Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
Total Results: 19
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-10-27
Citation: 253 So. 3d 649
Snippet: as the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985. § 161.52, Fla. Stat. (1985). In passing it, the legislature
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-07-06
Citation: 932 So. 2d 1206, 2006 WL 1835321
Snippet: (2004). The Florida Legislature enacted section 161.052, Florida Statutes, in 1970 to prohibit certain
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-03-17
Citation: 596 So. 2d 137, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2800, 1992 WL 51254
Snippet: reason, or unsupported by facts or logic. Section 161.052, Florida Statutes, adopted by the 1970 Legislature
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-05-28
Citation: 581 So. 2d 193, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4783, 1991 WL 87671
Snippet: statutes which the rule implements are §§ 370.02(5), 161.052 and 161.053. Of particular importance to note is
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-04-10
Citation: 577 So. 2d 1383
Snippet: fall within the meaning and intent of Sections 161.052 and 161.053, Florida Statutes: (f) Maintenance
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1988-12-21
Citation: 536 So. 2d 1119
Snippet: 1970, the Florida Legislature enacted section 161.052, Florida Statutes, prohibiting certain construction
Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1986-08-14
Snippet: would appear to be permissible. See, however, s. 161.052(1), F.S., prohibiting a county, among others, from
Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1985-12-12
Citation: 483 So. 2d 405, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 629
Snippet: the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985, sections 161.52-161.58, Florida Statutes (1985). In the provision
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1985-08-09
Citation: 474 So. 2d 363
Snippet: variance is requested under the provisions of Section 161.052(2)(b), Florida Statutes, or Section 161.053(2)(b)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1985-06-13
Citation: 471 So. 2d 533, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 309, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3419
Snippet: 307, 392 N.E.2d 1352 (1979), aff'd, 85 Ill.2d 161, 52 Ill.Dec. 1, 421 N.E.2d 864 (1981); Louisville Trust
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1984-06-15
Citation: 451 So. 2d 1002
Snippet: line or the 50-foot setback requirement (Section 161.052) does not preclude all development of or alteration
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1984-04-25
Citation: 447 So. 2d 922
Snippet: Illinois: Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos, 85 Ill.2d 161, 52 Ill. Dec. 1, 5, 421 N.E.2d 864, 868 (Ill. 1981)
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1982-06-02
Citation: 414 So. 2d 631
Snippet: mean high water mark of the Atlantic Ocean [sec. 161.052, Fla. Stat. (1979)], runs through the residence
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1981-04-29
Citation: 400 So. 2d 1227, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19391
Snippet: restoration and erosion control projects... . [14] §§ 161.052(2)(b), 161.053(4), Fla. Stat. (1979). See § 163
Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1979-08-10
Snippet: See ss. 161.041 and 161.051, F. S. 1977, and ss. 161.052, 161.053, and 161.061, F. S. (1978 Supp.);see also
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1975-08-28
Citation: 319 So. 2d 173
Snippet: violations of coastal construction requirements under § 161.052, Florida Statutes, and violations of Development
Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1974-04-16
Snippet: feet landward of the erosion control line (s. 161.052, F.S.), or as determined on a county-by-county
Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1933-01-02
Citation: 144 So. 313, 106 Fla. 742
Snippet: or taken away. See Hunter v. Pittsburg, 207 U.S. 161,52 L.Ed. 151, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 40; Commonwealth v
Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1902-06-15
Citation: 44 Fla. 803
Snippet: resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs below, for $161.52, upon which judgment was entered’ upon the same