The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 210
TAX ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 210.50

210.50 Revocation or suspension of license.—

(1) The division is authorized upon sufficient cause appearing of the violation of any of the provisions of this part by any distributor licensed under this part to revoke the license of the distributor.

(2) The division may suspend for a reasonable period of time, in its discretion, the license of any distributor issued under the provisions of this part for the same causes and under the same limitations as are authorized for license revocation.

(3) No distributor whose license for any place of business has been revoked shall engage in business under this part at such place of business, after the revocation, until a new license is issued. No distributor whose license for any place of business has been revoked shall be permitted to have the license renewed or to obtain an additional license for any other place of business for a period of 6 months after the date such revocation becomes final.

(4) In lieu of the suspension or revocation of licenses, the division may impose civil penalties against holders of licenses for violations of this part or rules relating thereto. No civil penalty so imposed shall exceed $1,000 for each offense, and all amounts collected shall be deposited with the Chief Financial Officer to the credit of the General Revenue Fund. If the holder of the license fails to pay the civil penalty, his or her license shall be suspended for such period of time as the division may specify.

History.—s. 1, ch. 85-141; s. 1, ch. 86-286; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 1103, ch. 95-147; s. 182, ch. 2003-261.

F.S. 210.50 on Google Scholar

F.S. 210.50 on Casetext

Amendments to 210.50

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 210.50

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 210.50.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SWAGWAY, LLC, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, DEKA Co., 934 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . . § 210.50(b)(2). . . .

In E. SNYDER a k a, 445 B.R. 431 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2010)

. . . granted total compensation in the amount of $3,000 and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $210.50 . . . The Court shall also allow Counsel to be reimbursed by the Debtor for expenses in the amount of $210.50 . . . for his representation of the Debtor in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy case and expenses in the amount of $210.50 . . . Roseann Ruggerio (“Debtor”); and (3) Counsel is allowed reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $210.50 . . .

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, v. JAFFE,, 433 B.R. 538 (E.D. Va. 2010)

. . . . § 210.50(a)(2). . . . Commission, see, e.g., id. § 210.23 (permitting sua sponte suspension of investigation by ITC); id. § 210.50 . . . production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and U.S. consumers.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.50 . . . production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and U.S. consumers. 19 C.F.R. § 210.50 . . . See 19 U.S.C. § 13370(3); see also 19 C.F.R. § 210.50(d). . . .

In GULF NORTHERN TRANSPORT, INC., 289 B.R. 452 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . Fees Unrelated to Subpoenas The Court will not include the $210.50 in fees reflected in the following . . .

BROGDON, v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE,, 200 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Penal Law §§ 210.50, 210.15 and People v. . . .

OWNER- OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, E. v. MAYFLOWER TRANSIT, INC., 204 F.R.D. 138 (S.D. Ind. 2001)

. . . Neidig $290.00 per month in insurance premiums, but paid the insurance company only $210.50 per month . . .

OWNER- OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, E. v. MAYFLOWER TRANSIT, INC., 161 F. Supp. 2d 948 (S.D. Ind. 2001)

. . . Neidig $290.00 per month for the insurance, but paid the insurance company only $210.50 per month for . . .

ERDHEIM, v. H. GREINER,, 22 F. Supp. 2d 291 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . See CPL § 210.50. . People v. . . .

In ANDERSON GRAIN CORPORATION, In SUNMARK GRAIN, INC. In ZIPP INDUSTRIES, INC. In PAX INDUSTRIES, INC., 222 B.R. 528 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1998)

. . . The Debtor shall receive a refund of $210.50. CIT paid the firm $375 for 3.4 hours of G. . . .

In ST. RITA S ASSOCIATES PRIVATE PLACEMENT, L. P., 216 B.R. 490 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . For example, Damon & Morey expended $210.50 to make for each creditor a copy of the nineteen page notice . . .

In F. MORGAN, A. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MT. DORA, FLORIDA, v. V. BROOK, Jr. E. A. E. A. MORGAN, v. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v. V. BROOK, Jr. E. A. Y. BROOK, v. MORGAN a k a E. A., 213 B.R. 609 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . Morgan, for $1,950 together with taxable cost in the amount of $210.50, or a total of $2,160.50 bearing . . .

AMERICAN CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SINKLER, Jr., 903 F. Supp. 408 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . Sinkler’s South Carolina policy, for example, cost $210.50 for six months. . . .

L. MERRYMAN, v. W. SULLIVAN,, 778 F. Supp. 475 (W.D. Mo. 1991)

. . . dollars and eight cents ($8,164.08) and costs in the amount of two hundred ten dollars and fifty cents ($210.50 . . . The hours (78.20 hours), the hourly fee rate ($104.40), and the costs ($210.50) are reasonable. . . . fees, under the Equal Access to Justice Act, in the amount of $8,164.08 and expenses in the amount of $210.50 . . .

TELECTRONICS PROPRIETARY, LTD. v. MEDTRONIC, INC. v. TELECTRONICS, INC. U. S. A., 687 F. Supp. 832 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . . § 210.50(a). . . . . § 210.50(c). . . . determination [constitutes] an initial determination of the administrative law judge...." 19 C.F.R. § 210.50 . . .

OLSON v. A. NORMAN, v. R. BOWEN, OLSON v. A. NORMAN, v. R. BOWEN,, 830 F.2d 811 (8th Cir. 1987)

. . . standard of $213 per month, while a two person filing unit has a need standard of $421 per month, or $210.50 . . .

ALTMAN SONS FARMS, v. RIVERA,, 434 So. 2d 14 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Based on that section, the deputy found that claimant’s average weekly wage was $210.50. . . .

In FINE PAPER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 98 F.R.D. 48 (E.D. Pa. 1983)

. . . Sand 6.75 $100 $ 675.00 $ 1,012.50 $ 23,064.00 Gill 0 0 0 0 $ 1,312.50 Rosen 0 0 0 0 $ 3,187.50 Fink 210.50 . . .

CALIFORNIA v. ARIZONA, 452 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1981)

. . . S 83°50'42" E 210.50 feet; 582. S 81°30'12" E 195.47 feet; 583. S 73°38'32" E 249.36 feet; 584. . . .

SOUTHWIRE COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Co. Co., 629 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1980)

. . . disposition of the “timeliness” issue in agreeing with ITC’s waiver of the 30-day requirement of Rule 210.50 . . . motion for termination, thus avoiding any need to consider waiver of the 30-day requirement of Rule 210.50 . . . could not have known that the ITC would interpret them as motions for summary determination under Rule 210.50 . . . totally unaware of the need to file motion 52-250 as a motion for summary determination under Rule 210.50 . . . Waiver of the time requirement imposed by Rule 210.50 is a matter committed to ITC discretion. . . . There is no inconsistency between a rule imposing a time requirement, e. g., Rule 210.50, and a rule . . . Rule 210.50, 19 CFR § 210.50 (1979) provides in pertinent part: Summary determinations. . . .

Co. v. v. AT T, Co. v. AT T, Co., 67 C.C.P.A. 141 (C.C.P.A. 1980)

. . . disposition of the timeliness issue in agreeing with ITC’s waiver of the 30-day requirement of rule 210.50 . . . motion for termination, thus avoiding any need to consider waiver of the 30-day requirement of rule 210.50 . . . The ITC found sufficient reasons to waive the 30-day requirement of rule 210.50. . . . totally unaware of the need to file motion 52-250 as a motion for summary determination under rule 210.50 . . . Waiver of the time requirement imposed by rule 210.50 is a matter committed to ITC discretion. . . . Southwire argues that the ITC failed to abide by rule 201.1 , saying that rule 210.50, a rule of special . . . Rule 210.50,19 CFR 210.50 (1979) provides in pertinent part: Summary determinations. . . .

LINDSAY v. L. RICHARDSON,, 357 F. Supp. 203 (W.D.N.C. 1973)

. . . Lindsay had no income except the Social Security payments (the reduced total of which will now be $210.50 . . .

McGOGNEY v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK, 103 F.2d 649 (3d Cir. 1939)

. . . It determined that the policy had a cash value of $210.50 as of November 2, 1930. . . . without deciding it, but for the purposes of this opinion we shall assume that the lower figure of $210.50 . . . Assuming $210.50 to be the “cash value” on November 2, 1930, we must subtract from it the amount of the . . . Assuming that the interest had been paid, and that the cash value was $210.50, the “net cash value” is . . . $210.50 minus $191 or $19.50. (3) The Amount of “continued term insurance”. . . .

MARYLAND DREDGING AND CONTRACTING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 241 U.S. 184 (U.S. 1916)

. . . .$7,320 of the agreed compensation was withheld as liquidated damages and $210.50 as additional costs . . .

THE MARYLAND DREDGING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 47 Ct. Cl. 557 (Ct. Cl. 1912)

. . . in making payment the Government deducted for the aforesaid delay the sum of $7,530.50 (including $210.50 . . .