The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 26
CIRCUIT COURTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 26.57

26.57 Temporary designation of county court judge to preside over circuit court cases.—A county court judge may be designated on a temporary basis to preside over circuit court cases by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upon recommendation of the chief judge of the circuit. He or she may be assigned to exercise all county and circuit court jurisdiction in the county, except appeals from the county court. In addition, he or she may be required to perform the duties of circuit judge in other counties of the circuit as time may permit and as the need arises, as determined by the chief judge of the circuit. A county court judge designated to preside over circuit court cases shall receive the same salary as a circuit court judge, to the extent that funds are specifically appropriated by law for such purposes.

History.—s. 1, ch. 74-217; s. 115, ch. 95-147; s. 2, ch. 2008-111; s. 1, ch. 2009-61.

F.S. 26.57 on Google Scholar

F.S. 26.57 on Casetext

Amendments to 26.57

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 26.57

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 26.57.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

PHILPOT, v. MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER INC., 279 F. Supp. 3d 708 (E.D. Va. 2018)

. . . Photographs might be considered commercial only insofar as defendant received very small amounts of revenue ($26.57 . . .

L. ARCHER, v. YORK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 227 F. Supp. 3d 361 (M.D. Pa. 2016)

. . . In the same year, at New Hope 26.57% of the students were determined to be “proficient” or “advanced” . . .

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, PUERTO RICO TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. AMEDISYS, INCORPORATED F. E. H. F. D. v. F. E. v. F. E. F. H. W. v. F. E., 769 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . As a result, its stock price declined 24.13% or $8.45 per share to close at $26.57 the next day. . . .

BARCLAY J. J. E. A. F. J. E. J. v. UNITED STATES, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Kan. 2004)

. . . The second portion of this corridor is 26.57 miles in length and lies in Dickinson and Morris Counties . . . A second NITU, which applied to the 26.57 miles of rail line identified in ¶ 23 of the Complaint, was . . .

BANCAMERICA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION ASARCO v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC., 900 F. Supp. 1427 (D. Kan. 1995)

. . . 62.74% $15.08 $9.46 $1,082.96 5/93 6/24/93 $8,525.00 $7,777.50 $0.00 $2,514.00 $5,263.50 61.74% $43.03 $26.57 . . .

L. NIPPER A. D. D. W. v. SMITH R., 39 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 26.57 (assignment of county judges to sit as circuit judges). . . .

ROBBINS, v. CAMDEN CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,, 105 F.R.D. 49 (D.N.J. 1985)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice II 26.57[1] (2d ed. 1984), the same is not true of the identity of trial witnesses . . .

GILHULY v. JOHNS- MANVILLE CORP., 100 F.R.D. 752 (D. Conn. 1983)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.57[1] at 26-198 (Rule 26 “has also been applied to permit inquiry . . .

In TRANTEX CORPORATION, CREDITORS COMMITTEE OF TRANTEX CORPORATION, v. BAYBANK VALLEY TRUST COMPANY,, 10 B.R. 235 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1981)

. . . likely to be objectionable on the basis of the work-product doctrine. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.57 . . .

ARCO PIPELINE COMPANY v. S S TRADE STAR,, 81 F.R.D. 416 (E.D. Pa. 1978)

. . . Continental Insurance Co., 63 F.R.D. 113 (D.Del.1974); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.57[1] (2d ed. . . .

BAKI, v. B. F. DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,, 71 F.R.D. 179 (D. Md. 1976)

. . . See 8 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2032, p. 255; 4 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 26.57 . . .

M. RODGERS, a k a J. v. STATE, 325 So. 2d 48 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . In support of this position, which we submit is not well taken, appellant relies on Section 26.57, Florida . . .

MARITIME CINEMA SERVICE CORP. v. MOVIES EN ROUTE, INC., 60 F.R.D. 587 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)

. . . Practice ¶[ 26.57 [1]. The interpretation of relevancy in antitrust cases is quite broad. . . .

J. DUFFY, v. A. DIER, NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, a v. A. DIER,, 465 F.2d 416 (8th Cir. 1972)

. . . Overseas Tankship Corporation, 16 F.R.D. 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1954); 4 Moore, Federal Practice, § 26.57[2] at . . .

In PIZZOLATO,, 281 F. Supp. 109 (W.D. Ark. 1967)

. . . 3/1/66 1/24/66 158.04 .76 4341.03 9/1/65 4/11/66 4/11/66 78.28 296.44 4044.59 4/1/66 5/5/66 5/5/66 26.57 . . .