285.16
Civil and criminal jurisdiction; Indian reservation.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
285.16 Civil and criminal jurisdiction; Indian reservation.—
(1) The State of Florida hereby assumes jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or against Indians or other persons within Indian reservations and over civil causes of actions between Indians or other persons or to which Indians or other persons are parties rising within Indian reservations.
(2) The civil and criminal laws of Florida shall obtain on all Indian reservations in this state and shall be enforced in the same manner as elsewhere throughout the state.
History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 61-252.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Houghtaling v. Seminole Tribe of Florida
Houghtaling v. Seminole Tribe of Florida (1993)
“[1] In accordance with this authority, the Florida Legislature enacted section 285.16, Florida Statutes (1961), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) The State of Florida hereby assumes jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or against Indians or other…”
Florida House of Representatives v. Crist (2008)
“(codified at § 285.16, Fla. *614 Stat. (2007)); see also § 285.”
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Houghtaling (1991)
“§ 285.16, Fla. Stat. (1989). The Florida statute reads as follows: (1) The State of Florida hereby assumes jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or against Indians or other persons within Indian reservations and over civil causes of actions between Indians or other…”
State v. Billie (1986)
“Florida assumed this jurisdiction by enacting section 285.16, Florida Statutes (1961). [1] Although section 7 of 18 U.”
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth (1980)
“Many regulate by prohibiting certain conduct. However, in view of the Congressional policy enunciated in Public Law 280, the court must resolve a close question in favor of Indian sovereignty- “[N]othing in its legislative history remotely suggests that Congress meant the Act’s…”
Florida House of Representatives v. Crist (2008)
“(codified at § 285.16, Fla. Stat. (2007)); see also § 285.”
Hall v. State (2000)
“” § 285.16, Fla. Stat. (1995). Furthermore, “Indian country” has been defined in 18 U.”
Matias Sergio Quiroga v. State of Florida (2026)
“ble confession of error by the State: The State concedes that there were two independent defects – each individually sufficient to negate jurisdiction which combine to render the prosecution void: (1) prosecution under a municipal ordinance for conduct occurring on Indian land…”
Rusin v. State (1991)
“On December 20, 1989, the lower court denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the State of Florida assumed jurisdiction pursuant to F.S. 285.16. 1 The Appellant then entered into a nolo contendere plea expressly reserving the right to…”
Serian v. State (1991)
“He pled nolo contendere to the charges, reserving his right to pursue this appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the state's licensing law on the Indian reservation. Pursuant to Public Law 280 ( 18 U.S.”
State v. Billie (1985)
“(Florida assumed such jurisdiction pursuant to the option in 1961 pursuant to F. S. 285.16). The interpretation of the *72 degree, extent and explicit application of these states’ laws has caused confusion, not to mention that such mandatory authority was amended in the criminal…”
— 285.16(1) — 1 case
Houghtaling v. Seminole Tribe of Florida (1993)
“[1] In accordance with this authority, the Florida Legislature enacted section 285.16, Florida Statutes (1961), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) The State of Florida hereby assumes jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or against Indians or other…”
— 285.16(2) — 2 cases
Florida House of Representatives v. Crist (2008)
“(codified at § 285.16, Fla. *614 Stat. (2007)); see also § 285.”
Florida House of Representatives v. Crist (2008)
“(codified at § 285.16, Fla. Stat. (2007)); see also § 285.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.