Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 75.16 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
Statute is currently reporting as:
F.S. 75.16 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 75.16

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: 10

Contino v. Estate of Contino

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1998-08-12T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 714 So. 2d 1210

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

United Telephone Co. v. Beard

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1993-01-14T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 611 So. 2d 1240, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 54, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 8, 1993 WL 5048

Snippet: ROE was scheduled to revert to a range of 14.75% to 16.75% on January 1, 1990. On December 14, 1989,

Rosalind Holding Co. v. Orlando Utilities Commission

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1981-07-22T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 402 So. 2d 1209, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20623, 1981 WL 610480

Snippet: Florida utilities from 1972 to 1977 ranged from 12.75% to 16.35%, and that the PSC had established from 13%

Ago

Court: Fla. Att'y Gen. | Date Filed: 1977-09-13T00:53:00-07:00

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

Johnson v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1976-02-10T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 328 So. 2d 33

Snippet: .App.1973, 271 So.2d 780. Affirmed. No. 75-16 District Court of Appeal of Florida fladistctapp

Mullins v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1975-12-26T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 324 So. 2d 730

Snippet: PER CURIAM. Affirmed. No. 75-16 District Court of Appeal of Florida fladistctapp Fla

Matney v. Stabler

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1975-06-19T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 314 So. 2d 277, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 16510

Snippet: Appeal dismissed. No. 75-16 District Court of Appeal of Florida fladistctapp Fla. Dist

Condrey v. Condrey

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1957-01-29T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 92 So. 2d 423

Snippet: . Missouri Iron Co., 1892, 110 Mo. 188, 19 S.W. 75, 16 L.R.A. 220. However, under our system of government

Volunteer State Life Insurance v. Larson

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1941-05-16T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 2 So. 2d 386, 147 Fla. 118, 1941 Fla. LEXIS 1249

Snippet: it in Florida during the year 1939. The sum of $75,016.00 was paid in cash to its policy holders during…therefore follows that the deduction in the sum of $75,016.00 claimed as the cash surrender value of the policies

Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1936-11-24T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 171 So. 214, 126 Fla. 308

Snippet: Baltimore, C. O.R. Co. v. Ennalls (1908),108 Md. 75, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1100, 69 Atl. Rep. 638; Daniels v