Florida Statute 92.06 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VII
EVIDENCE

Chapter 92
WITNESSES, RECORDS, AND DOCUMENTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 92.06

92.06 Judgments and decrees of United States District Courts.—All final judgments and decrees heretofore or hereafter to be rendered and entered in the United States District Courts of this state and certified copies thereof are declared to be admissible as prima facie evidence in the several courts of this state of the entry and validity of such judgments and decrees.

History.—s. 1, ch. 14748, 1931; CGL 1936 Supp. 4391(1).

F.S. 92.06 on Google Scholar

F.S. 92.06 on Casetext

Amendments to 92.06

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 92.06

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 92.06.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 92.06

Total Results: 8

In Re Guardianship of Sitter

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2000-02-16

Citation: 779 So. 2d 346, 2000 WL 193601

Snippet: in the amount of $4,630. The fee request was for 92.6 hours over 16 months, at an hourly rate of $50.

State v. Setzler

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1995-10-24

Citation: 667 So. 2d 343, 1995 WL 619890

Snippet: 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Pineda v. State, No. 92-06-AP (Fla. 8th Cir. Ct. March 19, 1993). The defense

Bird Lakes Development Corp. v. Meruelo

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-06-22

Citation: 626 So. 2d 239, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6709

Snippet: PER CURIAM. Because a trial court may not award appellate attorney’s fees absent a mandate from the appellate court, Garcia v. Garcia, 570 So.2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA1990), we reverse the trial court’s award of appellate attorney’s fees to appellee Gesyl’s attorney. Finding no merit in appellant’s other contentions, we affirm the judgment for attorney’s fees in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Freeman v. Rubin

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1975-08-12

Citation: 318 So. 2d 540

Snippet: the subject order was admissible pursuant to § 92.06, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.[2] Hence, we find that the trial

Mann v. Thompson

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1958-02-27

Citation: 100 So. 2d 634

Snippet: Trowbridge Co. v. H. Baars & Co., 60 Fla. 253, 54 So. 92. [6] Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln, 94 Fla. 1097,

Crawford v. McGraw

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1952-11-21

Citation: 61 So. 2d 484, 1952 Fla. LEXIS 1806

Snippet: 51 Jul 17 1,171.92 6,668.38* ----------------------------------

Skipper v. Schumacher

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1936-05-28

Citation: 169 So. 58, 124 Fla. 384, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1134

Snippet: proceeding. Linch v. Broad, 70 Tex. 92[70 Tex. 92], 6 S.W. 751. But an attack by habeas corpus on the

Jackson v. Haisly

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1891-01-15

Citation: 27 Fla. 205

Snippet: Lewis, Executor vs. Meginniss, 25 Fla., 589, 591-92; 6 Southern Reporter, 169; Cook vs. Cook, 104 Ill.