Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 132.04 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 132.04 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 132.04

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XI
COUNTY ORGANIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Chapter 132
GENERAL REFUNDING LAW
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 132.04
132.04 Redemption before maturity.Any such unit may obligate itself to redeem any or all of the refunding bonds before maturity on such terms and conditions as the resolution authorizing such bonds may determine. Bonds subject to redemption shall state the manner of giving notice of intention to redeem (which may be by publication without actual notice), and when such notice has been given such bonds shall not bear interest after the date fixed in such notice of redemption, nor shall coupons maturing thereafter be valid; provided that adequate funds for their redemption shall have been provided and set aside by such unit.
History.s. 4, ch. 15772, 1931; CGL 1936 Supp. 2383(4).

F.S. 132.04 on Google Scholar

F.S. 132.04 on Casetext

Amendments to 132.04


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 132.04
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 132.04.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

PRECOURT, v. FAIRBANK RECONSTRUCTION CORP. d b a s, 856 F. Supp. 2d 327 (D.N.H. 2012)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 132.04[l][a][iii], at 132-143 (3d ed.2011). . . . Moore’s, supra, § 132.04[l][a][iii], at 132-144. . . .

In SEPTEMBER PROPERTY DAMAGE AND BUSINESS LOSS LITIGATION. a s o v. L. P. Co. P. C. LLP G. P. C. a H. O. Co. G. C. P. C. Co. P. C. UAL U. S. US USA ICTS V s AB Co. L. P. v. Co. P. C. LLP G. P. C., 481 F. Supp. 2d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Practice 3d § 132.04(1)(a)(iii). . . .

P. HITE, v. LEEDS WELD EQUITY PARTNERS, IV, LP,, 429 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D.D.C. 2006)

. . . MooRe et al., Moore’s Federal Practioe § 132.04[l][a][i] (3d ed. 2002) (“A determination can have issue . . .

BOROUGH OF LANSDALE, St. F v. PP L, INC. PPL PPL L. L. C. PPL L. L. C., 426 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D. Pa. 2006)

. . . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 896 F.2d 979, 983 (5th Cir.1990); 18 Moore’s Federal Practice § 132.04[l][b][ . . .

MORAN, v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE,, 346 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . See 18 MooRE’s FedeRAL Practioe, § 132.04[l][b][i] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). . . . See id. at 132.04[l][b][iv] citing Golden State Bottling Co. v. . . . See 18 Moore’s Federal PRACTICE, § 132.04[1 ] [b][iv]; Kreager v. General Elec. . . .

GATEWAY EQUIPMENT CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 247 F. Supp. 2d 299 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . non-party were adequately represented by a party in the original suit. 18 Moore’s Federal Practice § 132.04 . . . authority of representation, the nonparty may be bound by the judgment.” 18 Moore’s Federal Practice § 132.04 . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. DEXTER,, 165 F.3d 1120 (7th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 132.04. . . .

In D. YANKE, MINNESOTA TRUST COMPANY OF AUSTIN, v. D. YANKE,, 225 B.R. 428 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1998)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 132.04[2][c][i] (3d ed.1997). . . .

FISHER, v. BRISTOL- MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,, 181 F.R.D. 365 (N.D. Ill. 1998)

. . . Shore, 439 U.S. 322; 331, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979); see also 18 Moore et al., supra, § 132.04 . . .

STOFFEL, v. THERMOGAS COMPANY n k a a U. S. Co., 998 F. Supp. 1021 (N.D. Iowa 1997)

. . . See generally 18 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 132.04[2][c][ii]-[iii] (Matthew Bender 3rd Ed.); Parklane . . .

WISCONSIN CENTRAL LIMITED, a d b a CP a d b a CN a v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN, a L. A. J., 95 F.3d 1359 (7th Cir. 1996)

. . . PSC 132.04 Casing. . . . In their Rule 65 motion, the railroads also alleged that § PSC 132.04 created an imminent threat to public . . . PSC 132.04, Wis.Adm. Code.” . . .

HERBER v. JONES, 103 F. Supp. 210 (W.D. Okla. 1951)

. . . within the statutory period in the amount of $2,772.75, which consisted of $2,640.71 income tax and $132.04 . . .

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, v. THE CITY OF LAKELAND,, 154 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1943)

. . . Sec. 132.04 Florida Statutes 1941. . . .

v., 21 C.C.P.A. 41 (C.C.P.A. 1933)

. . . cost of the merchandise, viz, 581.17 Swiss francs, and by this means arrived at an addition thereto of 132.04 . . .

SANTIAGO v. ROSES, 242 F. 209 (1st Cir. 1917)

. . . By another order, made the same day, 132.04 cuerdas were adjudicated to the firm out of the 283 referred . . .