Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 23.20 (2025)
Legislative intent with respect to paperwork reduction.
✓ 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
23.20 Legislative intent with respect to paperwork reduction.—The Legislature finds that:
(1) The paperwork burden associated with collecting information from individuals, private sector organizations, and local governments may have a significant economic impact on these entities as they attempt to comply with the state’s information reporting requirements.
(2) These information-reporting requirements are found in most interactions between state government and these entities, such as application and permitting processes, title registration, various licensure processes, environmental monitoring, growth management, and tax collection.
(3) The failure of state agencies to identify information they are collecting and to share that information with other agencies, as well as with local governments, has increased the paperwork burden on other entities.
(4) The state must minimize the paperwork burden by evaluating its need for information, determining whether it already has access to the necessary information, and coordinating data collection initiatives at their source.
(5) The collection of information by state government must be done in a manner that balances the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of government with the cost and convenience to individuals, private sector organizations, and local governments providing the information.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2000–2009 · leading case: Browning v. Angelfish Swim Sch., Inc., 1 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
Browning v. Angelfish Swim Sch., Inc., 1 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “2d 740 (1982) (noting tendency of commonality, typicality and adequacy to merge); see generally Moore's, supra at § 23.20. The analysis made here could just as well have been made under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.”
Fabricant v. Roebuck, 202 F.R.D. 306 (S.D. Fla. 2001). “1992); 5 Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 23.20-21 (3d ed.1999). A class is properly defined if it is administratively feasible for the court to ascertain whether an individual is a member.”
Neumont v. Monroe Cnty., 198 F.R.D. 554 (S.D. Fla. 2000). “” 5 Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 23.20-21 (3d ed.1999). Stated differently, “[a] proposed class is permissible under Rule 23 so long as it is not too amorphous or incapable of a reasonably precise definition.”
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.