Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 30.05 (2025)
Surety companies.
✓ 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
30.05 Surety companies.—The provisions of ss. 30.01-30.04, as to number of sureties, affidavits of residence and justification of same shall not apply to solvent surety companies authorized to do business and execute bonds in this state.
History.—s. 4, ch. 3724, 1887; RS 1237; GS 1666; RGS 2871; CGL 4568; s. 4, ch. 17754, 1937; s. 1, ch. 20719, 1941.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: M.M. v. State, 187 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
M.M. v. State, 187 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). “In upholding Milton’s conviction, the Texas appellate court correctly ■ observed that to hold otherwise “would be giving an absurd interpretation to the legislative intent behind the: statute:” In order for this' court to hold that appellant’s action did not amount to criminal…”
Bonifay v. Dickson, 459 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). “Boyer, Florida Real Estate Transactions § 30.05 (1984). [9] For the most part, the strip of land in dispute (the parties are not claiming an interest in the land under Bayou Boulevard) did not exist at the time of acceptance by the county, but is a product of accretion over the…”
Anderson v. State, 276 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1973). “2d 440 ; New York, § 30.05 Penal Law 1965; North Carolina, State v.”
United States v. 329.22 Acres of Land, More or Less, 307 F. Supp. 34 (M.D. Fla. 1968). “failure of the taxing authority to assess taxes upon the property platted as streets; Boyer, Florida Real Estate Transactions, Section 30.05; Am.Jur. Dedication, Section 33; cf.”
M.M. v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). “In upholding Milton’s conviction, the Texas appellate court correctly observed that to hold otherwise “would be giving an absurd interpretation to the legislative intent behind the statute:” In order for this court to hold that appellant’s action did not amount to criminal…”
Bridgefield Cas. Ins. Co. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2025). “” 7 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 30.05(1)(c) (3d ed.). Given recent events, granting leave and requiring Mr.”
— 30.05(1)(c) — 1 case
Bridgefield Cas. Ins. Co. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2025). “” 7 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 30.05(1)(c) (3d ed.). Given recent events, granting leave and requiring Mr.”
— 30.05(a) — 1 case
M.M. v. State, 187 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). “In upholding Milton’s conviction, the Texas appellate court correctly ■ observed that to hold otherwise “would be giving an absurd interpretation to the legislative intent behind the: statute:” In order for this' court to hold that appellant’s action did not amount to criminal…”
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.