Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 55.07 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 55.07 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 55.07

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 55
JUDGMENTS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 55.07
55.07 Judgments; effect of failure to record.The failure to record any order, judgment or decree shall not affect the validity of any proceedings had thereon when collaterally attacked; provided, rendition of such order, judgment or decree is shown by the progress docket in the cause. This section shall apply to all proceedings heretofore had as well as to those hereafter had.
History.ss. 1, 2, ch. 12114, 1927; CGL 4496; s. 9, ch. 67-254.

F.S. 55.07 on Google Scholar

F.S. 55.07 on Casetext

Amendments to 55.07


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 55.07
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 55.07.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

CHARTER SCHOOLS USA, INC. v. JOHN DOE NO., 152 So. 3d 657 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Stat. (2014), and then in section 55.07 which states that when an order or judgment has been rendered . . . collaterally attacked even if the order or judgment has not been recorded in the official public records: 55.07 . . . provided, rendition of such order, judgment or decree is shown by the progress docket in the cause.... § 55.07 . . . Section 55.07, addressing a judgment creditor’s failure to record an order, judgment, or decree, excuses . . .

TWO OLD HIPPIES, LLC, v. CATCH THE BUS, LLC,, 784 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (D.N.M. 2011)

. . . 508 (S.D.N.Y.1955), rev’d on other grounds, 240 F.2d 669 (2d Cir.1957); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice P 55.07 . . .

VLASAK, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,, 329 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . bull hook was oval shaped and about 1-1/2" x 1" thick, exceeding the dimensions permitted by LAMC § 55.07 . . . Discussion Vlasak contends that LAMC § 55.07 is unconstitutional because it violates her First Amendment . . . Vlasak challenges LAMC § 55.07 on both vagueness and over-breadth grounds. A. . . . Dury, 199 Cal.Rptr. 577, 578-79 (1983) (upholding LAMC § 55.07 against First Amendment challenges). . . . LAMC § 55.07. . . . .

EDWARDS, v. CITY OF COEUR D ALENE D D s, 262 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . Code § 55.07. . . . Los Angeles Ordinance § 55.07, which was adopted by the Los Angeles City Council because of "several . . .

PEREZ, v. PASADENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 958 F. Supp. 1196 (S.D. Tex. 1997)

. . . Under this plan, in proposed District 1, 55.07 percent of the voting-age population would be Hispanic . . . proposed single-member districts: Korbel Plan HISPANIC POPULATION MEASURED DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 6 1990 VAP 55.07% . . . The Korbel Plan District 1 has the highest 1990 Hispanic voting-age population, at 55.07 percent. . . .

In DiGREGORIO,, 187 B.R. 273 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1995)

. . . Moore et al., Collier on Bankruptcy para 55.07 n. 1 (14th ed. 1976). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. CHALKIAS, 971 F.2d 1206 (6th Cir. 1992)

. . . criminal enterprise see 2 Devitt, Blackmar and O’Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 55.07 . . .

BROWN, By v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS,, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989)

. . . Non-Black Minority Black White Total % Minority 1970-71 162 170 249 581 57.14 1971-72 134 186 261 581 55.07 . . .

DUNDEE CEMENT COMPANY, v. HOWARD PIPE CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., 722 F.2d 1319 (7th Cir. 1983)

. . . Koegel, 504 F.2d 702 (2d Cir.1974); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.07 (2d ed. 1983). . . .

A. HELMICK, v. M. HELMICK,, 436 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . See §§ 88.341 and 28.222(3)(c); 28.29; 55.07; 55.-10; 55.101, Fla.Stat. (1981); yet the statutes consider . . .

UNITED STATES v. ASHLAND- WARREN, INC. UNITED STATES v. ASHLAND- WARREN, INC. UNITED STATES v. ASHLAND OIL, INC. UNITED STATES v. ASHLAND- WARREN, INC. UNITED STATES v. ASHLAND- WARREN, INC., 537 F. Supp. 433 (M.D. Tenn. 1982)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions §§ 55.07, 27.04 (1977). . . .

VEGA MATTA, v. Dr. A. ALVAREZ CHOUDENS,, 440 F. Supp. 246 (D.P.R. 1977)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 55.07, pp. 55.95-55.96. . . . .

MAGETTE v. DAILY POST B., 535 F.2d 856 (3d Cir. 1976)

. . . Ed.) fl 55.07, at page 55-96, contains this language: “Although a defendant has defaulted, if he has . . .

JOSEPH MAGETTE v. THE DAILY POST EARL B. OTTLEY,, 13 V.I. 332 (3d Cir. 1976)

. . . .) ¶ 55.07, at page 55-96, contains this language: “Although a defendant has defaulted, if he has appeared . . .

v., 63 T.C. 51 (T.C. 1974)

. . . Thus total adjusted wagers for January through September were determined to be $3,743,589, of which 55.07 . . . the amount of total wagers from the Federal excise tax returns for these 3 months was multiplied by 55.07 . . .

FLAKS v. I. KOEGEL, 504 F.2d 702 (2d Cir. 1974)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice j] 55.07 (2d ed. 1974) and cases cited. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d). . . .

W. KORMES v. WEIS, VOISIN CO. INC., 61 F.R.D. 608 (E.D. Pa. 1974)

. . . See 5, 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 38.19[3], 55.07; Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure . . .

R. HENRY, Jr. v. SNEIDERS,, 490 F.2d 315 (9th Cir. 1974)

. . . 508 (S.D.N.Y.1955), rev’d on other grounds, 240 F.2d 669 (2d Cir. 1957); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.07 . . .

F. DUFFY H. v. UNITED STATES, 343 F. Supp. 4 (S.D. Ohio 1972)

. . . a point 100 feet North of Lyon Street; thence West, parallel with the South line of McMillan Street 55.07 . . . a point in the south line of McMillan Street; thence East, along the South line of McMillan Street, 55.07 . . .

UNITED STATES MOTLEY v. T. RUNDLE, T., 340 F. Supp. 807 (E.D. Pa. 1972)

. . . See F.R.Civ.P. 8(d); 6 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 55.07 (1971 ed.). . . . .

TRANSPORT MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, TRANSPORT MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT COMPANY, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 434 F.2d 373 (8th Cir. 1970)

. . . See generally 10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 55.07 (1965 Rev. ed.). . . .

BACCARO, De Co. v. PISA, B., 252 F. Supp. 900 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)

. . . .; 6 Moore, Federal Practice 55.07, at 1822 (1964); cf. Cromwell v. . . .

v. v., 7 B.T.A. 223 (B.T.A. 1927)

. . . amount of the credit thus claimed in the case of Leo Schwartz was $62.28 and in the case of Julius Rich $55.07 . . .

In HELEKER BROS. MERCANTILE CO., 216 F. 963 (D. Kan. 1914)

. . . Chicago, Ill. 55.07 A. Kolowskl New Xork 34.75 Citizens Bank Frankfort, Ks. 2,800.00 T. F. . . .

v. Co., 37 F. 530 (C.C.D. Kan. 1889)

. . . The total premiums received in the year 1886 were $3,779.25; for the year 1887, $2,6(55.07. . . .