The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 78
REPLEVIN

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 78.02

78.02 What may not be taken by replevin.—No replevin shall lie:

(1) For any property taken by virtue of any warrant for the collection of any tax, assessment, or fine pursuant to any statute;

(2) For defendant in any execution or attachment to recover goods and chattels seized by virtue thereof unless such goods and chattels are exempt from the execution or attachment;

(3) By the original defendant in replevin for property taken in replevin and delivered to plaintiff while it remains in the possession of the original plaintiff or his or her agents.

(4) For any person unless that person has a right to reduce the goods taken into his or her possession.

History.—ss. 2, 3, Mar. 11, 1845; s. 4, ch. 1099, 1861; ch. 1938, 1873; ch. 2040, 1875; RS 1708; GS 2172; RGS 3477; CGL 5330; s. 28, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 73-20; s. 402, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 78.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 78.02 on Casetext

Amendments to 78.02

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 78.02

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 78.02.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

ALSTON, v. DIRECTV, INC. DIRECTV, LLC,, 254 F. Supp. 3d 765 (D.S.C. 2017)

. . . the number of hours worked in the workweek exceeding 40 (16.67) yields ■ an overtime wage of roughly $78.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. WILSON,, 922 F. Supp. 2d 334 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . scores were 78.39, 77.34, and 76.68 (an average of 77.47), and his last three were 82.35, 73.36, and 78.02 . . . Third, Wilson’s most recent IQ test in 2012, which resulted in a Flynn-adjusted FSIQ of 78.02 and a 66% . . . the most current edition of the Wechsler exams — and Wilson obtained an FSIQ of 80 (Flynn-adjusted 78.02 . . . Denney’s test (on which Wilson obtained a Flynn-adjusted 78.02 with a 66% confidence interval of 75.90 . . .

In E. ANDERSON M., 383 B.R. 699 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2008)

. . . Additionally, among other secured debt, the Debtors deducted $78.02 as the amortized monthly amount due . . . Following the instructions on Official Form B22C, the Debtors subtracted the $78.02 from the Local Standard . . . The Debtors originally deducted the lease balance remaining on the vehicle at $78.02 on a monthly basis . . . Form B22C, the Debtors chose to, consistent with the procedure on Official Form B22C, subtract the $78.02 . . . The statute provides separate deductions for secured debt, the $78.02 figure, and the Local Standard . . .

HALLMARK DEVELOPERS, INC. v. FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA,, 386 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (N.D. Ga. 2005)

. . . added four census tracts to those depicted on the South Fulton Planning Area map — census tracts 77.02, 78.02 . . .

LEWIS, LEWIS AND VAN ETTEN INC. v. MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,, 138 F.R.D. 25 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . R.Civ.P. 78; see also 7 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 78.02 [1991]). . . .

AMERICAN EASTERN INVESTMENT CORP. a v. ORIGINAL OLIVER, INC. a a L. a, 549 So. 2d 711 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . . § 78.02(4), Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

MORRISON KNUDSEN CORPORATION, v. F. HEIL,, 705 F. Supp. 497 (D. Idaho 1988)

. . . Lampert, 556 F.2d 90 (1st Cir.1977); Sommer Business Organizations § 78.02[3] at p. 7A-40 to 7A-44.4 . . .

WILLIAMS MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. H. BUONAURO,, 489 So. 2d 160 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . It is a possessory action (§ 78.02(4), Fla.Stat.) and the object is to enable the plaintiff to secure . . .

REGNER, v. CITY OF CHICAGO,, 601 F. Supp. 830 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . As of 1983, 91 eligible librarians break down as follows: 71 whites amounting to 78.02 percent; 12 blacks . . .

A. BRESCHER, v. ASSOCIATES FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC., 460 So. 2d 464 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Thus, it becomes significant that section 78.02, Florida Statutes (1983), which exempts certain property . . .

SHAYER, v. C. KIRKPATRICK, St. C. Jr. St. M. O H. OVERSCHMIDT, v. C. KIRKPATRICK, MISSOURI STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, INC. St. NAACP, St. NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, St. NAACP, v. BOND, C. MISSOURI STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, INC. NAACP, St. NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, Dr. Mr. L. v. BOND, C., 541 F. Supp. 922 (W.D. Mo. 1982)

. . . Census Tract 75 4,363 Census Tract 76 4,307 Census Tract 77 2,862 Census Tract 78.01 1,094 Census Tract 78.02 . . .

MANHATTAN STATE CITIZENS GROUP, INC. v. F. BASS, R. L., 524 F. Supp. 1270 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . MHL § 78.02. . . . .

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH v. MILLPIN, INC. a, 389 So. 2d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Frick, 12 So.2d 604 (Fla.1943); § 78.02 Fla.Stat. (1979). Affirmed. . . .

ROBINSON, v. CINEMA INTERNATIONAL, LTD., 356 So. 2d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Nor do we construe § 78.02(3) to bar a counterclaim in a replevin action as it appears to us that this . . .

SEVEN- UP BOTTLING COMPANY, v. SEVEN- UP COMPANY, Up, 561 F.2d 1275 (8th Cir. 1977)

. . . ., 387 F.2d 477, 482 (8th Cir. 1967); III Callman, Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies, § 78.02 . . .

SEVEN- UP BOTTLING COMPANY, a v. SEVEN- UP COMPANY, a Up a, 420 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1976)

. . . ., 387 F.2d 477, 482 (8th Cir. 1967); III Callman, Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies, § 78.02 . . .

PITTS, v. CATES v. D. BUSBEE,, 536 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . following Census Tracts of such county: Tracts 66.01, 66.02, 68, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76.01, 76.02, 77.02, 78.02 . . .

FIRST NATIONAL BANK TRUST CO. OF RIVIERA BEACH v. BERRY,, 44 Fla. Supp. 159 (Palm Beach Cty. Ct. 1976)

. . . from the possession of the sheriff when the property is exempt from execution or attachment (Section 78.02 . . .

MORESCA, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 231 So. 2d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . Section 78.02, F.S.1967, F.S.A. lists the types of property which may not be taken by replevin. . . .

H. W. v., 48 T.C. 552 (T.C. 1967)

. . . It is determined that 82.44 percent [1961] [78.02 percent in 1962] of the gross income reported from . . . was attributable to sales of oil not extracted from your property, therefore, 82.44 percent [1961] [78.02 . . .

M. VAN HUSS, v. M. LANDSBERG,, 262 F. Supp. 867 (W.D. Mo. 1967)

. . . The suggestions filed by the defendant then cite Mo.Sup.Ct.R. 78.02, V.A.M.R. which provides A motion . . . has no application because the provisions of the only Missouri rule upon which defendant can rely (78.02 . . .

SECURITY UNDERWRITING CONSULTANTS, INC. a v. COLLINS, TUTTLE INVESTMENT CORP. a, 173 So. 2d 752 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)

. . . . § 78.02(4) F.S., F.S.A. . . .

Co. v., 50 Cust. Ct. 436 (Cust. Ct. 1963)

. . . net, packed. (3) As to the items identified on the invoice as 8,000 tires, 26 by 1.75 whitewall, US $78.02 . . .

L. BOYNTON, v. H. HARBISON,, 135 So. 2d 234 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)

. . . . § 78.02(4), F.S.A. Affirmed. SHANNON, C. J., and KANNER and WHITE, JJ., concur. . . .

C. S. v., 46 Cust. Ct. 707 (Cust. Ct. 1961)

. . . of production Standard Presdwood %"- _$44.23 Standard Presdwood %e"-_ 70.28 Standard Presdwood %"- _ 78.02 . . .

v., 45 Cust. Ct. 425 (Cust. Ct. 1960)

. . . dollars cost of production Standard Presdwood %" $44.23 Standard Presdwood 70.28 'Standard Presdwood 78.02 . . .

KOHNSTAMM v. PEDRICK,, 62 F. Supp. 142 (S.D.N.Y. 1945)

. . . to remain registered in their names through the end of 1941. 1939 1940 1941 $120.47 $114.53 $81.80 78.02 . . .