Florida Statute 17.29 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 17
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 17.29

17.29 Authority to prescribe rules.—The Chief Financial Officer may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement this chapter and the duties assigned by statute or the State Constitution. Such rules may include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Procedures or policies relating to the processing of payments from salaries, other personal services, or any other applicable appropriation.

(2) Procedures for processing interagency and intraagency payments that do not require the issuance of a state warrant.

(3) Procedures or policies requiring that payments made by the state for goods, services, or anything of value be made by electronic means, including, but not limited to, debit cards, credit cards, or electronic funds transfers.

(4) A method that reasonably accommodates persons who, because of technological, financial, or other hardship, may not be able to receive payments by electronic means. The Chief Financial Officer may make payments by state warrant if deemed administratively necessary.

History.—s. 7, ch. 83-132; s. 65, ch. 95-147; s. 7, ch. 98-200; s. 41, ch. 2003-261; s. 3, ch. 2010-151.

F.S. 17.29 on Google Scholar

F.S. 17.29 on Casetext

Amendments to 17.29

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 17.29

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 17.29.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 17.29

Total Results: 20

LOANFLIGHT LENDING, LLC v. BANKRATE, LLC

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-02-07T00:00:00-08:00

Snippet: Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 29 (2d Cir.[ ]2002). Vitacost.com, Inc. v. McCants

MICHAEL D. JONES v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2021-05-26T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: caused by the event.” Hayward v. State, 24 So. 3d 17, 29 (Fla. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks

ROBERT NEWBY v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2019-05-29T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: Fla. 2013) (quoting Hayward v. State, 24 So. 3d 17, 29 (Fla. 2009)).

BRANDON HINCK v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2018-12-04T23:53:00-08:00

Snippet: caused by the event. Hayward v. State, 24 So. 3d 17, 29 (Fla. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks

DENNIS TAYLOR v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2018-09-21T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: closing argument. See Hayward v. State, 24 So. 3d 17, 29 (Fla. 2009) ("A trial judge's ruling on

DENNIS TAYLOR v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2018-09-21T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: closing argument. See Hayward v. State, 24 So. 3d 17, 29 (Fla. 2009) ("A trial judge's ruling on

ASAD U. KHAN v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2018-04-06T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: discretion." Hayward v. State, 24 So. 3d 17, 29 (Fla. 2009). That discretion, however, must be

Oscar Hanson v. Julie Jones, Sec., Dept. of Corrections

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2017-10-05T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: ROWE, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR. 17-0029 District Court of Appeal of Florida fladistctapp

Roop v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2017-10-04T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 228 So. 3d 633

Snippet: caused by the event.’ ” Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 29 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Hudson v. State, 992 So.2d

ARTIS KELLY v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2017-08-30T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: of timely filed motion for rehearing. 17-0029 District Court of Appeal of Florida fladistctapp

Quentin Marcus Truehill v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2017-02-23T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 211 So. 3d 930, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 223, 2017 WL 727167, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 374

Snippet: (Fla. 2014) (quoting Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 29 (Fla. 2009)). As this Court has previously held

Vitacost.com, Inc. v. McCants

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2017-02-15T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 210 So. 3d 761, 2017 WL 608531, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2067

Snippet: contract.” Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 29 (2d Cir.[ ]2002) (applying California law). Nguyen

Jonathan D. Walker v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2015-12-09T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 180 So. 3d 1154, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18415

Snippet: discretion. Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 29 (Fla.2009) (citation omitted). “The trial court

Charlie Wyne v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2015-07-29T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 189 So. 3d 840, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11408

Snippet: See, e.g., Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 29-30 (Fla.2009). Where the declarant is still under

Richard R. Mcdade v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2014-12-11T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 154 So. 3d 292, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 752, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3681

Snippet: decisis.” Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 29 (Fla.2009) (internal citations omitted). In

Davis v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2013-07-08T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 121 So. 3d 462, 2013 WL 3334954

Snippet: principles of stare decisis.” Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 29 (Fla.2009) (citations omitted). Additionally, “…principles of stare decisis.” Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 29 (Fla.2009). In failing to follow this Court’s instructions

State, Department of Financial Services v. Peter R. Brown Construction, Inc.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2013-03-01T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 108 So. 3d 723, 2013 WL 764965, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3325

Snippet: under the authority of section 17.29, Florida Statutes, which provides: 17.29. Authority to prescribe rules…statute, section 17.29, Florida Statutes (2012). The ALJ reasoned that while section 17.29 conferred broad… of the subsections in section 17.29, the ALJ stated that section 17.29(1) specifically authorizes the…granted by section 17.29.” We agree with the ALJ’s interpretation of section 17.29 and her conclusion …process expenditures, not to prohibit them. Section 17.29(2) only relates to procedures for processing interagency

Bischoff v. Walker

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2013-02-08T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 107 So. 3d 1165, 2013 WL 461805, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2003

Snippet: 653, 665 (Wyo.2007). 12 Am. Jur. Boundaries, § 17, § 29. The same rules of construction hold true with

Williams v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2011-09-21T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 70 So. 3d 733, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14944, 2011 WL 4374298

Snippet: the event.'" Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 29 (Fla.2009) (quoting Hudson v. State, 992 So.2d

Lucas v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2011-07-13T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 67 So. 3d 332, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11011, 2011 WL 2694519

Snippet: caused by the event. *336Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 29 (Fla.2009) (citation and internal quotation marks