Florida Statute 56.28 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 56
FINAL PROCESS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 56.28

56.28 Executions; failure of officer to pay over moneys collected.—If any officer collecting money under execution fails or refuses to pay it over within 30 days after it has been received by him or her, or within 10 days after demand by the levying creditor or the levying creditor’s attorney of record made in writing and delivered during regular business hours to the civil process bureau, the officer is liable to pay the same and 20 percent damages, to be recovered by motion in court.

History.—s. 7, Feb. 17, 1853; RS 1207; GS 1637; RGS 2841; CGL 4528; s. 11, ch. 67-254; s. 308, ch. 95-147; s. 6, ch. 98-410; s. 17, ch. 2016-33.

Note.—Former s. 55.51.

F.S. 56.28 on Google Scholar

F.S. 56.28 on Casetext

Amendments to 56.28

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 56.28

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 56.28.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 56.28

Total Results: 16

JACKSON HEALTH SYSTEM v. EMLYN LOUIS

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2021-01-06

Snippet: as set forth in Miami-Dade County Ordinance § 2-56.28.17, which provides that the employee must file

Vichich v. DHSMV

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-09-21

Citation: 799 So. 2d 1069, 2001 WL 1104242

Snippet: (arresting law enforcement officer); §§ 322.055, .056, .28, Fla. Stat. (1999) (court). When a driver's license

Beach Higher Power Corp. v. Granados

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1998-07-29

Citation: 717 So. 2d 563, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9558, 1998 WL 422684

Snippet: such a question under the equivalent Federal Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., this point was elaborated on in Stuart

Rodriguez v. Tri-Square Const., Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1994-04-12

Citation: 635 So. 2d 125, 1994 WL 123531

Snippet: such a question under the equivalent Federal Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., this point was elaborated on in Stuart

Jackson v. Stelco Employees' Credit Union

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1965-08-24

Citation: 178 So. 2d 58, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4058

Snippet: such a question under the equivalent Federal Rule 56, 28 U.S. C.A., this point was elaborated on in Stuart

Coast Cities Coaches, Inc. v. Dade County

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1965-07-07

Citation: 178 So. 2d 703

Snippet: such a question under the equivalent Federal Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., this point was elaborated on in Stuart

John K. Brennan Co. v. Central Bank & Trust Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1964-05-13

Citation: 164 So. 2d 525, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4285

Snippet: § 1239: "`This rule (Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A.) makes no specific provision for a case

Wallens v. Lichtenstein

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1964-01-21

Citation: 159 So. 2d 912

Snippet: such a question under the equivalent Federal Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., this point was elaborated on in Stuart

Lehew v. Larsen

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1960-12-06

Citation: 124 So. 2d 872, 85 A.L.R. 2d 821

Snippet: court, in dealing with the equivalent Federal Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., held that although a motion by plaintiff

Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Florida, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1958-09-30

Citation: 105 So. 2d 497

Snippet: such a question under the equivalent Federal Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., this point was elaborated on in Stuart

Pancoast v. Pancoast

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1957-10-23

Citation: 97 So. 2d 875

Snippet: under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., support the correctness of this view

Boyer v. Dye

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1951-04-06

Citation: 51 So. 2d 727, 1951 Fla. LEXIS 1293

Snippet: patterned after Federal Rules Civil Procedure Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., and the accepted practice under rules

Day v. Norman

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1949-08-01

Citation: 42 So. 2d 273, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 989

Snippet: under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A. See Otis Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,

Fawcett v. Weaver

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1935-10-16

Citation: 163 So. 561, 121 Fla. 245, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1555

Snippet: McNamara v. New York, L.E. W.R. Co., 56 N.J.L. 56, 28 A. 313; Ferrell v. Hales, 119 N.C. 199, 25 S.E

Proctor v. Hearne

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1930-11-12

Citation: 131 So. 173, 100 Fla. 1180, 1930 Fla. LEXIS 1169

Snippet: Janney, 102 Ala. 431, 15 So. R. 560, 48 A. S. R. 56, 28 L.R.A. 161; Fountain v. Menard, 53 Minn. 443, 55

Florida Development Co. v. Polk County National Bank

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1919-01-10

Citation: 76 Fla. 629, 80 So. 560

Snippet: McNamara v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 56 N. J. L. 56, 28 Atl. Rep. 313; Ferrell v. Hales, 119 N. C. 199