Florida Statute 29.018 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 29
COURT SYSTEM FUNDING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 29.018

29.018 Cost sharing of due-process services; legislative intent.—It is the intent of the Legislature to provide state-funded due-process services to the state courts system, state attorneys, public defenders, criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and private court-appointed counsel in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. The state courts system, state attorneys, public defenders, criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and the Justice Administrative Commission on behalf of private court-appointed counsel may enter into contractual agreements to share, on a pro rata basis, the costs associated with court reporting services, court interpreter and translation services, court experts, and all other due-process services funded by the state pursuant to this chapter. These costs shall be budgeted within the funds appropriated to each of the affected users of services.

History.—s. 95, ch. 2004-265; s. 20, ch. 2005-236; s. 21, ch. 2007-62.

F.S. 29.018 on Google Scholar

F.S. 29.018 on Casetext

Amendments to 29.018

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 29.018

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 29.018.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 29.018

Total Results: 10

Barbara Altomare v. Boca West Country Club, Inc.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-10-23T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: summary judgment in favor of the Club, awarding $88,029.18 in damages. The owner moved for rehearing, which…jurisdiction to enter a judgment in the amount of $88,029.18. Because we reverse on the second issue, we need

In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report No. 2012-05

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2013-12-05T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 131 So. 3d 755, 2013 WL 6305187

Snippet: Missing Person 16 Years of Age or Younger); and 29.18 (Failure to Appear). The Committee also proposes…574] and amended in 2012 [95 So.3d 868] and 2013. 29.18 FAILURE TO APPEAR § 843.15, Fla. Stat. To prove

Justice Administrative Commission v. Official Reporters, Inc.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2011-05-27T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 61 So. 3d 1269, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7746

Snippet: statutory requirements” from state revenues) and 29.018, Fla. Stat. (2010) (authorizing cost-sharing agreements

Moorman v. Hatfield

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2007-03-06T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 958 So. 2d 396

Snippet: services account of the local public defender. See § 29.018, Fla. Stat. (2005). [2] Under the authority granted

Way v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2000-04-20T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 760 So. 2d 903

Snippet: during the ensuing fire. Way I, 496 So.2d at 128-29. [18] This Court has previously rejected claims that

S.G. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1994-11-16T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 647 So. 2d 243, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11113, 1994 WL 637314

Snippet: entering a final order, the agency relied on Rule 10M-29.018, Florida Administrative Code, and concluded that…appellant correctly informs us, HRS repealed Rule 10M-29.018 several weeks before it entered its final order

State Department of Education v. Glasser

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1994-03-23T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 634 So. 2d 732, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 2715, 1994 WL 94127

Snippet: checks. If refunded, each taxpayer would receive $29.18. Such a refund, although not totally impossible,

Maybarduk v. Bustamante

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1974-05-10T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 294 So. 2d 374

Snippet: , supra; 40 Am.Jur.2d, Hospitals and Asylums, § 29; 18 Am.Jur.2d, Contribution, § 39. The factual circumstances

Rathburn v. Landess

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1930-08-02T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 129 So. 738, 100 Fla. 507

Snippet: 25 So. E. R. 794; Shaffer v. Archbold, 116 Ind. 29, 18 N.E. R. 56; N.D. Lbr. Co. v. Bulger, 125 N.W. R

Smith v. Newell

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1896-01-14T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 37 Fla. 147

Snippet: ; People vs. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 76 Cal. 29, 18 Pac. Rep. 90; Graham vs. Bickham, 4 Dallas (Pa.