The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 210
TAX ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 210.08

210.08 Bond for payment of taxes.—Each dealer, agent, or distributing agent shall file with the division a surety bond, certificate of deposit, or irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the division in an amount equal to 110 percent of the estimated tax liability for 30 days, but not less than $2,000.

History.—s. 6, ch. 22645, 1945; s. 1, ch. 26320, 1949; s. 3, ch. 57-169; ss. 16, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 7, ch. 79-11; s. 32, ch. 2002-299; s. 4, ch. 2005-228.

F.S. 210.08 on Google Scholar

F.S. 210.08 on Casetext

Amendments to 210.08

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 210.08

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 210.08.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

LESTER, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,, 324 F. Supp. 3d 1227 (N.D. Ala. 2018)

. . . MOORE, MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 210.08(1), at 10-55 (2d ed. 1985) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BARROW,, 118 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1997)

. . . the parties, the court reporter, the district court clerk or the judge.” 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08 . . .

In ROBBINS MARITIME, INC. M T M T, 162 F.R.D. 502 (E.D. Va. 1995)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08(1) at 10-55 (2d ed. 1985, and citing cases)). . . .

HUDSON RIVER FISHERMEN S ASS N v. ARCURI, Mt. CM Mt. CM, 862 F. Supp. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . Here, plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees of $33,128.25 and expenses of $210.08. . . .

C. JONES, M. v. JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. L. LOTHAMER, d b a, 819 F. Supp. 1385 (W.D. Mich. 1993)

. . . Id., quoting 9 Moore’s Federal Practice, (2d ed.), ¶210.08[1] at p. 10-55; see also Kirshner v. . . .

In NORTHPORT MARINA ASSOCIATES,, 136 B.R. 911 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . As of the date the Debtor filed, it conceded it owed Citibank $19,746,-210.08 on principal and accrued . . .

In CAPITAL CITIES ABC, INC. S APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO SEALED TRANSCRIPTS. CAPITAL CITIES ABC, INC, 913 F.2d 89 (3d Cir. 1990)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08(1), at 10-55 (2d ed. 1985)) (neither district court nor this . . .

BARILARO, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, NEW ENGLAND PRODUCE CENTER, INC., 876 F.2d 260 (1st Cir. 1989)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice 11 210.08[1] at 10-48 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

HANSON, v. PARKSIDE SURGERY CENTER N. M. D. N. M. D. P. C., 872 F.2d 745 (6th Cir. 1989)

. . . See generally 9 Moore, Ward & Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶210.06[3], 210.08 (2d ed. 1988). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. SERRANO, d b a UNITED STATES v. BOSCIO, UNITED STATES v. STAMPS,, 870 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989)

. . . Ward, 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08[1], at 10-48 (1988). There has been no such showing here. . . .

UNITED STATES v. R. KESKEY, Jr., 863 F.2d 474 (7th Cir. 1988)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08[1], at 10-48 (2d ed. 1987); see Buick v. . . .

H. CURRIE, Jr. v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,, 704 F.2d 523 (11th Cir. 1983)

. . . See also 9 Moore’s Federal Practice § 210.08[2] (2d ed. 1982). . . .

BURRELL, v. SWARTZ A. L., 558 F. Supp. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)

. . . See 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08. . . .

E. TOWNSEND, Jr. L. v. COLUMBIA OPERATIONS, G. III, M., 667 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1982)

. . . See 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08[1]; see also United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. R. PAGE, III,, 661 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . See 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08[1] (2d ed. 1948 & Supp. 1980-81). . . .

In SACO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. Co. d b a SACO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. Co. d b a v. ARMSTRONG BUSINESS CREDIT CORP. M. Co. J. W., 13 B.R. 226 (Bankr. D. Me. 1981)

. . . See 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08[1] at 10-47 n. 6, citing Belt v. . . . having the district court declare that certain matters were not before it.” 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08 . . . See Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08[1]; Armstrong v. . . .

FISHER, v. FLYNN,, 598 F.2d 663 (1st Cir. 1979)

. . . 1st Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 830, 78 S.Ct. 42, 2 L.Ed.2d 42 (1957); 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. WHITE L., 589 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir. 1979)

. . . Ward, Moore’s Federal Practice 210.08[2] (2d ed. 1975). Cf. United States v. . . .

ARMSTRONG v. J. O CONNELL, 408 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Wis. 1976)

. . . file of papers that were not in fact presented to the district court.” 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08 . . . that attach to happenings are for the court of appeals to determine.” 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.08 . . .

UNITED STATES B. J. MULVANEY v. RUSH,, 487 F.2d 684 (3d Cir. 1973)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶¶ 210.08 [1], 210.09, at 1638-49, 1654 (2d ed. 1973) ; see, e. g., United States . . .

UNITED STATES v. MORI,, 444 F.2d 240 (5th Cir. 1971)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice |f 210.08 [3], at 1653. . . . Moore, supra, ¶ 210.08 [1], at 1640 Since defendant has not effectively challenged the conclusions reached . . .

WARD, E. No. v. UNION BARGE LINE CORPORATION, No., 443 F.2d 565 (3d Cir. 1971)

. . . See 9 Moore, Federal Practice K 210.08 [2] ; cf. Carroll v. . . .

W. L. DeVORE, v. J. M. LEE,, 158 Fla. 608 (Fla. 1947)

. . . .: The Chancellor dismissed appellant’s bill of complaint inasmuch as he felt that Section 210.08, Florida . . .

ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAILROAD CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 49 Ct. Cl. 522 (Ct. Cl. 1914)

. . . accordance with the published tariff rate then in force, as hereinbefore stated, making a total of $210.08 . . .