Florida Statute 112.52 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS

Chapter 112
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 112.52

112.52 Removal of a public official when a method is not otherwise provided.—

(1) When a method for removal from office is not otherwise provided by the State Constitution or by law, the Governor may by executive order suspend from office an elected or appointed public official, by whatever title known, who is indicted or informed against for commission of any felony, or for any misdemeanor arising directly out of his or her official conduct or duties, and may fill the office by appointment for the period of suspension, not to extend beyond the term.

(2) During the period of the suspension, the public official shall not perform any official act, duty, or function or receive any pay, allowance, emolument, or privilege of office.

(3) If convicted, the public official may be removed from office by executive order of the Governor. For the purpose of this section, any person who pleads guilty or nolo contendere or who is found guilty shall be deemed to have been convicted, notwithstanding the suspension of sentence or the withholding of adjudication.

(4) If the public official is acquitted or found not guilty, or the charges are otherwise dismissed, the Governor shall by executive order revoke the suspension; and the public official shall be entitled to full back pay and such other emoluments or allowances to which he or she would have been entitled had he or she not been suspended.

History.—s. 1, ch. 80-333; s. 720, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 112.52 on Google Scholar

F.S. 112.52 on Casetext

Amendments to 112.52

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 112.52

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 112.52.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 112.52

Total Results: 16

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1994-09-30

Snippet: 4 See, Art. IV, s. 7(a), Fla. Const. 5 See, s. 112.52, Fla. Stat. 6 Supra, at note 4, p. 689. 7 The act

In Re Advisory Opinion to Governor

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-11-04

Citation: 626 So. 2d 684, 1993 WL 444288

Snippet: Executive Order 93-60, and pursuant to Section 112.52, Florida Statutes, I suspended and removed a member

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1992-10-07

Snippet: commission for judges of compensation claims.12 Section 112.52(1), F.S., states: When a method for removal from

In Re Shenberg

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-04-02

Citation: 632 So. 2d 42, 1992 WL 63094

Snippet: receive any compensation during a suspension); Id. § 112.52(2) (elected or appointed officers not otherwise

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1983-08-26

Snippet: him for the commission of a felony. However, s 112.52, F.S., enacted into law by Ch. 80-333, Laws of

Wilson v. Tanner

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1977-06-10

Citation: 346 So. 2d 1077

Snippet: 189 So. 30 (1930). In Adams v. Fryer, 59 Fla. 112, 52 So. 611 (1910), the court stated that where the

Kerrigan v. Thomas

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-07-17

Citation: 281 So. 2d 410

Snippet: "substantial" fence, citing Adams v. Fryer, 59 Fla. 112, 52 So. 611 (1910), to the effect that the Florida

Drawdy Investment Co. v. Leonard

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1947-01-31

Citation: 29 So. 2d 198, 158 Fla. 444, 1947 Fla. LEXIS 538

Snippet: Loring, 51 Fed. 932, 935; Adams v. Fryer, 59 Fla. 112, 52 So. 611; McKinnon v. Johnson, 59 Fla. 332, 52 So

Okeechobee Co. Ex Rel. Highsmith v. Norton

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1940-12-20

Citation: 199 So. 319, 145 Fla. 417, 1940 Fla. LEXIS 970

Snippet: 689, 46 A. L. R. 870; Adams v. Fryer, 59 Fla. 112, 52 So. 611; Berry v. Perdido Realty Co., 84 Fla. 134

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Seward

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1933-10-13

Citation: 150 So. 257, 112 Fla. 326, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2227

Snippet: 779, 47 So.2d Rep. 871; Adams v. Fryer, 59 Fla. 112, 52 So.2d Rep. 611; Baugher v. Boley,63 Fla. 75, 58

Day v. Benesh Et Ux.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1932-01-19

Citation: 139 So. 448, 104 Fla. 58

Snippet: bar the suit. See also Adams v. Fryer, 59 Fla. 112, 52 So. 611. It also seems that while there is a distinction

Douglass v. Aldridge

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1925-06-18

Citation: 105 So. 145, 90 Fla. 51

Snippet: 779,47 South. Rep. 871; Adams v. Fryer, 59 Fla. 112, 52 South. Rep. 611; 1 R. C. L. 685; Sanborn v. South

Berry v. Perdido Realty Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1922-07-21

Citation: 84 Fla. 134, 93 So. 171

Snippet: 47 South. *143Rep. 871; Adams v. Fryer, 59 Fla. 112, 52 South. Rep. 611; Baugher v. Boley, 63 Fla. 75,

Clark ex rel. Townsend-Bower Co. v. Cochran

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1920-05-12

Citation: 79 Fla. 788, 85 So. 250

Snippet: Apalachicola Land Company. See Adams v. Fryer, 59 Fla. 112, 52 South. Rep. 611. The certified copy of the deeds

Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias v. State Bank

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1920-04-08

Citation: 79 Fla. 471

Snippet: Muscatine Water Co. v. Muscatine Lumber Co., 85 Iowa 112, 52 N. W. Rep. 108, 39 Am. St. Rep. 284; 1 Morawetz

Baugher ex rel. Hyer v. Boley

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1912-01-15

Citation: 63 Fla. 75

Snippet: which it was suited. In Adams v. Fryer, 59 Fla. 112, 52 South. Rep. 611, the fence consisted of . wire