Florida Statute 362.02 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXVII
RAILROADS AND OTHER REGULATED UTILITIES

Chapter 362
SPECIAL POWERS OF TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 362.02

362.02 Powers of eminent domain.—Any telegraph or telephone company now organized or which may hereafter be organized under the laws of this or any other state shall have the right to construct, maintain and operate lines of telegraph or telephone along and upon the right-of-way of any railroad in the state, and to that end is granted all powers for the exercise of the right of eminent domain; provided, the ordinary travel or use of said railroad is not interfered with by reason thereof; and provided further, that no pole shall be erected nearer than 20 feet from the outer edge of the track, unless by the consent of the railroad company.

History.—s. 1, ch. 5211, 1903; GS 2821; RGS 4374; CGL 6338.

F.S. 362.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 362.02 on CourtListener

Amendments to 362.02

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 362.02

Total Results: 12

Santa Rosa County v. Gulf Power Co.

635 So. 2d 96, 1994 WL 101078

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 1994 | Docket: 1705648

Cited 15 times | Published

to enter into the agreements, asserting that section 362.02, Florida Statutes, prevented the counties from

Shaughnessy v. Metropolitan Dade County

238 So. 2d 466

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 1970 | Docket: 552443

Cited 10 times | Published

NOTES [1] 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, § 362. [2] Metropolitan Dade County Zoning Appeals Board

Davis v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

606 So. 2d 734, 1992 WL 301304

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 1992 | Docket: 95570

Cited 6 times | Published

its cable from the property. MCI relies on section 362.02, Florida Statutes, as authority for it to acquire

Devon-Aire Villas Home. v. Americable Assoc.

490 So. 2d 60, 1985 WL 1083647

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 1985 | Docket: 1488795

Cited 5 times | Published

(1985); telegraph and telephone companies, see § 362.02, Fla. Stat. (1985). The power of eminent domain

Jacks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In Re Jacks)

642 F.3d 1323, 2011 WL 2183979

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 7, 2011 | Docket: 575883

Cited 3 times | Published

violated the automatic stay provisions in 11 U.S.C. § 362; (2) their claims that Wells Fargo violated 11 U.S

City of Orlando v. MSD-MATTIE, LLC

895 So. 2d 1127, 2005 WL 264119

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 2005 | Docket: 1674463

Cited 2 times | Published

case turned on a specific Florida statute, section 362.02, which expressly permitted the proposed use

McMahon v. Ryan

964 So. 2d 198, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13237, 2007 WL 2402729

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 2007 | Docket: 64852134

Cited 1 times | Published

Resnick & HenRy J. SommeR, Collier on Bankkuptcy § 362.02 (15th ed. rev.2007). Accordingly, as a general

Paralelo 42 Corp. v. First National Bank of Greater Miami (In Re Paralelo 42 Corp.)

18 B.R. 433, 33 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 600, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4915

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | Filed: Feb 1, 1982 | Docket: 1412286

Cited 1 times | Published

pertinent part: "(c) Except as provided in Section 362(2)(7) of this title, an entity that has neither

State of Florida Department of Revenue v. Irain Lazaro Gonzalez

832 F.3d 1251, 76 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 48, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14789, 2016 WL 4245422

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 11, 2016 | Docket: 4118864

Published

According to the DÓR, Congress’s explanation of § 362(2)(b)(C) coupled with the clear language of the section

Terry D. Jacks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 7, 2011 | Docket: 576391

Published

violated the automatic stay provisions in 11 U.S.C. § 362; (2) their claims that Wells Fargo violated 11 U

Terry D. Jacks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 7, 2011 | Docket: 2906356

Published

violated the automatic stay provisions in 11 U.S.C. § 362; (2) their claims that Wells Fargo violated 11 U

Reogas v. Gray

185 F.3d 1216

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 26, 1999 | Docket: 2037672

Published

(1998) and 11 U.S.C. Section 362. 2