The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 22
EMERGENCY CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 22.20

22.20 Emergency continuity of government; political subdivision.—

(1) Whenever, due to an emergency resulting from the effects of enemy attack, or the anticipated effects of a threatened enemy attack, it becomes imprudent, inexpedient or impossible to conduct the affairs of the government of a political subdivision of the state at the normal location of the seat thereof, the governing body of such political subdivision shall, as often as the exigencies of the situation require, by proclamation, declare an emergency temporary location, or locations, for the seat of government at such place, or places within or without the territorial limits of its political jurisdiction, as deemed advisable under the circumstances, and shall take such action and issue such orders as may be necessary for an orderly transition of the affairs of the government of the political subdivision to such emergency temporary location, or locations. Such emergency temporary location, or locations, shall remain as the seat of such government until a new seat of government is established by due processes of the law, or until the emergency is declared to be ended by the Governor and the seat of government is returned to its normal location.

(2) During such time as the seat of government remains at such emergency temporary location, or locations, all official acts now or hereafter required by law to be performed at the seat of government by any officer, agency, department or authority of the political subdivision, including the convening of the governing body thereof in regular, extraordinary or emergency session, shall be as valid and binding when performed at such emergency temporary location, or locations, as if performed at the normal location of the seat of government.

(3) The provisions of this section shall control and be supreme in the event it shall be employed, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary or in conflict herewith.

History.—ss. 1, 2, 3, ch. 61-352.

F.S. 22.20 on Google Scholar

F.S. 22.20 on Casetext

Amendments to 22.20

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 22.20

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 22.20.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

AVENTURE COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY, L. L. C. v. IOWA UTILITIES BOARD, B. K. L. L. C. d b a MCI d b a L. L. C. f k a AT T TCG L. P., 734 F. Supp. 2d 636 (N.D. Iowa 2010)

. . . Finally, the HVAS Order amended the introductory paragraph of subrule 22.20(5), with amendments underlined . . . , as follows: 22.20(5) Certificate revocation. . . . Reading the pertinent new portion of Rule 22.20(5), in light of plain meaning, Trans States Airlines, . . . access (HVAS) charges in a manner consistent with the requirements of 199 IAC 22.11,” Amended Rule 22.20 . . . Nor is amended Rule 22.20(5), which equates failure to bill for HVAS appropriately with failure to furnish . . .

VERIZON WASHINGTON, D. C. INC. v. COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL- CIO,, 569 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . newly created senior voice mail clerk position, and (3) pay senior voice mail clerks at a rate of $22.20 . . .

LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 522 F.3d 378 (D.C. Cir. 2008)

. . . production cost equalization for the next fourteen years, with total deviations ranging from 7.71 to 22.20 . . .

TMJ IMPLANTS, INC. a v. AETNA, INC. a CIGNA a a CIGNA a CIGNA a a CIGNA a CIGNA a, 498 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . Ch. 22.20 (citing Restatement § 583 for instruction on affirmative defense of consent). . . . .

HOWARD v. ASHCROFT, E. P. v., 248 F. Supp. 2d 518 (M.D. La. 2003)

. . . Federal Register and began using them throughout the country in 1973, and later codified them at 28 CFR § 22.20 . . .

FERGUSON v. ASHCROFT, G. v., 248 F. Supp. 2d 547 (M.D. La. 2003)

. . . Federal Register and began using them throughout the country in 1973, and later codified them at 28 CFR § 22.20 . . .

R. TIRAPELLI v. ADVANCED EQUITIES, INC. WD, 222 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Ill. 2002)

. . . TCG Defendants are entitled to $444.00 in costs for the 148-page Webb deposition — a reduction of $22.20 . . . Therefore, the TCG Defendants’ bill of costs is reduced by $22.20. . . .

ROGERS CORPORATION, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 275 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 22.20(a), was arbitrary and capricious. . . . September 12, 1997, the company filed a motion for an accelerated decision, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 22.20 . . . See. 40 C.F.R. 22.20(a). . . . neither the Board nor the ALJ could find that “no genuine issue of material fact exists.” 40 C.F.R. § 22.20 . . .

AQUILINO, Ph. D. v. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS,, 109 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (D. Kan. 2000)

. . . Plaintiff also seeks to recover $873.17 for travel, $79.46 for computer research, $22.20 for local counsel . . . award plaintiff expenses in the amount of $940.93 ($836.72 for travel, $79.46 for computer research, $22.20 . . .

In E. STELLMAN,, 237 B.R. 759 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1999)

. . . 78.75 12/19/98 19838 Headboard, footboard 17.93 mo. 30.45 12/19/98 12990 Four drawer chest 17.93 mo. 22.20 . . .

In SEXTON,, 230 B.R. 346 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1999)

. . . Additionally, the sum of $2,737.58 was used to pay off a prior loan with American General and $22.20 . . .

KIM S TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. v. GENERAL CHAUFFEURS, SALES, DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,, 13 F. Supp. 2d 715 (N.D. Ill. 1998)

. . . which abided by the ACA’s wage terms, which specified that asphalt hauling drivers were to receive $22.20 . . .

M. FLATOW, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,, 999 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1998)

. . . .”); see also id. at § 22.20-21. . . .

FAJARDO SHOPPING CENTER, S. E. v. SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. OF PUERTO RICO, INC., 999 F. Supp. 213 (D.P.R. 1998)

. . . As much as 22.20 inches of rainfall were recorded at Cayey, followed by 20.5 inches at Naguabo and 20.45 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MARINE SHALE PROCESSORS,, 81 F.3d 1361 (5th Cir. 1996)

. . . . § 22.20(a)(2). . . . Louisiana’s counterpart to the federal Product Rule was L.H.W.R. § 22.20(a)(2), superseded by L.H.W.R . . . The parties agree that the following fairly unusual chain of events occurred regarding L.H.W.R. § 22.20 . . .

NEMBHARD, v. MEMORIAL SLOAN- KETTERING CANCER CENTER,, 918 F. Supp. 784 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . Cuomo 22.20 x 150 = 3,330.00 Rocco A. Marciano 53.55 x 95 = 5,087.25 H. . . . Cuomo 22.20 x ISO = 3,330.00 Rocco A. Marciano 53.55 x 65 = 3,480.75 H. . . .

PEOPLE TERRITORY OF GUAM, v. J. S. TORRE,, 68 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1995)

. . . . § 22.20(a)(2). FACTS Torre was a security officer at the Naval Station in Sumay, Guam. . . .

D. RICHARDS, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 884 F. Supp. 256 (N.D. Ohio 1995)

. . . Fraser 22.20 $105/hr 5.80 2331.00 Total 57.25 28.30 5310.00 Defendant objects to the amount of attorney . . .

PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCT AND SEWER AUTHORITY, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 35 F.3d 600 (1st Cir. 1994)

. . . . §§ 22.20, 124.75, 164.91 (1993) (EPA); 29 C.F.R. 102.-35(h) (1993) (NLRB); 29 C.F.R. § 2200.2 (1993 . . .

FLORIDA CELLULAR MOBIL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, C. As WCC JAJ, 28 F.3d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 22.20(a)(2) (1993). . . .

MOVING PHONES PARTNERSHIP L. P. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, a E. Jr. CSH L. P. PC RSA AAT R S A L. P. II,, 998 F.2d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 22.20(a)(2). . . . See 47 C.F.R. § 22.20(a); Cellular Lottery Order, 98 F.C.C.2d at 195. . . . Taken together, the rule governing acceptability, 47 C.F.R. § 22.20(a)(2), and the rule governing acceptance . . .

F. JAMES, v. McCAW CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 988 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1993)

. . . information showings, and comply with the Commission’s rules in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to Section 22.20 . . .

ALM CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION II,, 974 F.2d 380 (3d Cir. 1992)

. . . . § 22.20 (1991), is comparable to a motion for summary judgment or, as in this matter, partial summary . . .

L. CATTIN F. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 955 F.2d 416 (6th Cir. 1992)

. . . October 1986 for salaried employees, level five or above, equals years of credited service multiplied by $22.20 . . . credited service would have an entitlement of monthly basic benefits of twenty-seven multiplied by $22.20 . . .

R. SINGLETON, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,, 952 F.2d 1444 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

. . . See 47 CFR § 22.20. . . . Here the source of the standard is 47 CFR § 22.20(a), which says in essence that an application will . . . Apart from § 22.20(a), we find that standard in the Commission’s prior Phase 2 decisions. . . . However, as we affirm the FCC’s determination that the application satisfied 47 CFR § 22.20(a), i.e., . . .

CLEVELAND, By CLEVELAND v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a, 890 F.2d 1540 (10th Cir. 1989)

. . . proffered special verdict form, based upon New Mexico’s Uniform Standard Jury Instructions — Civil 22.20 . . .

In HANSON,, 71 B.R. 193 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1987)

. . . assessing and entering judgment for all or part of the costs of the proceeding against the attorney (SCR 22.20 . . .

In HARTDEGEN In HEATH Jr. H., 67 B.R. 230 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1986)

. . . owed to Fort McClellan Credit Union be paid directly by the debtors to the creditor at the rate of $22.20 . . .

PEOPLE OF TERRITORY OF GUAM, v. YANG,, 800 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 22.20(a)(2) and 9 Guam Code Ann. §§ 25.15(a)(6) & (b). . . .

B. K. INSTRUMENT, INC. v. UNITED STATES L. F. U. S. CECOM,, 715 F.2d 713 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1970 Supplement § 22.20, at 778-82 (1971). . . . . § 22.20, at 781, was an opinion of Judge Burger, as he then was, for the Court of Appeals for the District . . .

STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT BOARD, v. FLUOR CORPORATION Co., 566 F. Supp. 945 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)

. . . Manufacturers’ average price for the 208,-600 shares was $22.20. . . .

L. JOHNSON T. J. C. R. A. R. v. N. STUART,, 702 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1983)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.20 at 196 (Supp.1978)). . . .

CHEMITHON CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES, 1 Cl. Ct. 747 (Ct. Cl. 1983)

. . . Whitco bid $18.28; Purex Corporation, $22.20; and Plex bid low at $13.00. . . .

RICHTER CONCRETE CORP. v. HILLTOP BASIC RESOURCES, INC., 547 F. Supp. 893 (S.D. Ohio 1981)

. . . Richter underbid Hilltop at $22.20 p.c.y., but Plainville underbid them both at $21.45 p.c.y. and won . . . Richter underbid Hilltop at $22.20 p.c.y., but Plainville underbid them both at $21.45 p.c.y. and won . . . Finally, Hilltop bid $22.20 p.c.y. for the Polk Run Creek Pump Station job, but Moraine won the contract . . .

CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,, 628 F.2d 1289 (10th Cir. 1980)

. . . Administrative Law of the Seventies, Supplementing Administrative Law Treatise, Standing, §§ 22.02-11 through 22.20 . . .

BOATING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS, a a a d b a a a a v. MARSHALL, P., 601 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1979)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.20 at 196 (Supp.1978). . . .

UNITED STATES v. SPEERS, 429 F. Supp. 188 (W.D. Okla. 1977)

. . . . § 22.20). . . .

DOE H. v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, 415 F. Supp. 308 (N.D. Cal. 1976)

. . . The final decision of the hearing panel may be reviewed.first by the Advisory Review Panel, Rule 22.20 . . .

UNITED STATES KUKLA, v. G. GILLEN,, 452 F.2d 611 (7th Cir. 1971)

. . . unable to support her mother because her husband was bankrupt and because she would soon lose her $22.20 . . .

BIGGERS, v. S. NEIL,, 448 F.2d 91 (6th Cir. 1971)

. . . See Criminal Investigation and Interrogation, Gerber and Schroeder ed., § 22.20 (1962); Criminal Investigation . . .

LINDSEY v. E. SMITH, E., 303 F. Supp. 1203 (W.D. Wash. 1969)

. . . 15 yrs. 40.45 35.95 32.95 29.95 28.45 26.95 Girl, 16 through 20 yrs. 33.30 29.60 27.10 24.65 23.40 22.20 . . .

PALMER, v. C. C. PEYTON,, 359 F.2d 199 (4th Cir. 1966)

. . . . § 22.20 (1962). . Malinski v. . . .

H. PRICE, Jr. v. UNITED STATES L., 179 F. Supp. 309 (E.D. Va. 1959)

. . . For a consideration of $22.20 per annum, plaintiff elected, pursuant to the rights-granted him, to take . . .

ATLAS BUILDING PRODUCTS CO. v. DIAMOND BLOCK GRAVEL CO., 269 F.2d 950 (10th Cir. 1959)

. . . quality to the building trade for 230 per block, less 10 per cent, plus 1 y20 haulage, or a net of 22.20 . . .

CAPITAL COMPRESSED STEEL CO. v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC R. CO. CAPITAL COMPRESSED STEEL CO. v. ST. LOUIS- SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO., 183 F.2d 691 (10th Cir. 1950)

. . . The bid was on a basis of $22.20 per ton, which was the current price for scrap iron. . . .

a v., 6 T.C. 753 (T.C. 1946)

. . . States in the United States District Court, Civil No. 1028, in the total sum of $286,445.49, plus $22.20 . . .

WALLING, U. S. v. MOORE MILLING CO., 62 F. Supp. 378 (W.D. Va. 1945)

. . . At this rate, for 40 hours, she would be entitled to $22.20. . . . Therefore under this formula her weekly compensation for a work week of 54 hours should have been $22.20 . . .

JOHNSON v. DIERKS LUMBER COAL CO., 130 F.2d 115 (8th Cir. 1942)

. . . overtime work performed subsequent to October 24, 1940, and to Gunter for the same reason the sum of $22.20 . . . evidence the court on its own motion directed a verdict against Veazey, but in favor of Gunter for $22.20 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ELGIN, J. E. RY. CO., 11 F. Supp. 435 (N.D. Ill. 1935)

. . . Jackson, Ind., a distance of 53.10 miles; from Danville, 111., to Sirlell Junction, 111., a distance of 22.20 . . .

WALKER v. LEE, 71 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1934)

. . . The next item is one for the sum of $22.20 covering carbon copies of the depositions. . . .

UNITED STATES TAYLOR v. FIDELITY DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND HAVEMANN,, 4 F. Supp. 211 (D. Idaho 1930)

. . . ............. 2.35 20# 8 D nails........ 1.40 2 #3 D nails..........16 10/22 1 blacksmith drill.....22.20 . . .

Wo Co. v., 15 Ct. Cust. 337 (C.C.P.A. 1927)

. . . Net weight of contents of can, 22.20 avoirdupois ounces. . . .

CONNECTICUT MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. EATON,, 218 F. 206 (D. Conn. 1914)

. . . $2,220.67, was erroneously included, then the complainant would on account thereof be entitled to recover $22.20 . . .

FOWLER v. PALMER, 160 F. 1 (4th Cir. 1908)

. . . Palmer, in his own right for $9,250, with interest at 5% from November 18, 1903, till paid, and costs, $22.20 . . .

UNITED STATES v. VANDIVER, 133 F. 252 (E.D. Pa. 1904)

. . . Vandiver,” and the duty is set down at $22.20. . . .

UNITED STATES v. TISDALE, U. S., 114 F. 883 (5th Cir. 1902)

. . . , $54.54, $14.10, $5.71, 78e., $20.47, $7.64,• $26.96, $40.02, $36.35, $11.33, $7.80, •$11.10, $4, $22.20 . . .

CLOUGH v. UNITED STATES, 55 F. 921 (C.C.W.D. Tenn. 1893)

. . . These items, amounting, respectively, to $22.20 and $1.80, are therefore allowed here. . . .

v., 4 D.C. 203 (C.C.D.C. 1832)

. . . 1,325.00 Commission for paying mechanics in navy-yard, 900.00 Overcharge for travelling expenses in 1831, 22.20 . . .