Florida Statute 366.09 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXVII
RAILROADS AND OTHER REGULATED UTILITIES

Chapter 366
PUBLIC UTILITIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 366.09

366.09 Incrimination at hearing of commission.—Any person called upon to testify before the commission or one of its examiners shall not be excused from answering on the ground or claim that his or her testimony would tend to incriminate himself or herself; but no person having so testified shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he or she may have testified or produced documentary evidence provided that no person so testifying shall be exempted from prosecution or punishment for perjury in so testifying.

History.—s. 9, ch. 26545, 1951; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; s. 16, ch. 80-35; s. 2, ch. 81-318; ss. 20, 22, ch. 89-292; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 553, ch. 95-148.

F.S. 366.09 on Google Scholar

F.S. 366.09 on Casetext

Amendments to 366.09

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 366.09

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 366.09.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 366.09

Total Results: 8

Florida Bar v. Bowles

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1984-11-29T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 460 So. 2d 366, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 501, 1984 Fla. LEXIS 3759

Snippet: McDonald, Overton, Shaw 29 November 1984 460 So. 2d 366, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 501, 1984 Fla. LEXIS 3759 John

Campbell v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1944-12-19T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 20 So. 2d 127, 155 Fla. 359, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 546

Snippet: BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur. *Page 366 9 January 1945 Supreme Court of Florida fla

Minick v. Minick

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1933-07-18T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 149 So. 483, 111 Fla. 469, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2011

Snippet: conclusive, it is worthy of consideration. 19 C. J. 366; 9 R. C. L. 477. In this connection see also Frazier

Scott v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1912-06-15T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 64 Fla. 490

Snippet: 7 South. Rep. 593; Armstrong v. State, 27 Fla. 366, 9 South. Rep. 1, 26 Amer. St. Rep. 72; Armstrong

Williams v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1903-01-15T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 45 Fla. 128

Snippet: 11 South. Rep. 618; Armstrong v. State, 27 Fla. 366, 9 South. Rep. 1; Hodge v. State, 26 Fla. 11, 7 South

Brown v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1898-06-14T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 40 Fla. 459

Snippet: 7 South. Rep. 593; Armstrong v. State, 27 Fla. 366, 9 South. Rep. 1, and authorities cited; Armstrong

Grant v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1895-01-14T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 35 Fla. 581

Snippet: Calkins vs. State, 98 Am. Dec. (18 Ohio St. 366), and 9 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, p. *585498 e. It might

Armstrong v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1892-06-14T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 30 Fla. 170

Snippet: was reversed and a new trial awarded. 27 Fla., 366, 9 South. Rep., 1. This reversal was upon the ground…South. Rep., 593 ; Armstrong vs. State, 27 Fla., 366, 9 South. Rep., 1. That this is the correct rule on