Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 213.37 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
Statute is currently reporting as:
F.S. 213.37 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 213.37

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE
Chapter 213
STATE REVENUE LAWS: GENERAL PROVISIONS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 213.37
213.37 Authority to require sworn statements.
(1) The Department of Revenue may require verification of exemption applications, refund applications, and tax returns relevant to administration of the revenue laws of this state.
(2) Verification shall be accomplished as provided in s. 92.525(1)(b) and subject to the provisions of s. 92.525(3).
History.s. 40, ch. 91-112.

F.S. 213.37 on Google Scholar

F.S. 213.37 on Casetext

Amendments to 213.37


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 213.37
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 213.37.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 213.37

Total Results: 2

Scott v. Seaboard System Railroad

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1991-04-26T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 578 So. 2d 499, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3787, 1991 WL 63760

Snippet: jury regarding federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c); and, (2) the trial court erred in failing to…a result of Seaboard’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c), which requires railroad companies to control…Notice to Rely Upon Federal Regulation 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c), for the purpose of imposing upon Seaboard absolute…x27;s duty to control the vegetation. 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c) is part of a regulatory scheme promulgated by… Proof that Seaboard’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c) contributed to Scott’s injury was a necessary

Busbee v. Quarrier

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1965-02-10T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 172 So. 2d 17

Snippet: . Supp. 636. Cf. Lucier v. Norcross, 310 Mass. 213, 37 N.E.2d 498, 137 A.L.R. 749 (1941). The only other