Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 68.102 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
Statute is currently reporting as:
F.S. 68.102 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 68.102

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 68
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 68.102
68.102 State support.Programs funded pursuant to this act shall be eligible for state support, including, but not limited to, access to the SUNCOM Network services. Accounts for SUNCOM services furnished to program eligible entities shall be billed directly to the department, as program administrator, and paid with the funding provided.
History.s. 9, ch. 2002-288.

F.S. 68.102 on Google Scholar

F.S. 68.102 on Casetext

Amendments to 68.102


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 68.102
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 68.102.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 68.102

Total Results: 11

Franqui v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-01-06

Citation: 59 So. 3d 82, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1, 2011 WL 31379

Snippet: consistent and truthful. Trial Transcript, p. 60, 66-68, 102-104. . . . . Based on the record and the testimony

Pate v. Worthington

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1996-06-20

Citation: 679 So. 2d 790, 1996 WL 531676

Snippet: (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 823, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 45 (1988). In considering a case involving

Prahl v. United States Mineral Products Co.

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

Citation: 636 So. 2d 116, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3394, 1994 WL 123666

Snippet: Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 44 (1988); Williams v. American Laundry

Doe v. SHANDS TEACHING HOSP. & CLINICS

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-02-19

Citation: 614 So. 2d 1170, 1993 WL 40470

Snippet: (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 44 (1988). [1] During the pendency of

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Acosta

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-10-22

Citation: 612 So. 2d 1361, 1992 WL 301363

Snippet: (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 44 (1988); see also Acosta v. Firestone

City of Pinellas Park v. Brown

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-07-23

Citation: 604 So. 2d 1222, 1992 WL 171211

Snippet: (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 45 (1988), the Illinois court, in denying

Walker v. Miller Elec. Mfg. Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-08-14

Citation: 591 So. 2d 242, 1991 WL 156382

Snippet: (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 44 (1988): Simply stated, a statute of

Acosta v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-06-11

Citation: 592 So. 2d 1102, 1991 WL 98003

Snippet: Griffin v. Ford Motor Co., 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 44 *1105 (1988); Brackenridge v. Ametek

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1977-08-23

Snippet: statutorily assigned duties and functions. (See ss. 101.68,102.141, 102.151, and 102.166, F. S., as to the duties

Evans v. Gray

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-10-22

Citation: 215 So. 2d 40

Snippet: duPont, and Margaret F. duPont, Appellees. Nos. 68-102, 68-149. District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third

Coggan v. Coggan

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-08-02

Citation: 213 So. 2d 902, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5222

Snippet: MANN, Judge. If the rules of procedure in this state forbid the order appealed from they ought to be amended. Since their divorce in 1963 these parties have owned in common a building used by the appellant as a medical office. At the pretrial conference in appellee’s suit for partition her attorney announced to the court that the appellee’s appraiser had not yet been given access to the premises for the purpose of preparing to testify, the rental value of the property being in question. Request