78.02
What may not be taken by replevin.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1961–1989 · leading case: Brescher v. Associates Fin. Serv. Co.
Brescher v. Associates Fin. Serv. Co. (1984)
“80, that the provisions of section 78.02, Florida Statutes (1983), did not exempt the automobile from replevin, and that Associates was entitled to immediate possession.”
Williams Management Enterprises v. Buonauro (1986)
“Later, it was extended to any wrongful taking of personally and, now in Florida by statute, it lies for any wrongful taking or wrongful detention of any specific personal property.”
Moresca v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1970)
“Section 78.02, F.S.1967, F.S.A. lists the types of property which may not be taken by replevin.”
Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc. v. Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp. (1965)
“§ 78.02(4) F.S., F.S.A. As our Supreme Court said: “[T]he power to direct a verdict should be cautiously exercised in order to avoid encroaching on a party’s right to a jury trial in a common law action.”
City of Miami Beach v. Millpin, Inc. (1980)
“1943); § 78.02 Fla.Stat. (1979). Affirmed.”
Boynton v. Harbison (1961)
“153 ; F.S. § 78.02(4), F.S.A. Affirmed. SHANNON, C.”
Robinson v. Cinema International, Ltd. (1978)
“Research does not reveal any recent Florida cases which pass on the propriety of filing a counterclaim in an action for re-plevin, although Fla.”
American Eastern Investment Corp. v. Original Oliver, Inc. (1989)
“The majority adopts the appellant’s argument. I acknowledge that no action for replevin shall lie for any person unless he has a right to reduce the goods taken into his possession.”
— 78.02(3) — 1 case
Robinson v. Cinema International, Ltd. (1978)
“Research does not reveal any recent Florida cases which pass on the propriety of filing a counterclaim in an action for re-plevin, although Fla.”
— 78.02(4) — 4 cases
Williams Management Enterprises v. Buonauro (1986)
“Later, it was extended to any wrongful taking of personally and, now in Florida by statute, it lies for any wrongful taking or wrongful detention of any specific personal property.”
Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc. v. Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp. (1965)
“§ 78.02(4) F.S., F.S.A. As our Supreme Court said: “[T]he power to direct a verdict should be cautiously exercised in order to avoid encroaching on a party’s right to a jury trial in a common law action.”
Boynton v. Harbison (1961)
“153 ; F.S. § 78.02(4), F.S.A. Affirmed. SHANNON, C.”
American Eastern Investment Corp. v. Original Oliver, Inc. (1989)
“The majority adopts the appellant’s argument. I acknowledge that no action for replevin shall lie for any person unless he has a right to reduce the goods taken into his possession.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.