Florida Statute 367.084 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXVII
RAILROADS AND OTHER REGULATED UTILITIES

Chapter 367
WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 367.084

367.084 Rate adjustment orders.—Any order issued by the commission adjusting general increases or reductions of the rates and charges of any utility or regulated company must be reduced to writing including any dissenting or concurring opinions within 20 days after the official vote of the commission. Within such 20-day period, the commission shall also mail a copy to the clerk of the circuit court of each county in which customers of the utility or regulated company are served who are affected by the rate adjustment, which copy must be kept on file and made available to the public. The commission shall notify all parties of record in the proceeding of the date of such mailing. Such an order is not considered rendered for purposes of appeal, rehearing, or judicial review until the date the copies are mailed as required by this section. This provision does not delay the effective date of the order. Such an order is considered rendered on the date of the official vote for the purposes of s. 367.081(6).

History.—ss. 12, 27, ch. 89-353; s. 4, ch. 91-429.

F.S. 367.084 on Google Scholar

F.S. 367.084 on Casetext

Amendments to 367.084

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 367.084

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 367.084.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 367.084

Total Results: 15

JOHN GOODMAN v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-07-26

Citation: 229 So. 3d 366

Snippet: (quoting Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964)). In addition

State v. Ojeda

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-07-23

Citation: 147 So. 3d 53, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11197

Snippet: in Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 366-367, 84 S.Ct. 881, 882-883, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964), common

Stone v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-05-31

Citation: 547 So. 2d 158, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1329, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3042, 1989 WL 55936

Snippet: ” Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. [364], at 367, 84 S.Ct. [881], at 883 [11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964) ], or

Ulesky v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1979-12-21

Citation: 379 So. 2d 121

Snippet: in time or place from the arrest. 376 U.S. at 367, 84 S.Ct. at 833, 11 L.Ed.2d at 780. In Chimel v. California

Ackles v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1972-12-12

Citation: 270 So. 2d 39, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 5714

Snippet: Preston v. United States, 1964, 376 U.S. 364, 367, 84 S.Ct. 881, 883, 11 L.Ed. 2d 777, and Dyke v. Taylor

Brown v. Floyd

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1967-08-03

Citation: 202 So. 2d 215, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4280

Snippet: (Fla.1930). . Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367, 84 So. 370 (Fla.1920). . Mullan v. Bank of Pasco

Fleming v. Florida State Road Department

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1946-03-08

Citation: 25 So. 2d 373, 157 Fla. 170, 1946 Fla. LEXIS 689

Snippet: contains no equity. Raulerson v. Peeples 79 Fla. 367, 84 So. 370; Isleworth Grove Co. v. Orange County,

Crompton v. Kirkland

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1946-02-15

Citation: 24 So. 2d 902, 157 Fla. 89, 1946 Fla. LEXIS 668

Snippet: State in the case of Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367,84 So. 370. In this case the rule is stated by the

State Ex Rel. Moore v. Gillian

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1940-02-09

Citation: 193 So. 751, 141 Fla. 707

Snippet: 208, 84 So. 83; Raulerson v. Peeples,79 Fla. 367, 84 So. 370; South Fla. Citrus Land Co. v. Walden,59

Schonfeld v. Smith

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1936-10-16

Citation: 170 So. 129, 125 Fla. 462, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1314

Snippet: 208, 84 So. 83; Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367, 84 So. 370; So. Fla. Citrus Land Co. v. Walden, 59

Church v. Lee Et Vir.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-07-15

Citation: 136 So. 242, 102 Fla. 478

Snippet: Pasco County, supra; Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367, 84 So. 370; 9 R. C. L. 593. The same principle is

Mullan v. Bk. of Pasco Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-03-11

Citation: 133 So. 323, 101 Fla. 1097

Snippet: Palmer, supra; Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367, 84 So. 370. The duty did not devolve upon the widow

Clark v. Grey

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-03-05

Citation: 132 So. 832, 101 Fla. 1058

Snippet: the bill." Raulerson et al. vs. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367, 84 So. 370, and cases there cited. One of the grounds

Battey v. Battey

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1926-08-03

Citation: 109 So. 584, 92 Fla. 512, 1926 Fla. LEXIS 640

Snippet: 514 In the case of Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367,84 South. Rep. 370, this court said: The bill sets

Raulerson v. Peeples

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1921-02-16

Citation: 81 Fla. 206, 87 So. 629, 1921 Fla. LEXIS 572

Snippet: was reversed. ' Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367, 84 South. 370. After the decision of this court in