The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS

Chapter 112
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 112.81

112.81 Definitions.—As used in this part:

(1) “Administrative proceeding” means any nonjudicial hearing which may result in the recommendation, approval, or order of disciplinary action against, or suspension or discharge of, a firefighter.

(2) “Employing agency” means any municipality or the state or any political subdivision thereof, including authorities and special districts, which employs firefighters.

(3) “Firefighter” means a person who is certified in compliance with s. 633.408 and who is employed solely within the fire department or public safety department of an employing agency as a full-time firefighter whose primary responsibility is the prevention and extinguishment of fires; the protection of life and property; and the enforcement of municipal, county, and state fire prevention codes and laws pertaining to the prevention and control of fires.

(4) “Formal investigation” means the process of investigation ordered by supervisory or management personnel, to determine if the firefighter should be disciplined, reprimanded, suspended, or removed, during which the questioning of a firefighter is conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence of misconduct.

(5) “Informal inquiry” means a meeting by supervisory or management personnel with a firefighter about whom an allegation of misconduct has come to the attention of such supervisory or management personnel, the purpose of which meeting is to mediate a complaint or discuss the facts to determine whether a formal investigation should be commenced. The term does not include routine work-related discussions, such as safety sessions or normal operational fire debriefings.

(6) “Interrogation” means the questioning of a firefighter by an employing agency in connection with a formal investigation or an administrative proceeding but does not include arbitration or civil service proceedings. The term does not include questioning during an informal inquiry.

History.—s. 1, ch. 86-6; s. 118, ch. 2013-183; s. 1, ch. 2022-110.

F.S. 112.81 on Google Scholar

F.S. 112.81 on Casetext

Amendments to 112.81

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 112.81

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 112.81.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION COMMITTEE, v. UNITED STATES, Ad v., 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. . . Accordingly, instead of a separate rate, Hilltop was assigned the China-wide rate of 112.81%, which was . . . Hilltop was therefore assigned the China-wide rate of 112.81%. Id. . . . Accordingly, Hilltop was assigned the China-wide rate of 112.81%. Id. . . . Id. at 1327 (“On remand, Commerce must either adequately corroborate the 112.81 percent [China]-wide . . . On November 4, 2013, Commerce issued its Second Remand Results, continuing to use the 112.81% rate as . . .

AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION COMMITTEE, v. UNITED STATES,, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014)

. . . In addition, Commerce’s corroboration analysis, supporting the use of the 112.81 percent countrywide . . . Commerce consequently assigned to Hilltop the 112.81 percent countrywide rate, which was derived from . . . The court required that, “[o]n remand, Commerce must either adequately corroborate the 112.81 percent . . . On the basis of this analysis, Commerce concluded that the 112.81 percent PRC-wide rate “has probative . . . Discussion Hilltop challenges Commerce’s corroboration of the 112.81 percent PRC-wide rate assigned to . . .

AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION COMMITTEE, v. UNITED STATES,, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013)

. . . Accordingly, Commerce assigned to Hilltop the 112.81 percent anti-dumping duty assessment rate applied . . . In that proceeding, Commerce concluded that the “112.81 percent [PRC-wide rate] [was] corroborated within . . . Here, Commerce determined that the 112.81 percent PRC-wide rate was “corroborated, relevant, and reliable . . . On remand, Commerce must either adequately corroborate the 112.81 percent PRC-wide rate and explain how . . . Reg. at 42,662 (“To corroborate the [PRC-wide] margin of 112.81 percent, we compared that margin to the . . .

AMADOR, v. TOWN OF PALM BEACH, a B., 517 F. App'x 834 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 112.81(4). “ ‘Interrogation’ means the questioning of a firefighter by an employing agency in connection . . . M § 112.81(6). The “Rights of Firefighters” are delineated in § 112.82. . . .

SHANTOU RED GARDEN FOODSTUFF CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 815 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012)

. . . request, decided to assign as facts otherwise available, and with an adverse inference, a margin of 112.81% . . .

M. CURTIS, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, a, 82 So. 3d 894 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . City of West Palm Beach on Curtis’ claim brought under the Firefighter’s Bill of Rights (FBR), section 112.81 . . . established that Curtis had never been subject to an “interrogation,” as that term is defined in section 112.81 . . . established that Curtis had never been subject to an "interrogation,” as that term is defined in section 112.81 . . .

In L. WOODHOUSE, G., 11 B.R. 322 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1981)

. . . Altogether, the petition of the debtors lists 9 secured creditors with claims totaling $897,-112.81 among . . .

A. PRENTIS, B. v. UNITED STATES, 273 F. Supp. 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

. . . Payment of said note for $331,-112.81 (the machinery note) was not made on December 26, 1952, as required . . .