130.01
Purposes for which county bonds may issue.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
130.01 Purposes for which county bonds may issue.—Whenever the board of county commissioners of any county shall deem it expedient, or to the best interests of such county, to issue the county bonds of their county, for the purpose of constructing paved, macadamized, or other hard-surfaced highways, or erecting a courthouse or jail, or other public buildings, and funding the outstanding indebtedness of the county, or for any of such purposes, they shall determine by resolution to be entered in their records, what amount of bonds is required for such purpose, the rate of interest to be paid thereon, and the time when the principal and interest of such bonds shall be due and when payable.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2088, 1877; RS 591; s. 1, ch. 4711, 1899; GS 786; RGS 1531; CGL 2309.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1954–1992 · leading case: State v. Sarasota County
State v. Sarasota County (1954)
“It is contended on behalf of the State, appellant here, that a hospital is not a “public building” within the meaning of Section 130.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which authorized counties to issue bonds “for the purpose of constructing paved, macadamized, or other hard-surfaced…”
WASHINGTON SHORES HOMEOWNERS v. City of Orlando (1992)
“§ 130.01, Fla. Stat. (1991). [3] Contrary to the homeowners' contention, the "case most applicable here" is not Baycol, Inc.”
Orange County Civic Facilities Authority v. State (1973)
“That case, however, was restricted to bonds issued for the construction of county capital projects (one of the particular purposes listed in Fla. Stat. § 130.01 for which county bonds may issue) and which were financed by a particular tax revenue (race track and jai alai fronton…”
State v. County of Dade (1960)
“The charge of inapplicability is based on the fact that highways are specifically mentioned in Section 130.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and that Section 130.”
Kearney v. County of St. Lucie (1961)
“Kearney, a citizen and taxpayer, was permitted to intervene as party to the cause. The first question presented is whether or not said certificates of indebtedness are in reality what they purport to be, or are they bonds within the meaning of § 130.”
Dade County v. State (1960)
“they shall determine by resolution to be entered in their records, what amount of bonds is required for such purpose, the rate of interest to be paid thereon, and the time when the principal and interest of such bonds shall be due and when payable.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.