Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 11.26 (2025)
Legislative employees; employment restrictions.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
11.26 Legislative employees; employment restrictions.—No employee of the Legislature shall:
(1) Subject to the provisions of s. 11.0431, reveal to any person outside the area of the employee’s direct responsibility the contents or nature of any request for services made by any member of the Legislature, except with the consent of the member making such request.
(2) Give legal advice on any subject to any person, firm, or corporation, except members or staff of the Legislature.
(3) No full-time legislative employee shall be otherwise employed, except with the written permission of the presiding officer of the house by which he or she is employed. Employees of joint committees must have the permission of the presiding officers of both houses.
History.—s. 11, ch. 25369, 1949; s. 19, ch. 68-35; s. 26, ch. 69-52; s. 1, ch. 75-208; s. 2, ch. 93-405; s. 15, ch. 95-147; s. 19, ch. 96-318.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: USA Nutraceuticals Grp., Inc. v. BPI Sports, LLC, 165 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (S.D. Fla. 2016).
USA Nutraceuticals Grp., Inc. v. BPI Sports, LLC, 165 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (S.D. Fla. 2016). “2005) (citing 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 11.26 (4th ed.)). Last, an arbitrary mark is one that “bears no relationship to the product (e.”
Tornes v. Bank of Am., N.A., 275 F.R.D. 654 (S.D. Fla. 2011). “” 4 Newberg § 11.26. “Preliminary approval is appropriate where the proposed settlement is the result of the parties’ good faith negotiations, there are no obvious deficiencies and the settlement falls within the range of reason.”
Tancogne v. Tomjai Enter. Corp., 408 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (S.D. Fla. 2005). “2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 11.26 (4th ed.). Thus, for example, in Application of Colonial Stores, Inc.”
In Re Est. of Sweet, 254 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). “Equitable Conversion § 11 (1966); 3 American Law of Property § 11.26 (Casner ed. 1952). The testator contracted to sell the property before her death, and the contract was enforceable against her and binding upon her heirs, devisees, and personal representatives.”
Prieto v. Crete Carrier Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2019). “” 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 11.26. “Preliminary approval is appropriate where the proposed settlement is the result of the parties’ good faith negotiations, there are no obvious deficiencies and the settlement falls within the range of reason.”
Pet Parade, Inc. v. Stokes Healthcare, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2021). ““Preliminary approval is appropriate where the proposed settlement is the result of the parties’ good faith negotiations, there are no obvious deficiencies and the settlement falls within the range of reason.” Smith v. Wm. Wrigley Jr.”
Desue v. 20/20 Eye Care Network, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2022). “” 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 11.26. “Preliminary approval is appropriate where the proposed settlement is the result of the parties’ good faith negotiations, there are no obvious deficiencies, and the settlement falls within the range of reason.”
Geleng v. Indep. Living Sys., LLC (S.D. Fla. 2025). “” 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 11.26. “Preliminary approval is appropriate where the proposed settlement is the result of the parties’ good faith negotiations, there are no obvious deficiencies and the settlement falls within the range of reason.”
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.