Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 402.34 (2025)
Body corporate.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
402.34 Body corporate.—The department is a body corporate and shall adopt and have a corporate seal. It shall have the power to contract and be contracted with, to sue and be sued in actions in ex contractu but not in torts, and to have and to possess corporate powers for all purposes necessary to administer this chapter. The department shall have the power to accept payment for services rendered pursuant to rules and regulations of the department.
Note.—Former s. 409.055.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1981–1994 · leading case: DeBolt v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs., 427 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
DeBolt v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs., 427 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). “Appellants contend that the trial court erred, first, in finding that HRS enjoys complete tort immunity by operation of Section 402.34, Florida Statutes (1981), and, second, in concluding that no genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute.”
Florida Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass'n, 450 U.S. 147 (1981). “First, Florida law provides that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is a "body corporate" with the capacity to "sue and be sued," Fla. Stat. § 402.34 (1979). 616 F. 2d, at 1363.”
STATE, DHRS v. EDS Fed. Corp., 631 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). “The Comptroller is not a party to the instant petition. The crux of this dispute is whether the contract provision controls, requiring EDS to engage in an administrative procedure to resolve its complaint, or whether Section 402.”
Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. STATE, ETC., 415 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “" § 402.34, Florida Statutes. Appellants argue, among various other contentions, that this statutory limitation deprives the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction as to tort actions brought by appellee; appellants further argue that the present case is primarily a tort…”
Ostroff v. State of Fla., Dept. of Health, 554 F. Supp. 347 (M.D. Fla. 1983). “Nevertheless, even if Ostroff s action were in some sense construed as a contract dispute, the Supreme Court has held that § 402.34 does not constitute a waiver of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.”
G & J Invs. Corp. v. Fla. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs., 429 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). “1958), and cannot, as appellant suggests we do, imply from legislation authorizing HRS to be sued in actions ex contractu, see § 402.34, Fla. Stat. (1981), an authorization that it may be sued in garnishment proceedings.”
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.