Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 55.11 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 55.11 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 55.11

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 55
JUDGMENTS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 55.11
55.11 Judgments; no lien against municipalities.No money judgment or decree against a municipal corporation is a lien on its property nor shall any execution or any writ in the nature of an execution based on the judgment or decree be issued or levied.
History.s. 1, ch. 17125, 1935; CGL 1936 Supp. 4492(4); s. 9, ch. 67-254.

F.S. 55.11 on Google Scholar

F.S. 55.11 on Casetext

Amendments to 55.11


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 55.11
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 55.11.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

PELLEGRINO v. UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DIV. OF DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY TSA TSO TSA STSO TSA TSO TSA TSA,, 896 F.3d 207 (3rd Cir. 2018)

. . . . § 55.11 (1995)). . . . (emphases added) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 27 C.F.R. § 55.11 (1995)). . . .

BUNCH, v. UNITED STATES, 880 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2018)

. . . . § 55.11. . . . potential existence of mandatory screening procedures, 771 F.3d at 1025, here the reference in section 55.11 . . . not see how those laws foreclose the possibility that Kinard held authority pursuant to 27 C.F.R. § 55.11 . . . Kinard’s authority, to the extent it existed, could still have flowed from 27 C.F.R. § 55.11. . . .

TELZROW v. UNITED STATES,, 127 Fed. Cl. 115 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.11(2)(a)(i)-(iii) (3d ed. 2012) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. . . . Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.11(2)(b)(ii); see also United States v. $23,000 in United States Currency . . .

In GALAN, J. v. K. v., 522 B.R. 744 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . Default occurs where a party fails to respond within the time allowed. 10 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 55.11 . . .

CITY OF NEW YORK, v. MICKALIS PAWN SHOP, LLC, A- s s L. d b a AAA W. Jr. d b a s d b a s d b a s d b a s C. III d b a s v. A- s s L. d b a AAA W. Jr. d b a s d b a s LLC, d b a s d b a s C. III d b a s, 645 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2011)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.11[2][b] [iii]; see also Am.Jur. 2d Judgments § 263. . . .

ALLI BSA v. UNITED STATES,, 93 Fed. Cl. 172 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

. . . Am., 483 F.Supp.2d 400, 406-07 (D.N.J.2007); 10 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, at § 55.11 [1]. . . . .

ISLAND SILVER SPICE, INC. S. v. ISLAMORADA, VILLAGE OF ISLANDS, a Ed, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . Because Florida Statute § 55.11 expressly provides that “no money judgment or decree against a municipal . . .

ANDREWS v. THE CITY OF WEST BRANCH, IOWA v., 454 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2006)

. . . See The Code of Ordinances for West Branch, Chapter 55.11. . . . The Code of Ordinances for West Branch, Chapter 55.11, states in relevant part that: 1. . . .

FAIRMAN, v. C. HURLEY,, 373 F. Supp. 2d 227 (W.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . (emphasis added); see also 10 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 55.11[3][b] (Matthew Bender, 3d ed.) . . .

TRIPOLI ROCKETRY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004)

. . . (For example, ammonium nitrate-fuel oil and certain water gels (see also § 55.11)). Id. . . . actuated by a propellant or-which releases and directs work through a propellant charge.” 27 C.F.R. § 55.11 . . . analysis by noting that to be classified as a PAD, a device has to meet the requirements of 27 C.F.R.- § 55.11 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MIDWEST FIREWORKS MFG. CO. INC., 248 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 55.11 (2001). . . .

UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON,, 152 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 55.11. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL, UNITED STATES v. ZOLLICOFFER,, 951 F.2d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

. . . In a locked tool compartment set in the hatchback portion of the car, police discovered 55.11 grams of . . .

NORTHERN COATS, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY,, 588 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Metropolitan Dade County, 396 So.2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), affirmed, 422 So.2d 838 (Fla.1982); § 55.11 . . .

CITY OF HAINES CITY, a v. ALLEN Jr. AUER, v. CITY OF HAINES CITY, a, 549 So. 2d 678 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . parts of the final judgments which include the language “for which let execution issue” and section 55.11 . . .

PIERCE, v. TOWN OF HASTINGS,, 509 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . See § 55.11, Fla.Stat. (1985); City of Ocoee v. State ex rel. . . .

DEUKMEJIAN, v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE J. v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 55.11(b). . Id. § 55.24(a). . Id. § 55.25(b). . . . .

BINGHAM, LTD. v. UNITED STATES, 724 F.2d 921 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 55.11 (1983) does not contain an express exclusion of “military-type ammunition containing explosive . . . defining ammunition, the ATF has indicated that the term shall include “percussion caps.” 27 C.F.R. § 55.11 . . . Indeed, he erroneously maintained that 27 C.F.R. § 55.11 was inapplicable to this case. . . . is “in the same general class” or otherwise within the scope of a “percussion cap” under 27 C.F.R. § 55.11 . . . See 27 C.F.R. § 55.11 (1983). . . .

HYLIN, v. UNITED STATES, 715 F.2d 1206 (7th Cir. 1983)

. . . . § 55.11-1: Mandatory. . . .

UNITED STATES v. URBAN,, 710 F.2d 276 (6th Cir. 1983)

. . . . § 55.11 as follows: Any material or mixture, consisting of fuel and oxidizer, that is intended for . . .

BINGHAM, LTD. v. UNITED STATES, 545 F. Supp. 987 (N.D. Ga. 1982)

. . . . § 55.11 [formerly 27 C.F.R. § 181.11; see 46 Fed.Reg. 40382 (1981)]. . . .

BEREK v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY,, 396 So. 2d 756 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Smith, 61 Fla. 782, 54 So. 376 (1911); § 55.11, Fla.Stat. (1979). . . .

L. WYSONG L. v. UNITED STATES, 326 F. Supp. 1384 (D. Minn. 1971)

. . . Upon a denial of their claim for refund of one-half thereof, i. e., $55.11, this action was commenced . . .

H. KLASSIE, v. UNITED STATES, 289 F.2d 96 (8th Cir. 1961)

. . . , as here, it rests on clear and convincing evidence. 10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 55.11 . . .

UNITED STATES v. C. C. GUNN,, 182 F. Supp. 623 (W.D. Ark. 1960)

. . . Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation § 55.11.” . . .

C. C. GUNN, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 247 F.2d 359 (8th Cir. 1957)

. . . where, as here, it rests on clear and convincing evidence. 10 Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation § 55.11 . . .

D. EAGLE, Jr. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 242 F.2d 635 (5th Cir. 1957)

. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 55.11, and Lee v. . . .

GOLDBERG, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, GOLDBERG v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 239 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1956)

. . . Mertens, Federal Income Taxation, § 55.11. . . .

RICK v. UNITED STATES, 161 F.2d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1947)

. . . See cases collected and discussed at 10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 55.11. . . .

W. v., 5 T.C. 608 (T.C. 1945)

. . . See discussion of “What Constitutes Fraud,” Merten’s Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 55.11, vol. . . .

CITY OF OCOEE, a v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, LESTER HARRIS, 155 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1945)

. . . Aside from the contention that Section 55.11 Fla. . . .

AMERICAN COMPRESS WAREHOUSE CO. v. BENDER, 70 F.2d 655 (5th Cir. 1934)

. . . received by the Shreveport Company in exchange for its property transferred to appellant as worth $55.11 . . .