The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IX
ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS

Chapter 107
CONVENTIONS TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 107.11

107.11 Appropriation for expenses.—For the purpose of defraying the expenses of preparing for, conducting, holding, and declaring the result of the election provided for by this chapter and also for the purpose of defraying the expenses allowed by this chapter for the holding of sessions of the convention as herein provided, to be audited by the Chief Financial Officer, there is appropriated out of the General Revenue Fund of the State of Florida a sufficient sum of money for the payment of all amounts necessary to be expended under the terms of this chapter, which sums of money shall be disbursed by the State of Florida pursuant to warrants drawn by the Chief Financial Officer for the payment of same.

History.—s. 11, ch. 16180, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 319(11); s. 111, ch. 2003-261.

F.S. 107.11 on Google Scholar

F.S. 107.11 on Casetext

Amendments to 107.11

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 107.11

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 107.11.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

COLON, v. J. ANNUCCI, F. s, 344 F. Supp. 3d 612 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . charging him with the following Inmate Rule Violations: 102.10 Threats, 104.13 Creating a Disturbance, and 107.11 . . .

PADILLA, v. AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, G., 282 F. Supp. 3d 1234 (D.N.M. 2017)

. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 107.11[1][b][iv] ("[T]hird-party defendants are not defendants within . . .

DE LA ROSA, De La De La De La De La De La v. RELIABLE, INC. a a a, 113 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (D.N.M. 2015)

. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 107.11[1][b][iv] ("[Tjhird-party defendants are not defendants within . . . See Moore, supra, § 107.11 [l][b][iv] ("The better view ... is that third-party claims are not removable . . .

McDANIEL v. LOYA d b a, 304 F.R.D. 617 (D.N.M. 2015)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11 [1 ][b][iv] (“[Tlhird-party defendants are not defendants within . . . See Moore, supra, § 107.11 [ 1 ][b][iv] ("The better view ... is that third-party claims are not removable . . .

AGUAYO, Sr. Jr. v. AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,, 59 F. Supp. 3d 1225 (D.N.M. 2014)

. . . See Moore, supra, § 107.11 [1][b][iv] ("The better view ... is that third-party claims are not removable . . .

GREEN, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 575 F. App'x 322 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . loan modification lowered the fixed interest rate from 8.990 percent to 5.500 percent, resulting in a $107.11 . . .

WASHINGTON, v. GONYEA,, 538 F. App'x 23 (2d Cir. 2013)

. . . Washington had “communicat[ed] messages of a personal nature to an employee,” thereby violating Rule 107.11 . . . Rule 107.11 is part of Rule Series 107, which addresses an inmate’s "Interference with an Employee or . . . Rule 107.11 provides in full, An inmate shall not harass an employee or any other person verbally or . . .

ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES, GMBH LLP, v. GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE, INC., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

. . . specification, although it is apparently a database of the rules described as the Task Library, id. col. 107.11 . . .

ARANDA, v. FOAMEX INTERNATIONAL d b a FXI,, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (D.N.M. 2012)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[l][c], at 107-36-37 (3d ed. 2006)(“Because the right of removal . . .

CHRISTIANSEN, v. WEST BRANCH COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT a H. M. K. A, 674 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2012)

. . . non-removing co-defendant must express consent to removal. 16 Georgene Vairo, Moore’s Federal Practice-Civil § 107.11 . . .

A. ZAMORA, v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, A N. A., 831 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (D.N.M. 2011)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[1][c], at 107-36-37 (3d ed. 2006) (“Because the right of removal . . .

In CRYSTAL POWER COMPANY, LTD., 641 F.3d 78 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[l][b][iv] (3d ed. 2000) ("[T]hird-party defendants are . . .

MACH, III, a a a a v. TRIPLE D SUPPLY, LLC R. d b a E S D LLC, R. v. III, a a a a LLC, R. v. d b a E S v. D LLC, R. v., 773 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (D.N.M. 2011)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 107.11[l][c], at 107-36-37 (3d ed. 2006)(“Because the right of removal . . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[l][b][iv] (3d ed. 1998) (noting that the “better view . . . See 16 Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[l][b][iv], at 107-31 (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 2000) (“[T]hird-party . . .

STARK- ROMERO, P. J. G. Co- S. v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER COMPANY Fe BNSF L. L. C., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D.N.M. 2011)

. . . Moore, supra, § 107.11[1][b][iv], at 107-34-35 (“[T]hird-party defendants are not defendants within the . . . Moore, supra, § 107.11[1][b][iv], at 107-34-35 ("The better view ... is that third-party claims are not . . .

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, v. DUNN- EDWARDS CORPORATION, A. FM, 728 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (D.N.M. 2010)

. . . , 2010 WL 553443, *4 (D.N.M. 02/09/10) (collecting cases); see generally Moore's Federal Practice § 107.11 . . . (quoting Moore’s Federal Practice, § 107.11[l][c] (3rd ed. 2006)). . . . .

F. GROSS, Jr. v. DEBERARDINIS,, 722 F. Supp. 2d 532 (D. Del. 2010)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice 107.11[l][b][ii] (3d ed. 1997) (“a non-party, even one that claims . . .

TRESCO, INC. a v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1243 (D.N.M. 2010)

. . . Vairo, Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[l][c], at 107-38 (3d ed. 2010). . . .

CANADIAN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL, LTD. v. OTTAWA RAPIDZ, O, 686 F. Supp. 2d 579 (M.D.N.C. 2010)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[l][d] (3d ed. 2009) (citing cases); see Mason v. . . .

FORTUNA, v. ILLINOIS SPORTS d b a SDI, 668 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Ill. 2009)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice § 107.11[1][b][iii], at 107-33 to -34 (3d ed. 2008) ("[R]emoval under Section . . .

F. RAMSEY, v. S. GOORD,, 661 F. Supp. 2d 370 (W.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . charging Plaintiff with violating DOCS Rules 102.10 (spoken threat), 104.11 (threat of violence), and 107.11 . . .

H H TERMINALS, LC H H LLC, v. R. RAMOS FAMILY TRUST, LLP R. LLP, v. d b a APD RJL LLC,, 634 F. Supp. 2d 770 (W.D. Tex. 2009)

. . . See also 16 Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[1][b][iv], at 107-31 (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 2000) ("[T] . . .

THE MOBILE WASHINGTON MOWA BAND OF THE CHOCTAW INDIAN TRIBE, v. SUNBELT RESOURCES, INC. v. Co., 649 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Ala. 2009)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 107.11[1][ b][ iv], at 107-35); Moss Land and Mineral Corp. v. . . .

PALISADES COLLECTIONS LLC, v. SHORTS, v. AT T LLC AT T, 552 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2008)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[l][b][iv] (3d ed.1998) (noting that the “better view” . . .

E. WIATT E. v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES, v., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D.N.M. 2007)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 107.11[l][c], at 107-36-37 (3rd ed. 2006)(“Because the right of removal . . . Moore, swpra, § 107.11[l][b][iv], at 107-34-35 (“[T]hird-party defendants are not defendants within the . . . Moore, supra, § 107.11 [l][b][iv], at 107-34-35 (“The better view ... is that third-party claims are . . .

DAVIDSON, v. MURRAY, A. III,, 371 F. Supp. 2d 361 (W.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Sherlock found plaintiff guilty of violating inmate disciplinary rules 102.10, 107.10 and 107.11, and . . . Rule 107.11 provides: Inmates shall not harass employees or any other persons verbally or in writing. . . .

BROWN, v. MITCHELL,, 327 F. Supp. 2d 615 (E.D. Va. 2004)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 107.11[1][d] (3d ed.2003). . . . .

M. CHAVIS, A- v. G. STRUEBEL R., 317 F. Supp. 2d 232 (W.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . writing (102.10); harass employees in writing including insolent, abusive and/or obscene language (107.11 . . .

G. GILL, v. V. HOADLEY, J. C. L. Mr. G. Lt. J. J., 261 F. Supp. 2d 113 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . a disciplinary report, authored by defendant Hoadley, charging Gill with violation of prison rules 107.11 . . .

UNICOM SYSTEMS, INC. v. NATIONAL LOUIS UNIVERSITY,, 262 F. Supp. 2d 638 (E.D. Va. 2003)

. . . See 16 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 107.11 [2] (3d ed.1999) (citing 12 U.S.C. § 1441a). . . .

SANFORD, v. PREMIER MILLWORK LUMBER CO. INC. Sr. Jr. v., 234 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Va. 2002)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11(l)(b)(iv) (Daniel R. . . .

P. DORSEY v. BORG- WARNER AUTOMOTIVE, INC. v. C. Jo v., 218 F. Supp. 2d 817 (S.D.W. Va. 2002)

. . . F.Supp. 820, 826-27 (D.Md.1995)); see also 16 James William Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11 . . . Moore’s Federal Practice, § 107.11[1][c]. . . .

In MID- ATLANTIC RESOURCES CORP. E. v., 283 B.R. 176 (S.D.W. Va. 2002)

. . . Cabell Huntington Hosp., Inc., 58 F.Supp.2d 694, 697 (S.D.W.Va.1999) (citing Moore’s Federal Practice, § 107.11 . . .

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PULASKI, v. T. CURRY P. C. R. M. v. P. C., 301 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . See 16 Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[l][b][iv], at 107-31 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.2000) (“[T]hird-party . . .

CARROLL COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL, v. ROSEN, 174 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D. Md. 2001)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[1][b][iv] (Daniel R. . . .

BJB COMPANY, v. COMP AIR LEROI, v., 148 F. Supp. 2d 751 (N.D. Tex. 2001)

. . . This view is further supported by Moore’s Federal Practice. 16 § 107.11[1][b][iv] (3d ed.1997). . . .

D. STURMAN, v. RUSH- PRESBYTERIAN- ST. LUKE S MEDICAL CENTER, v., 128 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (N.D. Ill. 2001)

. . . jurisdictional hook in the underscored portion of this excerpt from 16 Moore’s Federal Practice (“Moore’s”) § 107.11 . . . Indeed, Moore’s § 107.11[l][b] — in a portion that has not been quoted by Red Cross — says: Further, . . .

ESTATE PILSNIK, v. HUDLER, R., 118 F. Supp. 2d 905 (E.D. Wis. 2000)

. . . As explained in 16 Moore's Federal Practice, § 107.11[1][b][iv] (3d ed.1997), "[t]hird-party defendants . . .

In COPELAND, 238 B.R. 801 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1999)

. . . Monthly lease payment $107.11 2. Sales tax $ 3.92 3. . . . charge $ 70.00 $181.03 Thereafter, the lease payment is calculated as follows: Base Monthly Payment $107.11 . . .

LLOYD, v. CABELL HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, INC., 58 F. Supp. 2d 694 (S.D.W. Va. 1999)

. . . F.Supp. 820, 826-27 (D.Md.1995)); see also 16 James William Moore, et al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11 . . . Moore’s Federal Practice, § 107.11[l][c]. . . .

MONMOUTH- OCEAN COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. MCOC v. KLOR v. U. S., 46 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D.N.J. 1999)

. . . Vario, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 107.11[l][b][iv] (3d Cir.1998) (footnotes omitted) ]. . . .

PRIZE FRIZE, INC. v. MATRIX U. S. INC. MXI, EZ O. Uk S. A. H R C. C., 167 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1999)

. . . MooRE et al, MooRe’s FEDERAL PRACTICE § 107.11(d) (Matthew Bender 3d ed.1997) (“the notice of removal . . .

GALEN- MED, INC. v. D. OWENS, v., 41 F. Supp. 2d 611 (W.D. Va. 1999)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[1][b][iv] (Daniel R. . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. STATE ELECTIONS BOARD,, 30 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D.P.R. 1998)

. . . Co., 827 F.Supp. 1236, 1237 (D.W.Va.1993); 16 Moore's Federal Practice § 107.11[l][c] (3rd ed.1998). . . .

DAO, v. KNIGHTSBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION, R., 15 F. Supp. 2d 567 (D.N.J. 1998)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[c-d] at 107-31 to 107-34 (3d ed.1998). . . .

LOYOLA MEDICAL PRACTICE PLAN, v. A. TROMICZAK, A. TROMICZAK, v. GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE,, 10 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Ill. 1998)

. . . the recent total revision of Moore’s Federal Practice (3rd ed. 1998)(“Moore’s”) states (16 Moore’s § 107.11 . . .

HYNES, v. J. SQUILLACE, N. F., 143 F.3d 653 (2d Cir. 1998)

. . . that “[a]ll orders of facility personnel will be obeyed promptly and without argument”; (iii) Rule 107.11 . . .

M. FERGUSON, R. L. A. N. v. KEOKUK AREA HOSPITAL M. FERGUSON, v. J. YEHAWI, M. D. H. J. M. D. P. C., 992 F. Supp. 1095 (S.D. Iowa 1997)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.11[l][e] (3rd ed.1997). . . .

GREEN, v. BAUVI, A., 824 F. Supp. 1134 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . MR-1 charged Plaintiff with violating three prison disciplinary rules 107.10, 107.11, and 109.10. . . . Inmates shall not physically or verbally obstruct or interfere with an employee at any time.” (2) Rule 107.11 . . .

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. v. LEE, SUPERINTENDENT OF PORT AUTHORITY POLICE, 505 U.S. 672 (U.S. 1992)

. . . See 14 CFR 107.11(f) (1991) and U. S. . . .

GREEN, v. BAUVI, A., 792 F. Supp. 928 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . (Inmates shall not physically or verbally obstruct or interfere with an employee at any time), Rule 107.11 . . . MR-3 charged Green with violations of Rule 107.11, supra, and Rule 102.10, which provides, “Inmates shall . . .

FRAZIER, v. A. COUGHLIN, III, R. J. D. C., 850 F.2d 129 (2d Cir. 1988)

. . . Frazier, defendant correction officer Brisbach charged him with violating three prison regulations — 107.11 . . .

A. FRIEDMAN, M. D. v. DELAWARE COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, STEVEN A. FRIEDMAN, M. D. P. C. v. DELAWARE COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,, 672 F. Supp. 171 (E.D. Pa. 1987)

. . . Code §§ 103.3(7), 103.4(8), 107.11. . . .

D. POSNER, M. D. P. C. v. LANKENAU HOSPITAL, A. G. K. R. A. H. G. W., 645 F. Supp. 1102 (E.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . Id. at §§ 107.11-12. . . .

In N. S. GARROTT SONS. In EASTERN ARKANSAS PLANTING COMPANY,, 63 B.R. 189 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1986)

. . . Illustrative of these problems are the following charges: 6-11-84 Peabody Hotel — Room One Night — One Person $107.11 . . . 17.34 4-21-84 Hasenours (Louisville) 34.61 4-26-84 Room Service 10.25 5-14-84 Peabody Hotel — One Night 107.11 . . .

MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY, v. A. J. GRANDBUSH,, 162 F. Supp. 797 (W.D. Ark. 1958)

. . . the Court, with the exception of the $1,113.61 relating to the Smith overriding royalty, and' the $107.11 . . . According to the Master’s Interim Report No. 4 there remains in the bank the sum of $107.11 of the original . . . Said sum of $107.11 should be applied in payment of the additional fee allowed the Master, thus leaving . . . which is a part of the costs, and allowing the Master in part payment of his additional fee the sum of $107.11 . . .

COLTRANE v. BALTIMORE BUILDING LOAN ASS N OF BALTIMORE CITY. In TWINING, 110 F. 281 (C.C.D. Md. 1901)

. . . I’carce has received one thousand one hundred and seven dollars and eleven cents (Sl,-107.11) as dividends . . .