Florida Statute 69.011 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 69
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 69.011

69.011 Supreme Court; bond not to be required of certain officers in certain original proceedings.—Constitutional officers of the state, boards of county commissioners, and school boards of the several counties of this state shall not be required to furnish any bond or other security for the procurement of or to render effective any restraining order, injunction, or other order, writ or judgment in cases of original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of Florida.

History.—s. 1, ch. 19172, 1939; CGL 4621(1); s. 23, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 69-300.

Note.—Former s. 69.03.

F.S. 69.011 on Google Scholar

F.S. 69.011 on Casetext

Amendments to 69.011

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 69.011

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 69.011.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 69.011

Total Results: 8

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1994-01-19

Snippet: conflict, the general law shall prevail. 4 Cf., s. 200.069(11), Fla. Stat. (1993), providing that if authorized

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1979-07-02

Snippet: Art. X, State Const. Attorney General Opinion 069-11; cf. Advisory Opinion to Governor, 77 So. 87 (Fla

Wassner v. Kelz

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1969-07-08

Citation: 224 So. 2d 756, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5589

Snippet: PER CURIAM. The appellants individually, and in their capacities as administrators C.T.A. of the estate of the above-named decedent, have appealed from an order of the probate court, which was entered in a proceeding construing the will of the decedent. The appellants contend that the probate court erred, first, in its decision requiring construction of will. The basis for this contention is that certain provisions of decedent’s will were not so inconsistent as to create an ambiguity. We have carefully

Godbee v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1969-06-25

Citation: 224 So. 2d 441

Snippet: Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 69-11. District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District

McGrath v. Kerben

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1969-02-28

Citation: 221 So. 2d 467, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 7784

Snippet: Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Roger A. Barker, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Denmark v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1928-04-17

Citation: 95 Fla. 757

Snippet: be admissible. And in Woolfolk v. State, 85 Ga. 69, 11 S. E. Rep, 814, a confession not made to any one

Denmark v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1928-04-17

Citation: 116 So. 757, 95 Fla. 758

Snippet: be admissible. And in Woolfolk v. State,85 Ga. 69, 11 S.E. Rep, 814, a confession not made to any one

Pittman v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1906-01-15

Citation: 51 Fla. 94

Snippet: Iowa, 423, 66 N. W. 737; Woolfork v. State, 85 Ga. 69, 11 S. E. 582; Smith v. State, 118 Ga. 61; West v.