Florida Statute 210.11 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 210
TAX ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 210.11

210.11 Refunds; sales of stamps and payment of tax.—Whenever any cigarettes upon which stamps have been placed, have been sold and shipped into another state for sale or use therein, or have become unfit for use and consumption or unsalable, or have been destroyed, the dealer involved shall be entitled to a refund or credit of the actual amount of the tax paid with respect to such cigarettes less any discount allowed by the division in the sale of the stamps, upon receipt of satisfactory evidence of the dealer’s right to receive such refund or credit, provided application for refund or credit is made within 9 months after the date the cigarettes were shipped out of the state, became unfit, or were destroyed. Only the division shall sell, or offer for sale, any stamp or stamps issued under this part. The division may redeem unused stamps lawfully in the possession of any person. The division may prescribe necessary rules concerning refunds, credits, sales of stamps, and redemptions under the provisions of this part. Appropriation is hereby made out of revenues collected under this part for payment of such allowances.

History.—s. 8, ch. 21946, 1943; s. 9, ch. 22645, 1945; s. 1, ch. 26320, 1949; s. 5, ch. 29884, 1955; ss. 16, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 9, ch. 79-11; s. 2, ch. 85-294; s. 8, ch. 87-86; s. 2, ch. 88-308; s. 4, ch. 2012-208.

F.S. 210.11 on Google Scholar

F.S. 210.11 on Casetext

Amendments to 210.11

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 210.11

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 210.11.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 210.11

Total Results: 20

Kim Braddock v. City of Port Orange Pension Fund

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-02

Snippet: of Tampa’s Gen. Emp. Ret. Fund, 189 So. 3d 207, 210–11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “The nexus determination focuses

Apex Roofing and Restoration, LLC a/a/o Nancy Forde v. Security First Insurance Company

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-31

Snippet: DCA 1998); accord Lewis Tree Serv., 311 So. 3d at 210–11; Arthur Finnieston, Inc. v. Pratt, 673 So. 2d 560

Pedro Gil v. The State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-08

Snippet: probable cause.”); Abaunza v. State, 278 So. 3d 207, 210-11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“[O]ur standard of review

Clarence Lawton v. The State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-03-06

Snippet: evidence supporting the trial court’s findings. Id. at 210-11. We conclude that the trial court’s findings are

William Franklin Scott Jr v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-03-06

Snippet: them at trial. Cf. Perez v. State, 536 So. 2d 206, 210–11 (Fla. 1988) (rejecting “argument that the child

C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-12-13

Snippet: Protection challenges to cigarette taxes under sections 210.011 and 210.02(1), Florida Statutes, in a separate

MASOUD SHOJAEE v. ANIBAL J. DUARTE-VIERA, P.A., etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-06-14

Snippet: evidence. Inglis v. Casselberry, 200 So. 3d 206, 210-11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Elsner v. E-Commerce Coffee

MASOUD SHOJAEE v. ANIBAL J. DUARTE-VIERA, P.A., etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-06-14

Snippet: evidence. Inglis v. Casselberry, 200 So. 3d 206, 210-11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Elsner v. E-Commerce Coffee

MARGIE SALYER vs TOWER HILL SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY AND MASON DIXON CONTRACTING, INC.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-06-02

Snippet: Grocery Co. v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 77 So. 209, 210–11 (Fla. 1917). When that happens, the “assignee

GCTC HOLDINGS, LLC v. T TAG QSR, LLC

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2022-09-09

Snippet: contain trade secret information." Id. at 210-11 (citing Ameritrust Ins. Corp. v. O'Donnell

LAWYER STANLEY, JR. v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2021-11-17

Snippet: act”); see also Beamon v. State, 23 So. 3d 209, 210-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (explaining ongoing course

THE KIDWELL GROUP, LLC d/b/a AIR QUALITY ASSESSORS OF FLORIDA a/a/o FRANCINE NOVEMBRE v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2021-10-13

Snippet: Grocery Co. v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 77 So. 209, 210-11 (Fla. 1917) (“[I]t is a well-settled rule that

EXTREME EMERGENCY FIRE & WATER RESTORATION LLC v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2020-12-16

Snippet: Grocery Co. v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 77 So. 209, 210-11 (Fla. 1917) (invalidating an insurance

Matthew Tyler Pollard v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-06-20

Snippet: are not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 210-11 (collecting cases). Whether a particular compelled

FELIX JOSUE MARTINEZ v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-10-10

Citation: 256 So. 3d 897

Snippet: the 10-20-Life statute. See Young, 219 So. 3d at 210–11 (holding that “there is no clear indication that

RESTORATION 1 OF PORT ST. LUCIE, a/a/o JOHN and LIZA SQUITIERI v. ARK ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-09-05

Citation: 255 So. 3d 344

Snippet: not apply to an assignment after loss.” Id. at 210-11. The court thus held that because the insureds

Security First Ins. Co. v. Florida Office of Ins. Regulation

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-11-27

Snippet: Co. v. Teutonia Fire Insurance Co., 77 So. 209, 210-11 (Fla. 1917), that "it is a well-settled rule

Darriue Montgomery v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-11-09

Citation: 230 So. 3d 1256

Snippet: section 775.087(2). Young v. State, 219 So.3d 206, 210-11 (Fla. 5th DC.A 2017). That case is distinguishable

Kenneth R. Jackson v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-03-23

Citation: 213 So. 3d 754, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 361, 2017 WL 1090546, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 648

Snippet: 2d 258, 264 (Ind. 2004); Galindo, 774 N.W.2d at 210-11.11 Finally, this Court has historically

Dale Lee Norman v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-03-02

Citation: 215 So. 3d 18, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 239, 2017 WL 823613, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 448

Snippet: *24the scope of the Second Amendment right. Id. at 210-11. The Fourth District concluded that under the first