Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 30.14 (2025)
Succession of office.
✓ 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
30.14 Succession of office.—
(1) Upon the expiration of the term of office, the sheriff shall deliver to his or her successor in office, taking a receipt for the same, the following:
(a) All such writs and processes as shall remain in his or her hands unexecuted; and
(b) All persons who are held in confinement by legal process, with the warrants, indictments, or causes of such confinement.
(2)(a) Upon the death of any sheriff, the executors, administrators, or other representatives shall deliver by hand, taking a receipt for the same, all papers and documents which relate to official duties and which were in the possession of and belonging to such decedent as sheriff.
(b) If the successor as sheriff should not be qualified in due time to serve or execute the process of the court, the chief deputy of such deceased sheriff shall be appointed by an order from the judge of the circuit court to fulfill the responsibilities and requirements of subsection (1) until such time as a successor is qualified.
(3) The succeeding sheriff, or the chief deputy pursuant to paragraph (2)(b), shall sell and carry into effect any levy made by a predecessor in office in like manner as the former sheriff could have done had he or she continued therein, and shall make titles to the purchaser for all the property sold under execution or other process and not conveyed by any predecessor.
(4) In any case in which an incumbent sheriff neglects or refuses to turn over such process in the manner aforesaid, such person shall be liable to make such satisfaction by damage and costs to the party aggrieved as he or she shall sustain by reason of such neglect or refusal.
History.—s. 16, Nov. 23, 1828; RS 1254; GS 1682; RGS 2890; CGL 4587; s. 7, ch. 22858, 1945; s. 1, ch. 87-288; s. 178, ch. 95-147.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 1998–1998 · leading case: Singer v. AT & T Corp., 185 F.R.D. 681 (S.D. Fla. 1998).
Singer v. AT & T Corp., 185 F.R.D. 681 (S.D. Fla. 1998). “MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION, THIRD § 30.14 (1995). Thus, class definition is an implicit requirement which must be met before a Rule 23 analysis can be undertaken by the district court.”
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.