The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 83
LANDLORD AND TENANT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 83.10

83.10 Landlord’s lien for advances.—Landlords shall have a lien on the crop grown on rented land for advances made in money or other things of value, whether made directly by them or at their instance and requested by another person, or for which they have assumed a legal responsibility, at or before the time at which such advances were made, for the sustenance or well-being of the tenant or the tenant’s family, or for preparing the ground for cultivation, or for cultivating, gathering, saving, handling, or preparing the crop for market. They shall have a lien also upon each and every article advanced, and upon all property purchased with money advanced, or obtained, by barter or exchange for any articles advanced, for the aggregate value or price of all the property or articles so advanced. The liens upon the crop shall be of equal dignity with liens for rent, and upon the articles advanced shall be paramount to all other liens.

History.—s. 2, ch. 3247, 1879; RS 1763; GS 2239; RGS 3558; CGL 5422; s. 34, ch. 67-254; s. 430, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 83.10 on Google Scholar

F.S. 83.10 on Casetext

Amendments to 83.10

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 83.10

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 83.10.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

TOLOWA NATION, v. UNITED STATES, 380 F. Supp. 3d 959 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . ." § 83.10(h). . . . . § 83.10(i)-(k). . . . . § 83.10(l )(2). Appeals are heard by the Interior Board of Indian Appeals. § 83.11(a)(1). . . . provide ... suggestions regarding the preparation of materials in response to the proposed finding." § 83.10 . . .

K. B. BY NEXT FRIEND, T. B. v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 367 F. Supp. 3d 647 (E.D. Mich. 2019)

. . . L.R. 83.10(b). . . . L.R. 83.10(c). 28 U.S.C. § 1404 also provides that a district court "[f]or the convenience of parties . . . Local Rules 83.10(b)(1)-(2) do not apply to Plaintiffs' claim because this action was not removed from . . . L.R. 83.10(b)(3)-(4). . . . It instructs the plaintiff to select the appropriate county according to Local Rule 83.10. . . .

M. TARDIF, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, O NYPD, 344 F. Supp. 3d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . seal the motion in limine papers which contain Confidential Material as defined by Local Civil Rule 83.10 . . .

I. SINDHI, v. R. RAINA,, 905 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2018)

. . . R. 83.10(a), required Raina to retain local counsel. . . .

IN RE ARTHUR B. ADLER AND ASSOCIATES, LTD., 588 B.R. 864 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2018)

. . . $6.72, $17.34, $16.64, $178.70, $258.36, $83.60, $78.57, $40.32, $64.24, $22.14, $57.96, $280.98, $83.10 . . .

IN RE GAWKER MEDIA LLC,, 588 B.R. 337 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . (Tr. 82:18-83.10.) . . .

CHINOOK INDIAN NATION, v. K. ZINKE,, 326 F. Supp. 3d 1128 (W.D. Wash. 2018)

. . . . § 83.10(a)(4). . . .

NIPMUC NATION, v. ZINKE,, 305 F. Supp. 3d 257 (D. Mass. 2018)

. . . . § 83.10. . . . See 25 C.F.R. § 83.10(h) (1994)(within one year after notifying the petitioner that active consideration . . . of the documented petition has begun, the AS-IA shall public proposed findings in the Federal) ; 83.10 . . .

WRIGHT, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, O, 283 F. Supp. 3d 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . The action was assigned to participate in the Local Civil Rule 83.10 (the "§ 1983 Plan") and the parties . . . engaged in the "Limited Discovery" as required by Local Rule 83.10(5). . . .

UNITED STATES v. LINDSEY,, 827 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2016)

. . . Later, pursuant to Minnesota Local Rule 83.10(e), the parties each submitted a document entitled “Position . . . LR 83.10(e). . . . LR 83.10(c)(1). The district court “may, for good cause, change” the time limit prescribed in Fed. . . . Minn. 83.10(c)(3); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(l)(D). . . . Finally, we reject the contention that the Local Rules in Minnesota, specifically Local Rule 83.10(c) . . .

UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 147 F. Supp. 3d 312 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . See, e.g., Littlejohns et al., Vitamin D and the 'Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer ' Disease, 83.10 NEUROLOGY . . .

UNITED STATES v. KELLY,, 630 F. App'x 416 (6th Cir. 2015)

. . . The court also imposed, pursuant to Local Rule 83.10(b), special conditions of supervision in addition . . . LR 83.10. . . . LR 83.10(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(9), yet Kelly’s only sex conviction involving a child occurred over forty . . . However, 83.10(b)(10) is framed explicitly as a condition related to sex offenses, see U.S. Dist. . . . LR 83.10(a)(10). . . . LR 83.10(b)(1), (b)(7), and therefore dissent from those portions of the majority opinion vacating the . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ- ESTRADA,, 749 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . R. 83.10(c)(5). . . .

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED, a a a v. SEBELIUS, E. J., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1225 (D. Colo. 2013)

. . . hour, 10 minutes for a manager at a cost of $55.22 per hour, 5 minutes for legal counsel at a cost of $83.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ARNOLD,, 549 F. App'x 491 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . court ordered that Arnold comply with the special conditions of supervised release contained in Rule 83.10 . . . Local Rule 83.10(b)(3). . . . Local Rule 83.10(b)(5). . . . Years of Age Arnold claims that the special condition of supervised release contained in Local Rule 83.10 . . . Local Rule 83.10(b)(3). . . .

THOMPSON, v. BRUISTER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (M.D. Tenn. 2013)

. . . hours and thus to a total wage of $583.10 (($8.33 x 40) + ($8.33 x 1.5 x 20)), making his damages $83.10 . . .

MUWEKMA OHLONE TRIBE, v. SALAZAR, K., 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 83.10(h). . . . Id. § 83.10(i)-(k). . . . Id. § 83.10(0(2). . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. GAMBLE, 709 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . the special conditions for sex offenders adopted by the Eastern District of Tennessee in Local Rule 83.10 . . . Local Rule 83.10(b)(4) states: The defendant shall not associate with anyone, under any circumstance, . . .

L. ESPENSCHEID, v. DIRECTSAT USA, LLC,, 705 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2013)

. . . hours and thus to a total wage of $583.10 (($8.33 x 40) + ($8.33 x 1.5 x 20)), making his damages $83.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ- ESTRADA,, 704 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . R. 83.10(c)(5) (“Questionable requests for being excused or other status determinations must be directed . . .

UNITED STATES v. ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, SITUATED IN COUNTY OF LITCHFIELD, TOWN OF KENT, v. v. Of, 896 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Conn. 2012)

. . . . §§ 83.10(h), (i), (j), (k). Thus, the third element of collateral estoppel is satisfied. . . .

In W. KLIPSTINE, Jr., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (D.N.M. 2012)

. . . L.R-Civ. 83.10(a). Mr. . . . LRCiv. 83.10(b). . . .

TURPPA, v. COUNTY OF MONTMORENCY,, 724 F. Supp. 2d 783 (E.D. Mich. 2010)

. . . L.R. 83.10(b)(3) & 83.11; [Dkt. # 12]. . . .

ELUSTRA v. MINEO, 595 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2010)

. . . R. 83.10 (2009) (general bar local rule governing admission to practice before the district court); N.D . . .

SCHAGHTICOKE TRIBAL NATION, v. KEMPTHORNE, E. U. S., 587 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 83.10(i)(2) (providing that the “Assistant Secretary shall make a final determination regarding the . . . Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs” or by his or her “authorized representative.” 25 C.F.R. §§ 83.1, 83.10 . . . either by the Assistant Secretary or by his or her “authorized representative.” 25 C.F.R. §§ 83.1, 83.10 . . .

STAYART, v. YAHOO INC. d b a d b a, 651 F. Supp. 2d 873 (E.D. Wis. 2009)

. . . knowingly fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction); General L.R. 83.10 . . .

SCHAGHTICOKE TRIBAL NATION, v. KEMPTHORNE,, 587 F. Supp. 2d 389 (D. Conn. 2008)

. . . . § 83.10(h), analyzed and evaluated all of the evidence then in the record in the context of the acknowledgment . . .

In BELLO,, 237 F. App'x 363 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.10. Though not entirely clear from his brief, Mr. . . . Bello seems to suggest that the district court improperly exceeded its authority under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.10 . . . The district court exercised its authority under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.10 to suspend Mr. . . .

MICHIGAN GAMBLING OPPOSITION a v. NORTON, E- Be- a, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007)

. . . . § 83.10 (explaining the process by which an American Indian group becomes an officially recognized . . .

GOLDEN HILL PAUGUSSETT TRIBE OF INDIANS, v. M. RELL,, 463 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D. Conn. 2006)

. . . . § 83.10(a)-(b); issuance of a BIA “letter of obvious deficiencies,” identifying deficiencies and allowing . . . petitioner to supplement and/or revise its petition accordingly, id. § 83.10(b); placing the petition . . . on “active consideration,” id. § 83.10(f), after which the BIA issues a proposed finding and the petitioner . . . (g), (i), (j), including a petitioner reply to any submissions by interested parties, id. § 83.10(k); . . . issuance of a final determination by the BIA, id. § 83.10(m), of which petitioner may seek independent . . .

MEDING, LLC, v. RECEPTOPHARM, INC. f k a, 462 F. Supp. 2d 348 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . various grounds, including the failure to comply with what is now Eastern District of New York Local Rule 83.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. OLSON, BK, 450 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2006)

. . . Rule 2.05 (now found in slightly modified form at General Local Rule 83.10(a)) of the Local Rules for . . .

UNIFI EXPORT SALES, LLC, v. MEKFIR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,, 233 F.R.D. 443 (M.D.N.C. 2005)

. . . Plaintiffs also point out that defendants’ failure to attend their mediation fell afoul of Local Rule 83.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. W. R. GRACE, R. A. W. J. J. O. C., 401 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (D. Mont. 2005)

. . . They argue that the statements violate (1) the Court’s orders in this case; (2) Local Rules 83.10(d)( . . . As the Defendants point out, I have already taken such steps generally by and through Local Rules 83.10 . . . Local Rule 83.10 Local Rule 83.10(d)(6) provides: From the time of arrest, issuance of an arrest warrant . . . Local Rule 83.10(h) states, “In a case that is likely to be publicized, the Court, on motion of either . . . providing statements to the media, except for statements confined to those matters set forth in Local Rule 83.10 . . .

SCHREIBER FOODS, INC. v. BEATRICE CHEESE, INC. S. A. Co. La, 402 F.3d 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

. . . Local R. 83.10. “A party is under a duty seasonably to amend a prior response to ... . . .

SMITH, v. KALAMAZOO OPHTHALMOLOGY,, 322 F. Supp. 2d 883 (W.D. Mich. 2004)

. . . LCivR 83.10')). . . .

M. RIOS v. VILLAGE OF HATCH, HATCH POLICE DEPARTMENT L., 86 F. App'x 366 (10th Cir. 2003)

. . . LR Civ. 83.10(b) (2000); and (3) he was required to apply for readmission to the Federal Bar of the District . . . LR-Civ. 83.10(c) (2000). . The certificate of good standing stated that Mr. . . .

THE MASHPEE WAMPANOAG TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC. v. A. NORTON, A., 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 83.10(b). Mashpee took four and a half years to respond. . . . contrast to the timeframe for processing a petition once it is under active consideration, see id. §§ 83.10 . . .

THE MASHPEE WAMPANOAG TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC. v. A. NORTON, A., 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 83.10(b). Mashpee took four and a half years to respond. . . . contrast to the timeframe for processing a petition once it is under active consideration, sec id. §§ 83.10 . . .

BURT LAKE BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDIANS, v. NORTON,, 217 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . . § 83.10(d). . . .

PEBENITO v. WERNER ENTERPRISES A., 217 F. Supp. 2d 350 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . The mandatory language in Rule 83.10(h)(2) suggests that the Court has no discretion to deny a request . . . However, while defendants have not invoked Rule 83.10(f)(3) in opposition to the plaintiffs’ request, . . . There is a dearth of case law applying Local Rule 83.10(f)(3). . . . Instead, in accordance with Rule 83.10(f)(3), the Court sanctioned the plaintiffs, requiring them to . . . See Local Rule 83.10(b). . . . .

ERICKSON- PUTTMANN, v. GILL, 212 F. Supp. 2d 960 (N.D. Iowa 2002)

. . . Court, pursuant to Local Rule of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa 83.10 . . .

THE MASHPEE WAMPANOAG TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC. v. A. NORTON, U. S., 180 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D.D.C. 2001)

. . . . § 83.10(b). . . . Id. at § 83.10(d). . . . Id. § 83.10(g). . . . . § 83.10(h). There follows a comment period and a procedure for requesting reconsideration. . . . . §§ 83.10(i)-(i), 83.11. . . .

UNITED STATES v. PEREZ- CASANOVA,, 25 F. App'x 548 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . Civ. 83.10. . . .

AARON, v. E. MATTIKOW,, 146 F. Supp. 2d 263 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . find good cause to exempt this case from court-annexed arbitration, sua sponte, see Local Civil Rule 83.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. KINGSLEY,, 241 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2001)

. . . You will comply with the conditions that have been adopted by this court under local Rule 83.10 which . . . crime, shall comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this Court in Local Rule 83.10 . . .

MUWEKMA TRIBE, v. BABBITT,, 133 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2001)

. . . . § 83.10(b)(2)).” See id. . . . ready list before the Muwekma Tribe, the defendants agreed to “waive” the requirement in subsection 83.10 . . . See id. § 83.10(i). . . . See id. § 83.10(k). . . . See id. § 83.10(1). . . .

MIAMI NATION OF INDIANS OF INDIANA, v. BABBITT,, 112 F. Supp. 2d 742 (N.D. Ind. 2000)

. . . .”); 83.10(p) (“A petitioner that has petitioned under this part or under the acknowledgment regulations . . . The Miamis stress that they do not seek to file a new petition (a course closed by §§ 83.3(f) and 83.10 . . .

MUWEKMA TRIBE, v. BABBITT,, 133 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)

. . . . § 83.10(b)(2)).” Id. at 1. . . . Title 25 C.F.R. § 83.10(d) "provides that “ [t]he order of consideration of documented petitions shall . . . it considers that the documented petition is ready to be placed on active consideration.” 25 CFR § 83.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. RAMIREZ, Sr., 196 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 1999)

. . . D.Minn.R. 83.10(f). We disagree. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ACRES OF LAND, v., 45 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D. Conn. 1999)

. . . . §§ 83.10(1), 83.11(c)(2) 83.11(f)(4). . . .

MYERS v. WIEDERHOL c o, 185 F.R.D. 149 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . agreement of the parties in accordance with the Court Annexed Arbitration Program pursuant to Local Rule 83.10 . . . government copies of the documents he intended to offer as exhibits in contravention of Local Rule 83.10 . . . DISCUSSION Local Rule 83.10(f)(3) provides: The arbitration hearing may proceed in the absence of any . . . Local Rule 83.10(h)(2). . . . Local Rule 83.10(g)(1). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. GARRETT,, 161 F.3d 1131 (8th Cir. 1998)

. . . See Local Rule 83.10(f) (D.Minn.). . . .

GLAXO WELLCOME, INC. v. PHARMADYNE CORPORATION,, 32 F. Supp. 2d 265 (D. Md. 1998)

. . . 100.00 1 98.53 95.22 99.76 96.63 4 93.03 83.02 97.35 92.00 6 76.21 87.96 8 86.77 65.17 94.46 84.16 11 83.10 . . .

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. RAND REED POWERS PARTNERSHIP,, 972 F. Supp. 1194 (N.D. Iowa 1997)

. . . L.R. 83.10 (authorizing certification of questions “as to which it appears there is no controlling precedent . . .

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, On v. BABBITT, In E. In, 117 F.3d 1489 (D.C. Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 83.10(p) (1996), which precludes repetitioning after a denial of recognition. . . .

F. PORTER, v. FOX, IRS IRS J. IRS A. IRS, 99 F.3d 271 (8th Cir. 1996)

. . . , the magistrate judge initially reviewed the complaint pursuant to the district court’s Local Rule 83.10 . . . We reaffirm that the procedures set forth in the District of Nebraska’s Local Rule 83.10(d)(2) do not . . .

GREENE, v. BABBITT,, 943 F. Supp. 1278 (W.D. Wash. 1996)

. . . . § 83.10(a)-(c). . . .

UNITED STATES v. DELPIT, UNITED STATES v. MALONE, UNITED STATES v. SAUNDERS, UNITED STATES v. PRADO, UNITED STATES v. THOMAS, UNITED STATES v. JONES, UNITED STATES v. LYNN,, 94 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 1996)

. . . He failed, though, to move for an evidentiary hearing as required by the District Court’s Local Rule 83.10 . . .

ATKINSON, v. BOHN, 91 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1996)

. . . Pursuant to the district court’s Local Rule 83.10(d)(2), the magistrate judge concluded that Atkinson . . . Local Rule 83.10(d)(2) also provides for initial sua sponte review of all pro se complaints pursuant . . .

K. HAKE, v. W. CLARKE,, 91 F.3d 1129 (8th Cir. 1996)

. . . . § 1915(d) and the district court’s Local Rule 83.10, and concluded Hake failed to state a claim upon . . . The magistrate judge reviewed the amended complaint under Local Rule 83.10(d), and suggested in his report . . . Houston, 33 F.3d at 895, that Local Rule 83.10(d) authorized the magistrate judge to act in a manner . . . Accordingly, we conclude that the procedures set forth in Local Rule 83.10(d)(2)' did not comply with . . . The magistrate judge noted that Local Rule 83.10(d)(2) provided for initial sua sponte review of all . . .

In G. MULLINS, 84 F.3d 459 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

. . . The January 1994 charge of $60.25 for copying, and the February charges of $83.10 for computerized research . . .

UNITED STATES v. BURKE, Jr., 80 F.3d 314 (8th Cir. 1996)

. . . Local R. 83.10(e), stating that he “disputes any factual statement in the presen-tence investigation . . . Local R. 83.10(f). . . .

UNITED STATES v. OEHLENSCHLAGER, Jr., 76 F.3d 227 (8th Cir. 1996)

. . . See Minnesota Local Rule 83.10(f). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. GOODWIN,, 72 F.3d 88 (8th Cir. 1995)

. . . failed to pursue his objections, much less request an evidentiary hearing as required by Local Rule 83.10 . . .

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX DAKOTA COMMUNITY, a v. BABBITT, E. B., 906 F. Supp. 513 (D. Minn. 1995)

. . . . §§ 2.6(c), 2.7(c), 2.9(c), 41.6(e), 41.11(c), 41.27(c), 62.10(a), 62.11, 67.12, 83.10(o), 83.11(h), . . .

TEMPLE a k a v. DAHM, W. X. Dr. Dr., 905 F. Supp. 670 (D. Neb. 1995)

. . . assistance of counsel, his complaint is before this court for initial review pursuant to Local Rule 83.10 . . . until the undersigned has completed his initial review of plaintiffs claims pursuant to Local Rule 83.10 . . . until the undersigned has completed the initial review of plaintiffs claims pursuant to Local Rule 83.10 . . . Local Rule 83.10 provides for initial, sua sponte review of all complaints tiled without the assistance . . . Local Rule 83.10 provides for initial review by a magistrate, who will (1) recommend dismissal of all . . .

Wa MUHANNAD, v. KINNEY W. X., 51 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 1995)

. . . Houston, 33 F.3d 893, 895 (8th Cir.1994) (per curiam), we concluded that the district court’s Local Rule 83.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GREENE,, 41 F.3d 383 (8th Cir. 1994)

. . . procedure established in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota Local Rule 83.10 . . .

E. CARNEY, v. HOUSTON, 33 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 1994)

. . . later, a second magistrate judge reviewed Carney’s complaint under the district court’s Local Rule 83.10 . . . After an additional review under Rule 83.10, but before service of process, the magistrate judge recommended . . . Local Rule 83.10(d) and the procedures followed in this case do not conform to Gentile. . . . After in forma pauperis status was granted, the second magistrate judge undertook a Rule 83.10(d) determination . . . Rule 83.10(d) provides in part that, after the plaintiff has been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis . . .

ROBINSON, v. ENG,, 148 F.R.D. 635 (D. Neb. 1993)

. . . Local Rule 83.10 provides for initial, sua sponte review of all complaints filed without the assistance . . . Local Rule 83.10 provides for initial review by a magistrate judge, who will either (1) order the issuance . . .

WESCH, v. HUNT,, 785 F. Supp. 1491 (S.D. Ala. 1992)

. . . SCYRENE 1,421 888 531 100.00% ’ 62.49% 37.37% 1 1 o 0.07% 0.07% 0.00% CHANCE 213 36 177 100.00% 16.90% 83.10% . . .

BURNS v. UNITED STATES, 501 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1991)

. . . Rules 83.10(c)-(d); U. S. Dist. Ct. for the EDNC Rules 50.03-50.05; U. S. Dist. . . .

RIVERA, v. DYETT, M. D. III, M. D. M. D., 762 F. Supp. 1109 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . Glassman Total hours claimed 83.10 Disallowance for 7/12/88 4.50 Disallowance for post-transfer hours . . .

NODLAND v. HUGGINS, 44 Fla. Supp. 2d 90 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . result in the issuance of a “Demand for Surrender of Premises”, in accordance with Florida Statute 83.10 . . .

BROWN, By v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS,, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989)

. . . 75.3 Highland Park H.S. 13.65 118.25 in Topeka H.S. 25.50 150.10 © Topeka West 3.00 120.00 in c4 Total 83.10 . . .

STATE HARTFORD ACCIDENT INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. L. JOHNSON, W., 118 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1960)

. . . Volume 2, Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, Section 83.10 et seq. . . .

WICK ROOFING COMPANY, v. D. CURTIS, 110 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1959)

. . . , 278 Mass. 180, 179 N.E. 684, 79 A.L.R. 669; Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, Vol. 2, Sections 83.10 . . .

SOUTHERN PAC. CO. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 177 F. 963 (N.D. Cal. 1910)

. . . In accordance with this understanding the Southern Pacific established in 3899 a rate of 83.10 per ton . . . “In the latter part of 1903 the 83.10 rate was withdrawn from Portland, and in January, 1904, it was . . .