The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 38
JUDGES: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 38.08

38.08 Effect of orders where petition for reconsideration not filed.—If no petition for reconsideration is filed, as provided for in s. 38.07, all orders entered by the disqualified judge prior to the entry of the order of disqualification shall be as binding and valid as if said orders had been duly entered by a qualified judge authorized to act in the cause. The fact that an order was entered by a judge who is subsequently disqualified under s. 38.02 or s. 38.05, shall not be assignable as error subject to review by the appropriate appellate court unless a petition for reconsideration as provided for in s. 38.07, was filed by the party urging the matter as error, and the judge before whom the cause was then pending refused to vacate or modify said order.

History.—s. 9, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(8); s. 6, ch. 63-559.

F.S. 38.08 on Google Scholar

F.S. 38.08 on Casetext

Amendments to 38.08

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 38.08

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 38.08.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,, 189 F. Supp. 3d 73 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . also seeks to recover the following costs: $505 for filing the notice of appeal in district court and $38.08 . . . This provision governs NSC request for the $38.08 cost for the Joint Appendix. . . .

LEWIS, Sr. v. ASCENSION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 72 F. Supp. 3d 648 (M.D. La. 2014)

. . . Middle NA NA 51.69 Gonzales Middle 68.19 71.72 81.02 Central Primary 42.54 40.87 57.22 Duplessis Primary 38.08 . . .

ALMA BRIGHTLEAF, INC. v. FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION,, 552 F. App'x 861 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . purportedly told his crop insurance agent about tornado damage to 116.24 acres of tobacco on Unit 129 and 38.08 . . .

In REFCO INC. S. As v. D. R. s R. L. s MSD H. s N. LLC, MLC, 461 B.R. 181 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . See 2A, 4, 6 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶¶ 23.08, 23.09, 23.15, 38.08-09, 67.44[4] (14th ed. 1988). . . .

BLOOM, v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,, 338 F. App'x 498 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . 2003: 102.75 September 2003: 54.25 February 2003: 35.74 October 2003: 80 March 2003: 65 November 2003: 38.08 . . .

ESTATE OF M. BRATTON, M. v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO., 24 F. Supp. 2d 667 (N.D. Miss. 1998)

. . . Assuming the semimonthly deduction, or $19.04, is doubled resulting in a total monthly deduction of $38.08 . . .

G. STEELE, v. STEELE,, 617 So. 2d 736 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Wife’s percentage portion is twenty-eight percent, or $38.08 per week, and Husband’s portion is seventy-one . . .

In M. ROBERTS, R. CALAIARO, v. M. ROBERTS, M. A. R., 126 B.R. 678 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1991)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice 11 38.08 [5.-5] at 38-58 (2d ed. 1991). . . .

KALISH v. FRANKLIN ADVISERS, INC. U. S., 928 F.2d 590 (2d Cir. 1991)

. . . A jury trial is not guaranteed to those seeking relief in equity. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice II 38.08 . . .

WILLIAMS v. CITY OF DALLAS,, 734 F. Supp. 1317 (N.D. Tex. 1990)

. . . In the general election, Fielding received 38.08% of the vote, Medrano received 35.76%,-and a black candidate . . .

L. WHITLOCK, v. W. HAUSE, d b a Co., 694 F.2d 861 (1st Cir. 1982)

. . . See generally 5 Moore’s Federal Practice H 38.08[5.4], at 38-48 (2d ed. 1982). . . .

L. WHITLOCK, v. W. HAUSE, d b a Co., 694 F.2d 861 (1st Cir. 1982)

. . . See generally 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 38.08[5.4], at 38-48 (2d ed. 1982). . . .

In N- CASES. De, 691 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1982)

. . . Redman, 295 U.S. 654, 657, 55 S.Ct. 890, 891, 79 L.Ed. 1636 (1935); 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 38.08 . . .

In J. CARRIERO, Jr. J. BOROFF, v. M. CARRIERO,, 21 B.R. 132 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1982)

. . . footnote omitted] or to administrative proceedings [footnote omitted]. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 38.08 . . .

RUGGIERO, v. COMPANIA PERUANA DE VAPORES INCA CAPAC YUPANQUI DODSON, v. POLSKI LINIE OCEANICZNE GDYNIA, DOMEYKO LOCASCIO, v. P. M. JAKARTA LLOYD DJATIPRANA, 639 F.2d 872 (2d Cir. 1981)

. . . has stated, “The Seventh Amendment creates no right of trial by jury”, 5 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 38.08 . . .

ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. In JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 478 F. Supp. 889 (E.D. Pa. 1979)

. . . Hazard, Civil Procedure § 8.1 at 347 (1977); 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 38.08[5], at 79-80 (2d ed. . . .

REIMER, v. SHORT,, 578 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1978)

. . . for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice If 38.08 . . .

G. NUNEZ, v. SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY,, 572 F.2d 1119 (5th Cir. 1978)

. . . Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2303 (1971); 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 38.08 . . .

D. WRIGHT, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., 572 F.2d 1071 (5th Cir. 1978)

. . . The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 38.08 provides: “Any defendant in a criminal action shall be . . .

B. WIESER, v. CHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION, 69 F.R.D. 97 (E.D.N.Y. 1975)

. . . See generally 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶38.08[5].2 at 76 & n. 35; 5A id., ¶ 48.02 at 2152; 9 Wright . . .

M. D. RUTLEDGE v. ELECTRIC HOSE RUBBER COMPANY, 511 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1975)

. . . The waiver provi sions of Rule 38 are constitutional. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 38.08, p. 83, n. 68 . . .

UNITED STATES v. S. CURRERI UNITED STATES v. BLEAU, 363 F. Supp. 430 (D. Md. 1973)

. . . Of the total calls intercept.ed, 38.08% were properly intercepted in their entirety as pertaining to . . .

COLGROVE v. BATTIN, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE, 413 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1973)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 38.08 [5], pp. 86-90 (2d ed. 1971). . . .

HARDIN v. W. J. ESTELLE,, 365 F. Supp. 39 (W.D. Tex. 1973)

. . . See art. 38.08 Tex.Code of Crim.Proc. . . .

ZILKA, v. Dr. J. BETO,, 334 F. Supp. 560 (N.D. Tex. 1971)

. . . By his petition he challenges the conviction for which he is imprisoned, alleging (1) that Article 38.08 . . . fairness inherent in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated and that Article 38.08 . . . Article 38.08 Code of Criminal Procedure Any defendant in a criminal action shall be permitted to testify . . .

E. H. HOLCOMB, Jr. v. CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY,, 439 F.2d 1150 (5th Cir. 1971)

. . . In October, 1966, Holcomb had heli-arc welding done on the exhaust stacks and claimed $38.08 from Cessna . . .

HYKEL v. FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION, 317 F. Supp. 332 (E.D. Pa. 1970)

. . . Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 70 S.Ct. 936, 94 L.Ed. 1255 (1950). 5 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 38.08 [2], . . .

MERCANTILE- SAFE DEPOSIT AND TRUST COMPANY A. S. A. S. v. UNITED STATES, 311 F. Supp. 670 (D. Md. 1970)

. . . See 5 Mertens, Federal Gift and Estate Taxation § 38.08 (1959). . . .

M. BRYANT, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a M. BRYANT, v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 407 F.2d 576 (4th Cir. 1969)

. . . See, generally, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶[¶[ 38.05, 38.08 [5] and cases cited therein. . . .

BONNER, v. Dr. J. BETO,, 373 F.2d 301 (5th Cir. 1967)

. . . Article 38.08 of the Revised Code, however, notes that Article 82 of Vernon’s Ann.Texas Penal Code was . . .

W. GOSSETT, a k a W. v. J. HANLON, Jr. A,, 195 So. 2d 865 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . . & Proc., § 38.08. . . .

E. J. SEABROOK, Sr. v. UNITED STATES H. J. SEABROOK v. UNITED STATES, 253 F. Supp. 652 (W.D. Okla. 1966)

. . . Collectively Prior to Redemption 38.08% 38.08% 76.16% Subsequent to Redemption 23.77% 23.77% 47.53% Reduction . . . 14.31% 14.31% 28.63% Calculated applying Section 318(a): Prior to Redemption 38.08% 45.77% 83.85% Subsequent . . .

EVANS v. UNITED STATES PARKER, v. UNITED STATES, 326 F.2d 827 (8th Cir. 1964)

. . . Tract No. 17, containing 38.08 acres, was part of a total of 160 acres owned by appellant Chester Parker . . .

TSAI, v. C. ROSENTHAL C. ROSENTHAL, v. TSAI, 297 F.2d 614 (8th Cir. 1961)

. . . Krippner, 8 Cir., 60 F.2d 406, 409; 5 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 38.08, at pp. 86-89. . . .

HODGSON v. LLOYD BRASILEIRO PATRIMONIO NACIONAL, v. MURPHY- COOK CO., 294 F.2d 32 (3d Cir. 1961)

. . . Lilley, 8 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 159; 5 Moore’s Federal Practice j[ 38.08(5), p. 89. . . .

FISCHER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 288 F.2d 574 (3d Cir. 1961)

. . . Mertens’ Federal Gift & Estate Taxation § 38.08. (1959). . . .

DAMSKY, v. C. ZAVATT,, 289 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1961)

. . . of equity jurisdiction for Congress to permit this, see 5 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1951), § 38.08 . . .

S. CURRY, v. PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 271 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1959)

. . . Holman, D.C.N.J., 7 F.R.D. 596, 597; Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., § 38.08 [6], 1958 Cumulative Supplement . . .

JERNIGAN, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, a, 222 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1955)

. . . .) § 38.08 p. 83, § 50.11 p. 2333; 2 Federal Practice and Procedure (Rules ed.) . . .

L. LARSEN, v. D. POWELL,, 16 F.R.D. 322 (D. Colo. 1954)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, Vol. 5, Sec. 38.08 (6)-38.09, pp. 90-101; Herron v. Southern Pac. . . .

SHREPIC v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 120 F. Supp. 650 (W.D. Pa. 1954)

. . . Vol. 10, Cyclopedia Fed.Proc., 3d Ed., § 38.08; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. . . .

H. A. v., 32 Cust. Ct. 426 (Cust. Ct. 1954)

. . . exhibits show that the titers of the imported merchandise ranged from a low of 33.05° C. to a high of 38.08 . . .

R. J. J. J. G., 103 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1931)

. . . the “defendants in the sum of $500.00, as a balance due on the purchase money and the further sum of $38.08 . . .