Cases from cite.case.law:

K. ROBINSON, v. COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 242 So. 3d 467 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . We affirm the portion of the order finding that Robinson violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes . . . (3) or (7) but that he did violate section 112.313(6) and (16)(c). . . . With respect to section 112.313(6), the ALJ explained: Based upon his years of service to the City and . . . Here, Robinson was found to have violated the first sentence of section 112.313(16)(c). . . . (6), but reverse its finding that he violated section 112.313(16)(c). . . .

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 214 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 2017)

. . . gratuity. property, commercial interest, or anv other thing of economic value not authorized bv law. ⅜ 112.313 . . . the public officer. employee, local government attorney, or candidate would be influenced thereby. ⅜ 112.313 . . . the public officer. employee, local government attorney, or candidate would be influenced thereby. f 112.313 . . . S 112.313(4). Fla. Stat. . . . Stat. $ 112.313(2). Fla. Stat. . . .

Al HADEED v. STATE, 208 So. 3d 782 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . It concluded that the complaint “substantively fails to indicate a possible violation of Section 112.313 . . .

R. CREWS, v. STATE, 183 So. 3d 329 (Fla. 2015)

. . . officers and employees); § 111.012(l)(b) (defining "elected public officer” for purposes of section);- § 112.313 . . .

CZAJKOWSKI, v. STATE, 178 So. 3d 498 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . In the response, the state argued that section 838.016, coupled with sections 112.313(2) and 112.313( . . . (2) and 112.313(4). . . . The state ultimately requested a special jury instruction based on only section 112.313(4). . . . When combined with the common theme running between sections' 112.313(2) and 112.313(4) — that a-publicofficer . . . (2) and 112.313(4) provide. . . .

B. McALPIN, v. CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION,, 155 So. 3d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . enforcement officers through violation of sections 914.22(1) (witness tampering), 837.012(1) (perjury), and 112.313 . . . official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or others.” § 112.313 . . .

L. FERNANDEZ, v. CITY OF MIAMI,, 147 So. 3d 553 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Fernandez argues that section 112.313(5), Florida Statutes (2006), relieved him of any fiduciary duty . . . Section 112.313 provides: (5) SALARY AND EXPENSES. — No public officer shall be prohibited from voting . . . See § 112.313(5), Fla. . . .

YOUNG, v. LAMAR,, 115 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Executive Director of the Commission, indicated that the complaint failed to allege, as required by Section 112.313 . . .

SIPLIN, v. COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 59 So. 3d 150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . issued by the Florida Commission on Ethics (“Commission”), concluding that Gary Siplin violated section 112.313 . . . the matter to an administrative law judge, and ultimately concluded that Siplin had violated section 112.313 . . . In order to conclude that Siplin violated section 112.313(6), the Commission was required to find by . . . The district court concluded that the touchstone of section 112.313(6) is its requirement that the public . . . acted corruptly, a term that has penal nuances: The statute under which Latham was charged, section 112.313 . . .

WASSERSTROM, v. STATE, 21 So. 3d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Stat. s. 112.313(3),(7). . . . Stat. s. 112.313(3), (7). . . .

MALOY, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LEON COUNTY,, 946 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . ’s first allegation concerned improper solicitation and acceptance of gifts in violation of section 112.313 . . . Danaher’s second allegation accused Maloy of misusing his public position in violation of section 112.313 . . . The complaint also accused Maloy of violating section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, through an improper . . . romantically oriented comments, behavior, and/or invitations to female staff members in violation of section 112.313 . . .

FANIZZA, v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 927 So. 2d 23 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . The commission found separate ethical violations for each case, based on section 112.313(7), Florida . . . We agree with appellant that the commission erroneously interpreted section 112.313(7). . . . The commission, as we said earlier, found the same violation of section 112.313(7), in the order quoted . . .

G. S. BENNETT, v. COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 871 So. 2d 924 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . of the Council of the Town of Pierson, Florida, to obtain a special benefit in violation of section 112.313 . . . The statutory provision at issue here is section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent . . . duties, [3] to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or others. § 112.313 . . . This, the Commission asserts, meets the “corrupt” standard required under section 112.313(6), Florida . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 852 So. 2d 351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . we conclude that her challenge, based upon application of the two-year representation bar of section 112.313 . . .

ACCELERATED BENEFITS CORPORATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,, 813 So. 2d 117 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . The statute addressed by both Barker and Goin was section 112.313(4), Florida Statutes (1993), which . . .

I. VELEZ, v. COMMISSION ON ETHICS, STATE OF FLORIDA,, 739 So. 2d 686 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Velez’s part-time employment constituted a prohibited conflict of interest under section 112.313(7)(a . . . part-time employment constituted a conflict of interest prohibited under the second part of section 112.313 . . . That section provides: 112.313 Standards of conduct for public officers, employees of agencies, and local . . .

D. LATHAM, v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Commission) adopting a hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusion that La-tham violated section 112.313 . . . The statute under which Latham was charged, section 112.313(6), has as its touchstone the requirement . . .

BARKER, v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS M., 683 So. 2d 675 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Florida Commission on Ethics, 654 So.2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), we held section 112.313(4) to be unconstitutionally . . .

BREVARD COUNTY, v. STATE, COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 678 So. 2d 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Commission determined that, under the facts presented, a conflict of interest existed under section 112.313 . . . to work for the entity, provide an exemption from section 112.313(7)(a) for the county employee? . . . Stat. 112.313(7)(b), would provide an exemption from this conflict.” . . . the determination that a conflict of interest exists under section 112.313(7)(a). . . . When a prohibited conflict of interest exists under section 112.313(7)(a), section 112.313(7)(b) allows . . .

COMMISSION ON ETHICS, v. BARKER,, 677 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1996)

. . . on Ethics, 654 So.2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), wherein the district court of appeal declared section 112.313 . . . Section 112.313(4) provides: No public officer or employee of an agency or his spouse or minor child . . . In D’Alemberte, we invalidated an earlier version of section 112.313(4) as unconstitutionally vague. . . . Neither the court below nor any of the parties have suggested, nor do we find, that section 112.313(4 . . . We conclude, therefore, that section 112.313(4) is facially constitutional. . . . be in a position to help the donor one day, without more, would not establish a violation of section 112.313 . . . , no one can dispute that we have been unable to give concrete meaning to the provisions of section 112.313 . . .

GEORGE L. W. O. v. CITY OF COCOA, FLORIDA, 78 F.3d 494 (11th Cir. 1996)

. . . is prohibited unless “there is, or appears to be, a possible conflict of interest under § 112.311, § 112.313 . . . Ann. § 112.313(6) (West 1994), which provides that “No public officer or employee of an agency ... shall . . .

G. GOIN, v. COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 658 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Goin, former Athletic Director of Florida State University (FSU), violated section 112.313(4), Florida . . . In this appeal, Goin argues that section 112.313(4) is unconstitutionally vague. . . . Goin also asserts that section 112.313(4) is unconstitutional because it covers cases where the public . . . Goin submits that because under section 112.313(4) a person of common understanding intelligence must . . . Anderson, 349 So.2d 164 (Fla.1977), the supreme court considered the language of section 112.313(2)(a . . .

BARKER, v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS M., 654 So. 2d 646 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . and public report issued by the Florida Commission on Ethics, finding that Barker violated Section 112.313 . . . We reverse because Section 112.313(4) is facially unconstitutionally vague. . . . Coral Gables City Commissioner since 1989, accepted unauthorized compensation in violation of Section 112.313 . . . Section 112.313(4) provides: No public officer or employee of an agency or his spouse or minor child . . . However, when the Florida Legislature enacted the current Section 112.313(4), it used language prohibiting . . .

KINZER, v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 654 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . The Ethics Commission also found that Kinzer had violated subsection 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (1989 . . . The Ethics Commission proceeded against Kinzer under subsection 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (1989), . . . One of the key terms in subsection 112.313(6) is the word “corruptly.” . . . Consequently, we reverse the finding that Kinzer violated subsection 112.313(6). . . .

STATE v. MARK MARKS, P. A. STATE v. MARK MARKS, P. A. a k a, 654 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Rou, 366 So.2d 385 (Fla.1978), the supreme court held section 112.313(3), Florida Statutes (1973), to . . . Section 112.313(3) made it improper for state or county employees to use their official position to secure . . .

R. PATCHETT, v. COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 626 So. 2d 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Commission on Ethics (“Commission”) alleging that Patchett, a former Florida legislator, had violated § 112.313 . . . After entry of a probable-cause order finding a violation of § 112.313(4), the Commission gave notice . . .

COUCH, v. COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 617 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The Commission received a sworn complaint from Taunton alleging that Tapper had violated section 112.313 . . . investigation, the Commission found that there was no probable cause to believe that Tapper violated section 112.313 . . .

McKINNEY, v. PATE,, 985 F.2d 1502 (11th Cir. 1993)

. . . advisory opinions from the Florida Commission on Ethics clearly illustrate that the Florida statute, § 112.313 . . .

K. GORDON, v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 609 So. 2d 125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . The order held that appellant, while a member of the Coral Springs City Commission, violated sections 112.313 . . . (6) and 112.313(7), Florida Statutes (1989). . . . We also affirm the commission’s conclusion that appellant violated section 112.313(6) when he used city . . . The hearing officer concluded that appellant did not violate section 112.313(6) with reference to the . . .

RICH, v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 596 So. 2d 504 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . In determining this violation, the Commission declined to apply the exemption set forth in section 112.313 . . . Given this, the phrase “subject transaction” contained in section 112.313(12)(f) must apply to the single . . . Rich in violation of section 112.313(7)(a) by reason of a church carnival ride inspection and penalizing . . .

BLACKBURN, v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 589 So. 2d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part: (6) MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION . . . An essential element of the charged offense under section 112.313(6) is the statutory requirement that . . . We do not believe that section 112.313(6), standing alone, provided a legally sufficient basis for putting . . . If the code of ethics in section 112.313 is to cover the acts charged and proved against appellant in . . . proven against appellant under the circumstances of this case is not within the proscriptions of section 112.313 . . .

CRONLEY v. PENSACOLA NEWS- JOURNAL, INC. v. CHILDERS, 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 131 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . Ethics a complaint against Childers in which it was charged that there had been a violation of Section 112.313 . . .

IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, v. MONROE COUNTY, 448 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . there is, or appears to be, a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of s. 112.311, s. 112.313 . . . may abstain from voting only if there is or appears to be a conflict or interest under §§ 112.311, 112.313 . . .

GARNER, v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 439 So. 2d 894 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . from various female subordinate personnel and that such behavior constituted a violation of section 112.313 . . . One of appellant’s contentions on appeal is that section 112.313(6) is unconstitutional as applied in . . . that the allegations against appellant were within the jurisdiction of the Commission under section 112.313 . . . (6) and that section 112.313(6) is not unconstitutionally vague. . . . Section 112.313(7) defines “corruptly” as “done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining . . .

B. LOVEJOY, W. M. A. v. R. GRUBBS, T. E. H., 432 So. 2d 678 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Count One was based upon an alleged violation of section 112.313, Florida Statutes (1981); Count Two . . .

STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS, v. SULLIVAN, 430 So. 2d 928 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . whether violations of Sections 99.012(7) and 116.111 may be determined to be violations of Section 112.313 . . . Subsection 112.313(6) provides: MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION. — No public officer or employee of an agency . . . another by causing the alteration and falsification of copies of public documents in violation of Section 112.313 . . . (4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1974), the predecessor to Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1980 . . . exemption for the officeholder or another, and, thus, the Commission has jurisdiction under Section 112.313 . . .

COMMISSION ON ETHICS, v. L. H. LANCASTER,, 421 So. 2d 711 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . with several acts of sexual harassment against some of his female employees in violation of Section 112.313 . . .

A. HOWARD, Jr. v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 421 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Zerweck violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). . . . stated that this dual employment presented a conflict of interest which was prohibited under Section 112.313 . . . evinced by Sections 112.311 and 112.316, Florida Statutes (1979), construed in pari materia with Section 112.313 . . . is no suggestion by Howard that the legislature exceeded its authority by the enactment of Section 112.313 . . . I also agree that Section 112.313(3), Florida Statutes (1979), does not interfere with our Supreme Court . . . his law firm openly arrived at and in use for a number of years does not, in my view, violate Section 112.313 . . . Section 112.313(3), Florida Statutes (1979). . . . Thus, we have interpreted Section 112.313(3), Florida Statutes, to apply not only where a public officer . . . Section 112.313(3) does contain a “grandfather” clause, which would exempt contracts entered into prior . . .

FLORIDA PUBLISHING COMPANY, v. WILKES, L. H., 420 So. 2d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . matters of pleading only which require no evidentiary predicate for their determination: (1) that Section 112.313 . . .

Dr. GARNER, v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 415 So. 2d 67 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . President of Hillsborough Community College, alleging he misused his public position, contrary to Section 112.313 . . . additional allegation of the complaints charged that the acts of sexual harassment violated Section 112.313 . . . Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, prevents a public official or employee from using his or her official . . . We find no merit in Garner’s contention that Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (1981), is unconstitutionally . . .

ZERWECK, v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 409 So. 2d 57 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . commissioner and mayor of the City of Margate, challenges the applicability and constitutionality of Section 112.313 . . . Zerweck with a violation of Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). . . . Zerweck’s initial suggestion that he is exempt from the strictures of Section 112.313(7)(a) by virtue . . . Zerweck argues that Section 112.313(7)(a) is too vague to pass constitutional muster. . . . Specifically, he suggests that the term “conflict,” which is used in Section 112.313(7)(a) and which . . . Section 112.313(7)(a). Would his employment by D.J.M. . . .

SOUTH TRAIL AREA FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT, a v. D. KNECHT,, 400 So. 2d 46 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Knecht’s dual employment to be a conflict of interest under section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes (1977 . . .

L. TAUNTON, v. TAPPER,, 396 So. 2d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . The Commission received a sworn complaint from appellant alleging that appellee had violated Section 112.313 . . . Section 112.313(7)(a) provides: No public officer or employee of an agency shall have or hold any employment . . . Joe Stevedoring Company, the Commission found there was no violation of Section 112.313(7)(a) under the . . . exception specified in Section 112.313(7)(b) since the special act creating the Authority permitted . . . Commission’s apparent construction of the “which is subject to the regulation of” phrase in Section 112.313 . . .

TENNEY, v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS, STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS, v. TENNEY,, 395 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Richard Tenney appeals from an order of the trial court upholding the constitutionality of section 112.313 . . . the Commission on Ethics which charged that Tenney had violated the following provision of section 112.313 . . . Ten-ney has based his argument that section 112.313(6) is unconstitutional on the fact that the Supreme . . . While section 112.313(6) is similar to former section 112.313(3), there have been two notable changes . . . Accordingly, we hold that section 112.313(6) is constitutional. . . .

C. WRIGHT, v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 389 So. 2d 662 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . A complaint was the filed against her for violating Sections 112.313(10)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes . . . This apparently is a case of first impression regarding the application of Section 112.313(10), and the . . . The manifest purpose of Section 112.313(10), Florida Statutes, is to prevent a public employee or officer . . . The majority agrees that the purpose of Section 112.313(10) is “to prevent a public employee or officer . . . This result, in my opinion, flies directly in the face of the statutory prohibition of Section 112.313 . . .

L. DeBUSK, v. SMITH,, 390 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1980)

. . . another by causing the alteration and falsification of copies of public documents in violation of section 112.313 . . . corruptly used his official position to secure a special privilege for Sells in violation of section 112.313 . . . Section 112.313(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1974), provides: No public officer or employee of an agency . . .

R. BRUNER, v. STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 384 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Suffice it to say that appellee Commission found that appellant, by his actions, violated § 112.313(6 . . .

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CITRUS COUNTY, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, C., 370 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . See generally § 112.313(6), Fla. Stat. (1977); City of Clearwater v. . . .

T. WEST, v. A. TROELSTRUP,, 367 So. 2d 253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . upon confidential insider information for his own personal gain or benefit in violation of Section 112.313 . . .

STATE v. M. ROU, Jr., 366 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1978)

. . . Section 112.313(3), Florida Statutes (1973), provided: “No officer or employee of a state agency, or . . . As will be seen, Rou’s contention suggests that Section 112.313(3) may be ill-suited to achieve the legislative . . .

T. WEST, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT,, 371 So. 2d 107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . wristwatch which had not been stolen for your own personal gain or benefit in violation of subsection 112.313 . . .

G. OLDHAM, Jr. v. F. ROOKS,, 361 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1978)

. . . member, there is or appears to be a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of § 112.311, § 112.313 . . . In such cases said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of § 112.313. . . .

STATE v. DeLEO, STATE v. W. JOHNSON,, 356 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1978)

. . . , with corrupt intent to obtain benefit for themselves, a statute relating to their office: Section 112.313 . . .

FLORIDA GULF HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY, INC. v. COMMISSION ON ETHICS, 354 So. 2d 932 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . FLORIDA STATUTES) AND THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT PROVISIONS (SECTION 112.313, FLORIDA STATUTES). . . .

D ALEMBERTE, W. E. A. Jr. F. L. D. v. ANDERSON,, 349 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1977)

. . . this Court following a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, declaring Section 112.313 . . . On December 13, 1974, the full Commission found that appel-lee violated Section 112.313(1), Florida Statutes . . . It should be noted that Section 112.313(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1974), was amended by Ch. 75-208, . . . § 4, Laws of Florida, and now appears in relevant part as Section 112.313(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975 . . . While the proscribed conduct is similar to that under § 112.313(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1975), the Canon is . . .

STATE v. F. WERSHOW, 343 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1977)

. . . Dinsmore, 308 So.2d 32 (Fla.1975), wherein this court determined Section 112.313, Florida Statutes, to . . .

ANDERSON, v. D ALEMBERTE,, 334 So. 2d 618 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . has found petitioner, a member of the City Commission of Stuart, Florida, to be in violation of F.S. 112.313 . . . and practice.” (269 So.2d at page 670) In the Llopis decision, the court held subsection 6 of F.S. 112.313 . . . added) Judged by the principles of law announced in the Llopis case the standard contained within F.S. 112.313 . . . The statute (F.S. 112.313(1)) uses the words “reasonably prudent person.” . . . F.S. 112.313(6) provided: “No officer or employee of a state agency, or of a county, city, or other political . . .

STATE BUNTEMEYER, v. FLORIDA STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 321 So. 2d 137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . On March 18, 1975, relator filed a disclosure statement in compliance with § 112.313(3), Florida Statutes . . .

GOLDTRAP v. COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 43 Fla. Supp. 11 (Leon Cty. Cir. Ct. 1975)

. . . (Section 3 of act which amends §112.313, Florida Statutes 1973.) . . .

STATE v. E. GLIDEWELL,, 311 So. 2d 126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . three-count information charged ap-pellee with violations of Florida Statutes, Sections 811.021, 817.29, and 112.313 . . .

STATE v. J. DINSMORE,, 308 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1975)

. . . on consolidated direct appeals from orders of the County Court of Pinellas County holding Sections 112.313 . . . November 14, 1973, filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him on the grounds that Section 112.313 . . . The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and held that Section 112.313(2), Florida Statutes, which . . . In such cases said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of § 112.313.” clarifies any . . . Therein this Court held Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, to be unconstitutionally vague opining, . . .

ZELTZER v. MIAMI BEACH CITY COUNCIL,, 39 Fla. Supp. 160 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1973)

. . . The following prohibition is contained in §112.313 subsection (3)- No officer or employee of a state . . . The defendants amended their answer to state that §112.311, §112.313 (3), and §112.314(1) are unconstitutional . . .

STATE v. A. LLOPIS,, 257 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1971)

. . . . § 112.313(6), F.S.A., and holding that statute unconstitutional. . . . the said City of Tamarac on said date, against the form of the statute in such case pursuant to Sec. 112.313 . . . levied against him, appellee moved for a dismissal of the information on the ground that Fla.Stat. § 112.313 . . . considered, the Defendant having properly raised the sole issue of the constitutionality of Fla.Stat. 112.313 . . .