Florida Statute 75.16 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 75
BOND VALIDATION

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 75.16

75.16 Certain orders and decrees validated.—All orders, decrees, and judgments heretofore or hereafter made in actions for the validation of bonds or certificates of indebtedness by any judge disqualified by matters not apparent on the record are valid and binding on all parties unless attacked within 20 days of the entry thereof; and all orders, decrees, and judgments heretofore made in such validation actions by judges other than the regular judge or those mentioned or designated in the notices, or at places other than, or dates subsequent to, those mentioned in said notices, when it appears that the regular judge was disqualified, absent, or disabled from discharging the duties of his or her office, are hereby ratified.

History.—s. 3, ch. 10164, 1925; s. 2, ch. 12066, 1927; CGL 5120, 5122; s. 25, ch. 67-254; s. 369, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 75.16 on Google Scholar

F.S. 75.16 on Casetext

Amendments to 75.16

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 75.16

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 75.16.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 75.16

Total Results: 8

Contino v. Estate of Contino

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1998-08-12

Citation: 714 So. 2d 1210, 1998 WL 472503

Snippet: one. See Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873, 874-75, 16 So.2d 163, 164 (1944); see also Daniel v. Daniel

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1977-09-13

Snippet: degradation of water quality. Attorney General Opinion 075-16. In general, the Environmental Regulation Commission

Johnson v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1976-02-10

Citation: 328 So. 2d 33

Snippet: PER CURIAM. The defendant appeals an order denying his motion for relief pursuant to CrPR 3.-850. The single point presented on appeal urges that the trial court erred because the record did not conclusively refute defendant’s allegation of ineffectiveness of counsel at sentencing. This point was not included in petitioner’s written motion for relief but it appears that it was the only point which was presented or argued to the trial judge. The motion was denied. It is our view that the record,