Florida Statute 448.01 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXI
LABOR

Chapter 448
GENERAL LABOR REGULATIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 448.01

448.01 Legal day’s work; extra pay.—

(1) Ten hours of labor shall be a legal day’s work, and when any person employed to perform manual labor of any kind by the day, week, month or year renders 10 hours of labor, he or she shall be considered to have performed a legal day’s work, unless a written contract has been signed by the person so employed and the employer, requiring a less or greater number of hours of labor to be performed daily.

(2) Unless such written contract has been made, the person employed shall be entitled to extra pay for all work performed by the requirement of his or her employer in excess of 10 hours’ labor daily.

History.—ss. 1, 2, 3, ch. 1988, 1874; RS 2117, 2118; GS 2641, 2642; RGS 4016, 4017; CGL 5939, 5940; s. 164, ch. 97-103.

F.S. 448.01 on Google Scholar

F.S. 448.01 on Casetext

Amendments to 448.01

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 448.01

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 448.01.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 448.01

Total Results: 15

Schuler v. Schuler

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-02-13

Citation: 920 So. 2d 1161, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1742, 2006 WL 317028

Snippet: as determined by this court in case number 1D05-0448.1 Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed

Quaker Oats Co. v. Jewell

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-03-28

Citation: 818 So. 2d 574, 2002 WL 463578

Snippet: overtime wages. Count I alleged a violation of section 448.01 claiming overtime pay for work in excess of ten

Brim v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2000-10-11

Citation: 779 So. 2d 427, 2000 WL 1568741

Snippet: contests the specific principles or procedures: *448 1. Determine whether the specific ladder used in the

Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Osborne

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1997-07-16

Citation: 699 So. 2d 724, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8174, 1997 WL 394879

Snippet: Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S.Ct. 443, 448, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957). See also Baltimore and Ohio

Lauth v. OLSTEN HOME HEALTHCARE

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1996-08-09

Citation: 678 So. 2d 447, 1996 WL 446742

Snippet: services for the appellant, and from December *448 1, 1992 until February 1, 1993, Olsten exclusively

Forcino v. National Railroad Passenger

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1996-04-19

Citation: 671 So. 2d 888, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3915, 1996 WL 185091

Snippet: Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S.Ct. 443, 448, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957). As the Florida Supreme Court

Lugo v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1986-03-25

Citation: 487 So. 2d 321, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 735

Snippet: Pacific Railroad, 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S.Ct. 443, 448, 1 L.Ed.2d 493, 499 (1957); Hausrath v. New York Central

Greenstein v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1985-06-18

Citation: 471 So. 2d 1318, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1530

Snippet: Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S.Ct. 443, 448, 1 L.Ed.2d 493, 499 (1957) where the Court stated:

Advisory Opinion to the Governor

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1967-07-21

Citation: 201 So. 2d 446, 1967 Fla. LEXIS 3612

Snippet: ninety-two thousand or less population; exception.— *448“(1) In all judicial,;'circuits having a population

McCloskey v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1960-08-04

Citation: 122 So. 2d 481

Snippet: Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 448, 1 L.Ed.2d 493, a laborer on a section gang was charged

Gaymon v. Quinn Menhaden Fisheries of Texas, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1960-02-23

Citation: 118 So. 2d 42

Snippet: decision. The Rogers case (352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 448, 1 L.Ed.2d 493) states, in part: "* * * test of a

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Barrett

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1958-03-05

Citation: 101 So. 2d 37, 1958 Fla. LEXIS 1630

Snippet: Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 448, 1 L.Ed.2d 493, the following is said with reference

Flagler Finance Corp. v. Therrell

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1934-03-02

Citation: 159 So. 868, 118 Fla. 596

Snippet: v. Susquehanna Del. R. Co., 122 Pa. 306,15 A. 448, 1 L.R.A. 225, it was said: "When a default occurs

Johnson v. Pensacola & Perdido Railroad

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1878-06-15

Citation: 16 Fla. 623

Snippet: must be considered private carriers.” (4 Harr., 448; 1 Pick., 50; 2 Red. on Rail., 5 Ed., p. 5, and cases

Ferrall v. Bradford

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1849-01-15

Citation: 2 Fla. 508

Snippet: is not divisible. 1 Saun., 27. Stephens on Pl., 448. 1 T. R., 40. 3 T. R., 376. 3 Mass., 310. 7 Cranch