Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 76.06 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 76.06 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 76.06

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 76
ATTACHMENT
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 76.06
76.06 Effect of attachment upon unmatured debt.In attachments for debts not due, under s. 76.05, the existence of one or more of the special grounds assigned, and in case of attachment against executors or administrators for a debt not due, the existence of all the grounds assigned, shall cause the debt to become due, and plaintiff may proceed as on a debt falling due on a day before commencement of the action.
History.RS 1647; GS 2111; RGS 3412; CGL 5265; s. 26, ch. 67-254.

F.S. 76.06 on Google Scholar

F.S. 76.06 on Casetext

Amendments to 76.06


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 76.06
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 76.06.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

HAYDEN, B. B. v. S. VANCE, Jr. J., 708 F. App'x 976 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and awarded Defendants $15,000 in attorneys’ fees and $76.06 . . .

IN RE D. HOLLOWAY, D. Jr. v. D., 680 F. App'x 866 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . in 2009, pursuant to orders from the superior court of Montgomery County, Georgia, Arthur Sharpe’s 76.06 . . . (“Tidal Water”) Arthur Sharpe’s 76.06 acres of land, presumably as Holloway’s assign. . . .

IN RE D. HOLLOWAY, D. Jr. v. D., 680 F. App'x 866 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . in 2009, pursuant to orders from the superior court of Montgomery County, Georgia, Arthur Sharpe’s 76.06 . . . (“Tidal Water”) Arthur Sharpe’s 76.06 acres of land, presumably as Holloway’s assign. . . .

IN RE SPENCE, E. v. L. L. D. S. C. N. LLC,, 554 B.R. 467 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2016)

. . . P. 76.06(c). 2. . . . Rule 76.06(c) states: “Tangible Personal Property Where Seizure is Impracticable. . . . argument, the trustee posits that the sheriff did not post a proper notice of levy as required by Rule 76.06 . . . but ultimately concluded that the posting of the execution application and order complied with Rule 76.06 . . .

McLEAN, v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA,, 106 F. Supp. 3d 736 (E.D. Va. 2015)

. . . Glendale Traffic Code § 76.06. . . .

CENTRAL HUDSON GAS ELECTRIC CORP. v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, LLC, NRG LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, NRG LLC, LLC, LLC, IPPNY, 783 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . of the Lower Hudson Valley Zone using a reference value for the cost of a new peaking plant of only 76.06 . . . proceeding, NYISO proposed to phase in the demand curve for the new zone by discounting the demand curve to 76.06 . . .

J. PAGAN, v. VILLAGE OF GLENDALE, OHIO,, 559 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . received a notice from the Glendale police that his car was in violation of Glendale Traffic Code § 76.06 . . . Pagan I: we did reach the merits of Pagan’s claim and we decided them in Pagan’s favor, holding section 76.06 . . . Consequently, we held that the “absence of any evidence of the need for regulation ... is fatal to section 76.06 . . . all reasonable doubt as to our holding or the nature of the remand we ordered: we struck down section 76.06 . . .

J. PAGAN, v. FRUCHEY, 492 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 2007)

. . . Glendale, Ohio (“Glendale” or “the Village”) and Glendale Police Chief Matt Fruchey, alleging that section 76.06 . . . Department noticed the sign, notified Pagan that the sign was a violation of Glendale Traffic Code § 76.06 . . . , and asked him to remove it or face being cited for a municipal violation; Section 76.06 reads as follows . . . Both before the district court and before us on appeal, Pagan has argued that subsections 76.06(A) and . . . It is the absence of any evidence of the need for regulation that is fatal to section 76.06. . . .

In E. MORLEY, v. E., 292 B.R. 446 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2003)

. . . In applying the above rationale, $17,946.50 of the claimed fees and $76.06 of the claimed expenses are . . .

CLOCKEDILE, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 245 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001)

. . . See generally 4 Larson, Employment Discrimination § 76.06 (2d ed. 2000) (collecting dozens of cases). . . .

CRAWFORD, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Mr., 986 F. Supp. 506 (N.D. Ill. 1997)

. . . Larson, Employment Discrimination § 76.06[l][b] (2d ed. 1997) (“[A] complaint alleging race discrimination . . .

ENTERPRISE BANK, v. MAGNA BANK OF MISSOURI,, 92 F.3d 743 (8th Cir. 1996)

. . . . § 400.8-317(1); Mo.R.Civ.P. 76.06. . . .

ENTERPRISE BANK, v. MAGNA BANK OF MISSOURI,, 894 F. Supp. 1337 (E.D. Mo. 1995)

. . . Missouri law because Landmark failed to seize the stock as required by Missouri Supreme Court Rule 76.06 . . .

ENTERPRISE BANK, J. SAETTELE LANDMARK BANK OF ST. CHARLES COUNTY, v. J. SAETTELE, 804 F. Supp. 1111 (E.D. Mo. 1992)

. . . See Mo.S.Ct.R. 76.06(f); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 400.8-317(1). . . . See Mo.S.Ct.R. 85.21 (may attach as provided in Rule 76), 76.06(f) (“levy upon property subject to garnishment . . .

In LINKOUS, PIEDMONT TRUST BANK, v. LINKOUS, P., 141 B.R. 890 (W.D. Va. 1992)

. . . Bankr.E.D.Pa.1980); 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 501.01, 502.01, 506.07; 3 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 76.06 . . . , Inc., 3 B.R. at 341-42; 3 Collier on Bankruptcy II 506.04; 3 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 76.06 . . .

In CHURCHFIELD MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT CORPORATION,, 98 B.R. 838 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989)

. . . (c) Expenses Requested (i) The following expenses are requested: Postage: 3-31-86 Mass Mailing $ 76.06 . . .

In BROWN,, 22 B.R. 363 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1982)

. . . [see Collier on Bankruptcy par. 1322.01 (15th ed.) 1322-8; 3 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice, § 76.06 . . .

TERRAZAS, W. E. D. J. Ed R. A. Jr. v. P. CLEMENTS,, 537 F. Supp. 514 (N.D. Tex. 1982)

. . . Senate, the population per district varies from 354,311 to 808,063 or from 22.80% overrepresented to 76.06% . . .

UNITED STATES GOLDMAN, v. H. MEREDITH, F. W. H. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER SMITH, INC., 596 F.2d 1353 (8th Cir. 1979)

. . . See F.R.Civ.Pro. 4(f); V.A.M.R. 76.06; Globe Indemnity Co. v. . . .

CONTINENTAL EQUITIES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 551 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1977)

. . . Johnson, Federal Income, Gift & Estate Taxation (1976) §§ 72.02(1) & 76.06(5); Am.Jur.2d Federal Taxation . . .

THE FIRESTONE TIRE RUBBER COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 195 Ct. Cl. 21 (Ct. Cl. 1971)

. . . .-.1014-76.06 It should be noted that in two instances — pins and end connectors — the specifications . . .

W. WERTZ, v. MEADE MFG. INC. a, 285 F. Supp. 812 (D. Kan. 1968)

. . . Workweeks Ending Amount Due Elizabeth Adolph 10/1/65 to 12/31/65 $ 65.54 Helen Rule 10/8/65 to 12/31/65 76.06 . . .

GOTTLIEB v. WHITE,, 1 F. Supp. 905 (D. Mass. 1932)

. . . determined the amount of the tax due from the estate to be' $21,591.16, which amount, plus interest of $76.06 . . .