCC—namely, Georgia Code § 11-3-420.6 As we discuss below in Part V, this argument

Lopez v. State

225 So. 3d 330, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 10657, 2017 WL 3161046

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 2017 | Docket: 6126097

Published

their fruit. 6 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.3(e), text accompanying notes 294-96 (5th ed. and

State of Florida v. Jeffery D. Williams

184 So. 3d 1205

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 14, 2016 | Docket: 3028637

Published

Id. at 18 (citing 3 LaFave, Searches & Seizures § 11.3(f)); see also People v. Pereira, 150 Cal.App.4th

Emery v. American Airlines, Inc.

56 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148656, 2014 WL 5341881

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 2014 | Docket: 64298093

Published

establishes the PBAC, appointed pursuant to Section 11.3 of the Plan, which has the power to “administer

Weitz Co. v. MCW Acquisition, LLC

116 So. 3d 623, 2013 WL 3336857, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10602

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 2013 | Docket: 60232421

Published

rights under the "Other *625Contracts.” . Section 11.3 of the standard terms and conditions in the

Dunn v. Cox

560 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 44 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2704, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44895, 2008 WL 2370247

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2008 | Docket: 2340558

Published

Beneficiary is entitled to benefits." (2001 Plan § 11.3, Pl.'s Ex. 2 at 74; see also 2003 Plan § 13.1(d)

Dunn v. Cox

560 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 44 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2704, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44895, 2008 WL 2370247

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2008 | Docket: 2340558

Published

Beneficiary is entitled to benefits." (2001 Plan § 11.3, Pl.'s Ex. 2 at 74; see also 2003 Plan § 13.1(d)

Dean v. United States

330 F. Supp. 2d 1318, 94 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5427, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11563, 2004 WL 1587865

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: May 25, 2004 | Docket: 2181493

Published

under the control of a third party. Int. Rev. Man § 11.3.21.3(5). Special Agent Burgess's telephone calls

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Feb 12, 2003 | Docket: 3258454

Published

operating" airports and airport facilities. 8 Section 11(3), Ch. 71-924, Laws of Florida. 9 Section 11(4)(b)

Hillsborough Holdings Corp. v. United States (In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.)

179 B.R. 728, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 396, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 295, 75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1547

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 1995 | Docket: 65780995

Published

particular year at issue. Rev.Proc. 92-1, 1992-1 IRB § 11.03 (Jan. 6 1992). However, such a ruling is not binding

Davis v. State

582 So. 2d 61, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5584, 1991 WL 103423

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 14, 1991 | Docket: 64659972

Published

their guests.” *644 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 11.3, at 38 (Supp.1990) (footnote omitted). To conclude

Dillard v. Crenshaw County, Alabama

831 F.2d 246

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 2, 1987 | Docket: 66230206

Published

state law for county commissions. Code of Alabama § 11-3-20 (1975). Of course, for the Calhoun County structure

State v. Suco

502 So. 2d 446

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 1987 | Docket: 1181401

Published

expectation of privacy." 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.3(a), at 546 (1978). On the other hand, an opposite

State v. Fernandez

501 So. 2d 648, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11547, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 136

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 1986 | Docket: 64624654

Published

the home dweller. 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.3(b), at 553 (1978); see Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U

State v. Barrowclough

416 So. 2d 47, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20539

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 1982 | Docket: 64590934

Published

personal effects.” 3 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 11.3(f) (1978 & Supp.1980).

Ken Lones Landscaping v. Tucker

395 So. 2d 272, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19647

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 1981 | Docket: 64581015

Published

opinion. . Alpert, Florida Workmen's Compensation, § 11-3. . Id. at 1979 Supp. at 23-24.

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Jun 2, 1976 | Docket: 3255660

Published

authority to promulgate general personnel rules. Section 11(3), Ch. 75- 48, Laws of Florida, grants a limited

City of Coral Gables v. Brigham

321 So. 2d 615, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15571

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1975 | Docket: 64550327

Published

have § 11.07 [requiring building permits] and § 11.03 [requiring approval of a Board of Architects] of

Thacker v. State

313 So. 2d 426, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14817

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 1975 | Docket: 64546742

Published

basis for the plea at 8 J. Moore, Federal Practice § 11.03(4) (2d ed. 1975); Bruce v. United States, 1967