Personal Injury Lawyer

Florida Statute 34.13 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

F.S. 34.13 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:

Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 34.13

The 2023 Florida Statutes

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 34
COUNTY COURTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 34.13

34.13 Method of prosecution.—

(1) All persons tried in the county court on any criminal charge shall be tried upon indictment by the grand jury, upon information filed by the prosecuting attorney, or upon affidavit or complaint.

(2) Upon the finding of indictments by the grand jury for crimes cognizable by the county court, the clerk of the court, without any order therefor, shall docket the same on the trial docket of the county court.

(3) The state attorney is authorized to sign affidavits before the judge of the county court when the state attorney has evidence to support such affidavit for a criminal charge over which such court has jurisdiction. The judge shall issue arrest warrants upon such affidavit as is done in all other cases. This procedure shall be cumulative to all other practice and procedure before such courts.

(4) Upon complaint made on affidavit to any county court that any misdemeanor has been committed, the county court judge may issue a warrant on the usual form, making it returnable before himself or herself or another county court judge.

(5) Municipal prosecutors may prosecute violations of municipal ordinances.

(6) Any circuit court clerk acting as clerk of the county court, or any deputy county court clerk appointed for the sole purpose of issuing arrest warrants, or any county court clerk, may, at municipal expense, administer an oath to and take affidavit of any person charging another person with a violation of a municipal ordinance and may issue a warrant on the usual form, making it returnable to the appropriate county court judge. The authority granted to a clerk or deputy clerk under this section shall be subordinate to that of any state judge.

History.—s. 9, ch. 3730, 1887; RS 2837; GS 3894; RGS 5989; CGL 8283; s. 13, ch. 72-404; s. 2, ch. 73-297; s. 197, ch. 95-147; s. 53, ch. 2003-402; s. 6, ch. 2013-25.

F.S. 34.13 on Google Scholar

F.S. 34.13 on Casetext

Amendments to 34.13

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 34.13

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 34.13.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court

11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All

Williams v. State
742 So. 2d 496 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 2 times
The supreme court has stated that " jurisdiction to try an accused does not exist under article I, section 15 of the Florida Constitution unless there is an extant information, indictment, or presentment filed by the state." State v. Anderson, 537 So.2d 1373, 1374 (Fla. 1989) (emphasis added). This, of course, necessarily includes the power to accept a guilty or nolo plea. The court's jurisdictional pronouncement is based on article I, section 15, which expressly provides that no one in this state can be tried for a felony absent a presentment, indictment, or "information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer of the court"(emphasis added). See §§ 34.13( 1), 932.47, 932.48, Fla. Stat. Similarly with regard to juveniles, a statute provides that "[a]ll proceedings seeking a finding that a child has committed a delinquent act or violation of law shall be initiated by the state by the filing of a petition for delinquency by the state attorney." § 985.218(1), (2), Fla. Stat. Clearly, then in this state, a court obtains jurisdiction to try a felony case or accept a guilty or nolo plea or to find a juvenile to be delinquent or in violation of the law only upon the filing…
Schlosser v. Coleman
818 F. Supp. 1534 (M.D. Fla. 1993) Cited 3 times
Motion to dismiss
2 more...
When Defendant Parker approved the warrant application, set bail, approved the plea agreement, and oversaw the hearings at issue, he was acting pursuant to his judicial functions. Florida Statutes, section 34.13 (1991) states that a county court judge shall issue arrest warrants upon submission of affidavits from the state attorney. Section 903.03(1) provides that county courts have the jurisdiction "to hear and decide all preliminary motions regarding bail. . . ." Thus, the actions Plaintiff alleges Defendant Parker took fall within the judicial function as defined by the relevant state statutes. Defendant Parker's actions cannot be characterized as administrative in nature. Therefore, Defendant Parker is immune from Plaintiff's § 1983 damages claims.
PAGE 1538
Ivory v. State
588 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 10 times
We read no such intent into this statutory change. In 1974, the criminal statute of limitations was substantially revised. Among the revisions was the addition, for the first time, of a definition of when prosecution commences. The state contends the "affidavit" referred to in the former statute was merely the affidavit or complaint allowed in county court as a method of prosecution. See § 34.13 (all persons tried in county court on criminal charges shall be tried on indictment, information, affidavit or complaint).
PAGE 1008
Carr v. Bell
492 F. Supp. 832 (N.D. Fla. 1980) Cited 8 times
The first is whether Mr. Huckaby's actions caused the deprivation of Mr. Carr's rights. I find they did. Although Mr. Huckaby did not take Mr. Carr into custody, he swore to the false complaint. Florida allows prosecution of a misdemeanor by complaint made upon an affidavit. § 34.13(4), Fla.Stat. (1975). Mr. Huckaby's complaint was the document charging Mr. Carr and therefore a cause of his incarceration on February 24, 1975, although not a cause of the arrest which was solely Deputy Bell's doing.
PAGE 835
Johnson v. Shaughnessy
336 U.S. 806 (1949) Cited 14 times
"(e) An alien being re-examined may introduce as witnesses before the board such physicians or medical experts as the board may in its discretion permit, at his own cost and expense, . . . ." 42 Code Fed. Reg. § 34.13 (1947 Supp.).
PAGE 812
Cases from cite.case.law:
S. WOODWORTH, A. v. UNITED STATES, 287 F. Supp. 3d 345 (W.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . However, "a finding of waiver is not mandatory", 7 Moore's Federal Practice, § 34.13[2][c] (Matthew Bender . . .
ASHFORD, v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE,, 304 F.R.D. 547 (E.D. Wis. 2015)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice—Civil § 34.13[2][c] (3d ed.2014). . . .
CHEVRON CORPORATION, v. DONZIGER,, 296 F.R.D. 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Genie Indus., Inc., 276 F.R.D. 161, 163 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (same); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.13[2] . . . Sullivan, 231 F.R.D. 468, 473 (D.Md.2005); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.13[2][b], at 34-58 (3d ed. . . .
ROGERS, v. G. J. GIURBINO,, 288 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 34.13[2][a], at 34-57 (footnote omitted); see id. § 34.14[ . . .
HAEGER, v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO., 906 F. Supp. 2d 938 (D. Ariz. 2012)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.13(2)(b) (emphasis added). . . .
BRYANT, v. T. ARMSTRONG,, 285 F.R.D. 596 (S.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 33.174[2], at 33-106, § 34.13[2][a], at 34-56 to 34-56.1 ( . . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 34.13[2][a], at 34-57 (footnote omitted). . . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 34.13[2][a], at 34-57 (footnote omitted); see id. § 34.14[ . . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 34.13[2][a], at 34-57 (footnote omitted); see id. § 34.14[ . . .
LIGHTGUARD SYSTEMS, INC. a v. SPOT DEVICES, INC. a s, 281 F.R.D. 593 (D. Nev. 2012)

. . . Aug. 19, 2008) (citing 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.13[5] at 34-92 (2008) (“A party producing documents . . . Aug. 19, 2008) (citing 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.13[5] at 34-92 (2008) (addressing the requesting . . . Aug. 19, 2008) (citing 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.13[5] at 34-92 (2008) (“A party producing documents . . .
J. STEINHAUSER, III, v. CITY OF ST. PAUL v. St. J. v. St., 595 F. Supp. 2d 987 (D. Minn. 2008)

. . . Paul, Minn., Code § 34.13. . . .
In LAMBERT OIL COMPANY, INC. E. Jr. v., 347 B.R. 173 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2006)

. . . . §§ 58.1-2217, 62.1-44:34.13. . . . The tax imposed pursuant to § 58.1-2217 [and the underground tank fee imposed pursuant to § 62.1-44:34.13 . . . See Va.Code Ann. §§ 58.1-2217 (2004), 62.1-44:34.13 (2001). . Pine Top Ins. Co. v. Bank of Am. . . .
In AFFLITTO, v., 273 B.R. 162 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2001)

. . . 400.00 Cell Phone $ 90.00 Utilities $ 110.00 Telephone $ 20.00 Bell South Mobility $ 66.00 Cable $ 34.13 . . .
In CGE SHATTUCK, LLC, v. CGE LLC,, 255 B.R. 334 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2000)

. . . See Queenan, Hendel & Hillinger, Chapter 11 Theory and Practice: Appeals § 34.13 (orders granting or . . .
In DOW CORNING CORPORATION,, 250 B.R. 298 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2000)

. . . See 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 34.13[3] at 34-77 (This language “was added in 1980 as a result of . . .
WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 742 So. 2d 496 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See §§ 34.13(1), 932.47, 932.48, Fla. Stat. . . .
MEDRANO DIAZ, v. VAZQUEZ- BOTET,, 204 B.R. 842 (D.P.R. 1996)

. . . proceedings than in nonbankruptey eases. 6 Chapter 11 Theory and Practice: A Guide to Reorganization § 34.13 . . .
ESTANCIAS LA PONDEROSA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. HARRINGTON,, 195 B.R. 210 (D.P.R. 1996)

. . . proceedings than in nonbankruptcy cases. 6 Chapter 11 Theory and Practice: A Guide to Reorganization § 34.13 . . .
In MERCADO- JIMENEZ,, 193 B.R. 112 (D.P.R. 1996)

. . . proceedings than in nonbankruptey cases. 6 Chapter 11 Theory and Practice: A Guide to Reorganization § 34.13 . . .
In DELTA PETROLEUM P. R. LTD., 193 B.R. 99 (D.P.R. 1996)

. . . proceedings than in nonbankruptey cases. 6 Chapter 11 Theory and Practice: A Guide to Reorganization § 34.13 . . .
AIRLIE FOUNDATION, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 826 F. Supp. 537 (D.D.C. 1993)

. . . United States, 505 F.2d 1068, 1072 (6th Cir.1974) citing 6 Mertens, Law of Income Taxation, § 34.13, . . .
SCHLOSSER, v. COLEMAN,, 818 F. Supp. 1534 (M.D. Fla. 1993)

. . . Florida Statutes, section 34.13 (1991) states that a county court judge shall issue arrest warrants upon . . .
IVORY, v. STATE, 588 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . See § 34.13 (all persons tried in county court on criminal charges shall be tried on indictment, information . . .
S. RICHARDSON, H. K. B. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a, 759 F. Supp. 1477 (D. Haw. 1991)

. . . The lease was assigned nine and one-half months through the first year; therefore, the lessees paid $34.13 . . .
BOB JONES UNIVERSITY v. UNITED STATES, 461 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1983)

. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation §31.12 (1980); 6 id., §§34.01-34.13 (1975); B. Bittker & L. . . .
C. v. S. v., 80 T.C. 425 (T.C. 1983)

. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Gift and Estate Taxation, sec. 34.13, at 63 (1959). . . .
In HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC. PARLOW, v. BANK OF NEW YORK,, 21 B.R. 188 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1982)

. . . Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., 11 F.R.D. 487, 16 F.R.Serv. 34.13, Case 1 (W.D.Pa.1951). . . .
CARR, Jr. v. BELL,, 492 F. Supp. 832 (N.D. Fla. 1980)

. . . . § 34.13(4), Fla.Stat. (1975). Mr. Huckaby’s complaint was the document charging Mr. . . .
HARDING HOSPITAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 505 F.2d 1068 (6th Cir. 1974)

. . . individual in ways other than through the distribution of dividends. 6 Mertens, Law of Income Taxation, § 34.13 . . .
HARDING HOSPITAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 358 F. Supp. 805 (S.D. Ohio 1973)

. . . intendment of such phrasing so as to destroy the exempt status. 6 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 34.13 . . .
UNITED STATES v. LUBBOCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, H. Dr. J. W., 316 F. Supp. 1310 (N.D. Tex. 1970)

. . . Martin Elementary School: In October, 1969, it had a student body of 34.13% Mexican-American, 65.19% . . .
Co. v., 64 Cust. Ct. 598 (Cust. Ct. 1970)

. . . . $34.13 $23.20 266339-A 31.60 22.50 266340-A 33.07 22.50 266341-A The Antidumping Act of 1921 provides . . .
PASSAIC UNITED HEBREW BURIAL ASSOCIATION, v. UNITED STATES, 216 F. Supp. 500 (D.N.J. 1963)

. . . See 6 Mertens, The Law of Federal Income Taxation, section 34.13. . . .
TAYLOR, v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a, 33 F.R.D. 283 (W.D. Mo. 1962)

. . . (N.D.Ind.), 27 F.R.D. 431, 4 F.R.Serv.2d 34.13, case 8. . . .
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD v. LONG BEACH FEDERAL SAVINGS LOAN ASSOCIATION,, 295 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1961)

. . . Section 34.13 of the Civil Service Regulations pertains to the utilization of examiners of other agencies . . .
BURNS, a a v. MULDER, 20 F.R.D. 605 (E.D. Pa. 1957)

. . . Co., 21 Fed.Rules Serv. 34.13, Case 5 (p. 506) (E.D.Pa.), are not stated in any detail, there is no reason . . .
UNITED STATES JOHNSON v. SHAUGHNESSY, ACTING DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, 336 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1949)

. . . report of this medical board therefore wholly failed to show any compliance with the requirement of § 34.13 . . . the Court thinks the record affirmatively shows a failure to comply with the statute and regulation § 34.13 . . . Reg. §34.13 (1947 Supp.). . . . R. §34.13 (1947 Supp.). . . .
UNITED STATES JOHNSON v. WATKINS, 170 F.2d 1009 (2d Cir. 1948)

. . . . §§ 249(c), 252, and set forth in 42 C.F.R., 1947 Supp., 34.1-34.13. . . . the detailed provisions for re-examination by a specially convened board upon the alien’s appeal, § 34.13 . . .
HICKMAN v. TAYLOR, 153 F.2d 212 (3d Cir. 1945)

. . . Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1945, 8 Federal Rules Service 34.13, Case 1, Inch, D.J., “No . . .
UNITED STATES v. ACRES OF LAND IN WEBSTER PARISH, LA., 61 F. Supp. 545 (W.D. La. 1945)

. . . computation to be gained from this map, using Section 7: Section Seven Acres “East 1/2” 40.84 x 6 245.04 34.13 . . . x 1 ................ 34.13 35.33 x 1 ................ 35.33 “Lot 17”................................ . . .
GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO., 60 F. Supp. 607 (E.D. Va. 1945)

. . . It consists of 34.13 acres of land, with some railroad trackage, a freight station, two warehouses and . . .
UNITED STATES PARK L. DAVIS CO. v. MATTHEW CUMMINGS CO., 27 F. Supp. 405 (D. Mass. 1939)

. . . Square to Round on roof of Boiler House ......................... 34.13 Item No. 6. . . .
In HOWELL KING CO., 16 F. Supp. 984 (M.D. Pa. 1936)

. . . paid in full: Frank Clarke, American Surety Company, $38; Frank Clarke, New York Casualty Company, $34.13 . . .