Florida Statute 216.216 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 216
PLANNING AND BUDGETING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 216.216

216.216 Court settlement funds negotiated by the state.—In any court settlement in which a state agency or officer or any other counsel representing the interests of the state negotiates settlement amounts to be expended by the judicial branch or the executive branch, such funds may not be expended unless the Legislature has appropriated funds to the agency in the appropriate category or the Legislative Budget Commission has approved a budget amendment for such funds. In either instance, the funding source identified must be sufficient to cover both the anticipated program costs and the amount of the settlement, the settlement must not be contrary to the intent of the Legislature, and, if the settlement amount is substantial, good reason must exist for entering into the settlement prior to the next legislative session and no significant amount of recurring funding shall be committed. When a state agency or officer settles an action in which the state will receive moneys, the funds shall be placed in the General Revenue Fund or in the trust fund that is associated with the agency’s or officer’s authority to pursue the legal action. The provisions of this section are subject to the notice and review procedures set forth in s. 216.177.

History.—s. 29, ch. 2000-371; s. 11, ch. 2001-56.

F.S. 216.216 on Google Scholar

F.S. 216.216 on Casetext

Amendments to 216.216

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 216.216

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 216.216.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 216.216

Total Results: 6

CALVIN W. LEWIS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-07-13

Citation: 251 So. 3d 310

Snippet: prohibition. Little v. State, 111 So. 3d 214, 216, 216 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). But there is no jurisdictional

21st Century v. Smith

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-01-22

Snippet: harmful. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So. 2d 216, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“After reviewing the record

Wix v. Wix

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-03-06

Citation: 159 So. 3d 312, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3198, 2015 WL 968574

Snippet: abuse of discretion. Drdek v. Drdek, 79 So.3d 216, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Because an alimony provision

Betancourt v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-10-10

Citation: 153 So. 3d 936, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15858, 2014 WL 5092909

Snippet: DCA 1993); Webb v. Chambly, 584 So.2d 216, 216-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Montano v. Fla.

Breaux v. City of Miami Beach

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-03-24

Citation: 899 So. 2d 1059, 2005 WL 673649

Snippet: activity. See Sarasota County v. Butler, 476 So.2d 216, 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), quashed, 501 So.2d 579 (Fla

Swain v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2003-01-08

Citation: 842 So. 2d 858, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 75, 2003 WL 43369

Snippet: that scoresheet. See Copeland v. State, 765 So.2d 216, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We therefore reverse and