CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 754708
...control signals and devices certified by it as conforming with the uniform system. * * * * * * (8) The Department of Transportation is authorized to permit traffic control devices not in conformity with the uniform system upon showing of good cause. Section 316.0747(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: (1) It is unlawful for any nongovernmental entity to use any traffic control device at any place where the general public is invited, unless such device conforms to the uniform system of traffic...
...Rule 1.442(c)(1) is met where either the rule or the statute is referenced. REVERSED and REMANDED. W. SHARP, and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The median in the instant case is greater than thirty feet. [2] Later revisions to the statute included section 316.0747(3), Florida Statutes (1997)....
0 red0 yellow9 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityCampbell (2007)phrase: "rule_authority"
Cited as authorityGoldman (2006)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 247153
...rtunity yesterday. I am not going to allow it. During the trial, the court also precluded plaintiffs from introducing evidence of numerous other accidents and near misses at the crossing, as well as evidence as to whether the stop sign complied with section 316.0747, Florida Statutes (1989)....
...A separate issue was whether defendants had notice of the dangerous condition. The evidence could have been admitted subject to a limiting instruction that plaintiffs had the separate burden of showing notice of the dangerous condition. Also admissible was the evidence relating to compliance with section 316.0747(1)....
0 red1 yellow1 green1 procedural
Cited "but see"Astill (1998)phrase: "but see"
Cited as authorityZanoletti (1997)phrase: "rule_authority"
Review deniedMendez (1997)phrase: "review denied"
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1991).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
David W. Rynders City Attorney City of Naples QUESTION: Does the presence of a guardhouse at a residential subdivision relieve the developer or owner from the requirement of installing traffic control devices pursuant to s. 316.0747 (3), F.S. (1990 Supp.)? SUMMARY: Private residential subdivisions to which the general public is invited to travel must install and maintain traffic control devices, regardless of the presence of a guardhouse. Section 316.0747 (3), F.S....
...The Legislature has expressly provided that businesses with less than twenty-five parking spaces are exempt from the requirements of the statute. 1 No other exemptions or exceptions may be inferred. 2 A private residential development which allows the general public to travel on its roads would be subject to s. 316.0747 (3), F.S....
...The presence of a guardhouse at the entrance of a development to which the public is allowed to travel, however, does not fall within the exemption set forth in the statute. This office has been advised that the Department of Transportation has not adopted rules which would allow an exemption from s. 316.0747 (3), F.S....
...(1990 Supp.), for private residential subdivisions with guardhouses. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the presence of a guardhouse does not relieve a private residential subdivision in which the public is invited to travel upon its streets from compliance with s. 316.0747 (3), F.S....
