The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 210
TAX ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 210.35

210.35 Distributor’s license required; application; out-of-state applicant.—

(1) No person shall engage in the business of selling or dealing in tobacco products as a distributor in any place of business in this state without first having received a license from the division to engage in such business at the place of business. Every application for such license shall be made on a form prescribed by the division and shall state the name and address of the applicant; if the applicant is a firm, partnership, or association, the name and address of each of its members; if the applicant is a corporation, the name and address of each of its officers; the address of its principal place of business; the place where the business to be licensed is to be conducted; and such other information as the division may require for the purpose of the administration of this part.

(2) A person outside this state who ships or transports tobacco products to retailers in this state, to be sold by those retailers, may make application for license as a distributor, be granted such a license by the division, and thereafter be subject to all the provisions of this part and entitled to act as a licensed distributor.

History.—s. 1, ch. 85-141; s. 1, ch. 86-286; s. 4, ch. 91-429.

F.S. 210.35 on Google Scholar

F.S. 210.35 on Casetext

Amendments to 210.35

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 210.35

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 210.35.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SOTO, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, J., 132 F. Supp. 3d 424 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . indictment for. a defect in the grand jury proceedings under New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 210.35 . . . presumption The trial court dismissed the indictment against Plaintiff under New York Criminal Procedure Law 210.35 . . . The New York Court of Appeals has made clear that section 210.35(5) dismissals protect against “unfounded . . . Jones, Minott, and Cox — however, involved a dismissal under New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 210.35 . . . suggest that a lesser standard should be applied to dismissals under Criminal Procedure Law Section 210.35 . . .

A. FOX, v. COUNTY OF YATES,, 922 F. Supp. 2d 424 (W.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Fox moved to dismiss the indictment pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 210.20(l)(e) and 210.35 . . .

NNEBE, v. DAUS,, 644 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2011)

. . . Giving Unlawful Gratuities — Class A Misdemeanor 210.05 Perjury in the 3rd Degree — Class A Misdemeanor 210.35 . . .

L. KRUG S. v. COUNTY OF RENNSELAER F. FBI, 559 F. Supp. 2d 223 (N.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . Jury proceedings which would warrant the dismissal of any counts of the Indictment pursuant to CPL § 210.35 . . .

J. C. McCRARY, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, J. C. v., 493 F. Supp. 2d 581 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . March 23, 2006, pursuant to New York State Criminal Procedure Law (“NYCPL”) Sections 210.20(c) and 210.35 . . .

S. HUTCHINGS, v. HERBERT,, 260 F. Supp. 2d 571 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . ineffective because he failed to make a timely motion pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) § 210.35 . . . defendant’s right to testify before the grand jury must be dismissed if a motion is made pursuant to CPL § 210.35 . . . constitutionally ineffective because his motion to dismiss the indictment was untimely under CPL § 210.35 . . .

CHANDLER, B- v. W. MOSCICKI,, 253 F. Supp. 2d 478 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . . § 210.35 (McKinney 1993). . . . L. § 210.35 (McKinney 1994). . . .

CADILLA, v. JOHNSON,, 119 F. Supp. 2d 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . . § 210.20(c) and § 210.35(5) (McKinney 1993). . . .

WALLACE, v. W. ROCHE, D. J. M. V. D., 921 F. Supp. 946 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . (CPL §§ 210.35[5] and 190.25[6]). Memorandum Decision of Judge Santagata, dated June 29, 1990. . . .

SHAWMUT WORCESTER COUNTY BANK, v. FIRST AMERICAN BANK TRUST,, 731 F. Supp. 57 (D. Mass. 1990)

. . . request is made in time to give the Reserve Bank a reasonable opportunity to comply, 12 C.F.R. sec. 210.35 . . .

MARTIN OIL SERVICE, INC. v. KOCH REFINING CO., 718 F. Supp. 1334 (N.D. Ill. 1989)

. . . . § 210.35), while heating oil (# 2 oil) and diesel fuels (# 2-D fuel) became exempt on July 1, 1976, . . . (June 16, 1976) (codified at 10 C.F.R. § 210.35). . . .

SALDANA, v. STATE OF NEW YORK,, 665 F. Supp. 271 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . . §§ 210.35 and 190.50(5) because he was denied the opportunity to testify before the grand jury on his . . . error in grand jury proceedings renders, the indictment automatically defective pursuant to C.P.L. § 210.35 . . . N.Y.C.P.L. § 210.35, subpar. 4. VII. Petitioner’s claim is federally cognizable. . . . N.Y.C.P.L. § 210.35 reads as follows: A grand jury proceeding is defective within the meaning of paragraph . . . Under subparagraphs 1 through 4 of § 210.35 the grand jury proceeding is by operation of law defective . . .

In EXECUTIVE AIR CENTER, INC., 60 B.R. 652 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1986)

. . . DATE WHOM MADE AMOUNT DESIGNATION 3/5/86 Ruston Flying Service $145.60 Fuel 3/4/86 Fleeman Aviation $210.35 . . .

SEATTLE- FIRST NATIONAL BANK, a v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, N. A. a N. A., 619 F. Supp. 1351 (W.D. Okla. 1985)

. . . . § 210.35(a); nor do they address the “final payment” criteria in 12 C.F.R. § 210.36(a). . . .

U. S. A. PETROLEUM CORPORATION, v. ANACONDA COMPANY,, 653 F.2d 502 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . . § 210.35 (1980), 41 Fed. . . . . § 210.35 (1980), 41 Fed.Reg. 13896 (April 1, 1976). . . .

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, v. H. TULLY, Jr. H. L. NEW ENGLAND PETROLEUM CORPORATION, v. H. TULLY, Jr. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, v. H. TULLY, Jr. H. L., 499 F. Supp. 888 (N.D.N.Y. 1980)

. . . . §§ 210.35, 212.56-62); all other petroleum products having been exempted in accordance with the procedures . . . 5, 1979); and butane and natural gasoline. 44 Fed.Reg. 70118 (Dec. 6, 1979) Codified at 10 C.F.R. § 210.35 . . .

MOBIL OIL CORP. v. T. DUBNO TEXACO, INC. v. R. AJELLO AMERADA HESS CORP. v. T. GRASSO, 492 F. Supp. 1004 (D. Conn. 1980)

. . . . §§ 210.35, 212.56-.62. . . .

GETTY OIL COMPANY, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, R., 581 F.2d 838 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . . § 210.35(d)(1) and (2). . . .

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION A. v. J. LEFKOWITZ,, 454 F. Supp. 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)

. . . . § 210.35. . . .

LANGELLA, v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF NEW YORK,, 545 F.2d 818 (2d Cir. 1976)

. . . thereof upon the ground that: (c) The grand jury proceeding was defective, within the meaning of section 210.35 . . .

LANGELLA, v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF NEW YORK,, 413 F. Supp. 1214 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)

. . . . §] 210.35” or if “[t]he defendant has immunity with respect to the offense charged, pursuant to section . . .

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, v. L. G. WASSON COAL MINING CORPORATION,, 338 F.2d 565 (7th Cir. 1964)

. . . Judgment was rendered upon special findings and conclusions of law in the amount of $210.35 in favor . . .

In W. GROSS,, 188 F. Supp. 324 (N.D. Iowa 1960)

. . . petition the Bankrupt stated that his income from trade or profession in 1956 was $378.20 and in 1957 was $210.35 . . .

ELIJAH B. SHERMAN v. THE UNITED STATES, 30 Ct. Cl. 488 (U.S. 1895)

. . . per folio, amounting to $9,222.30,” and for disbursements made in connection therewith amounting to $210.35 . . . supervisor’s offices, 61,482 folios, at 15 cents per folio, $9,222.30, and for disbursements amounting to $210.35 . . . and supplies necessarily used in and about the entering and indexing of said records, amounting to $210.35 . . .

SHERMAN v. UNITED STATES, 155 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1895)

. . . per folio, amounting to $9222.30,” and for disbursements made in connection therewith amounting to $210.35 . . . supervisor’s offices 61,482 folio, at 15 cents per folio, $9222.30, and for disbursements amounting to $210.35 . . . and supplies necessarily used in and about the entering and indexing of said records, amounting to $210.35 . . .

In, 51 F. 274 (C.C.N.D. Ill. 1892)

. . . being 61,482 folios, at 15 cents per folio, amounting to $9,222.30, and for necessary-stationery, $210.35 . . .

E., 23 F. 725 (C.C.E.D.N.Y. 1884)

. . . that the tug is responsible for the damage, and that the libelants are entitled to a decree for $13,-210.35 . . .