Florida Statute 74.101 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 74
PROCEEDINGS SUPPLEMENTAL TO EMINENT DOMAIN

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 74.101

74.101 Rights of housing authority after taking.—In any action in which any housing authority created under the laws of Florida has taken or may take possession of any real property in advance of final judgment therein, and the said petitioner has become irrevocably committed to pay the amount ultimately to be awarded as compensation, then it is lawful to expend moneys duly appropriated for that purpose in demolishing existing structures on said land, and in erecting buildings or public works thereon, or in improving said land or erecting and constructing buildings or works thereon, authorized by law to be constructed by any petitioner.

History.—s. 4, ch. 65-369.

F.S. 74.101 on Google Scholar

F.S. 74.101 on Casetext

Amendments to 74.101

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 74.101

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 74.101.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 74.101

Total Results: 3

Rosado v. Gerlach

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1974-11-08

Citation: 303 So. 2d 445, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 9509

Snippet: Appeal dismissed.

Thomas v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1974-11-07

Citation: 303 So. 2d 94, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 9440

Snippet: Appeal dismissed.

Dudley v. Thomas

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1974-06-04

Citation: 295 So. 2d 646, 21 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 840, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7109

Snippet: PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from the trial court’s construction and application of an exemp*647tion of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201. The specific question presented to the trial court was whether a certain employee was exempt from the operation of the act. The trial court held that the employee was exempted and denied the plaintiff relief. The plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant here. He was employed as a mechanic at defendant’s gasoline and diesel service station. A