Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 478.51 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 478.51 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 478.51

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS
Chapter 478
ELECTROLYSIS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 478.51
478.51 Electrology facilities; requisites; facility licensure; inspection.
(1) No electrology facility shall be permitted to operate without a facility license issued by the department.
(2) The facility license shall be displayed in a conspicuous place within the facility and shall be made available upon request of the department or board.
(3) The board shall adopt rules governing the licensure and operations of such facilities, personnel, safety and sanitary requirements, and the licensure application and granting process.
(4) Any person, firm, or corporation desiring to operate an electrology facility in the state shall submit to the department an application and the necessary application fee as set forth in s. 478.55.
(5) Upon receiving the application, the department may cause an investigation to be made of the proposed electrology facility.
(6) When an applicant fails to meet all the requirements provided in this section, the department shall deny the application in writing and shall list the specific requirements not met. No applicant denied licensure because of failure to meet the requirements shall be precluded from reapplying for licensure.
(7) When the department determines that the proposed electrology facility has met the requirements set forth in this section, the department shall grant the license upon payment of the initial licensure fee.
(8) An initial inspection of a licensed facility shall be conducted within 60 days of initial licensure.
(9) A renewal inspection of a licensed facility shall be conducted not less than once per biennium or as deemed required by the department.
(10) No license for operation of an electrology facility may be transferred from the name of the original licensee to another. It may be transferred from one location to another only upon approval by the department, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
(11) Renewal of license registration for electrology facilities shall be accomplished pursuant to rules adopted by the board.
History.s. 12, ch. 92-172.

F.S. 478.51 on Google Scholar

F.S. 478.51 on Casetext

Amendments to 478.51


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 478.51
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 478.51.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SCHMIDT, P. v. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS,, 278 F. Supp. 2d 561 (D.V.I. 2003)

. . . Value_Overpaid 1992 $468,468_$395,000_$3,613.51_$2,962,50_$ 651.01 1993 $468,468_$418,000 $3,613.51_$3,135.00 $ 478.51 . . . accruing from the date of the payment to be refunded within thirty (30) days of this Order, a refund of $478.51 . . .

In H. REGAN S., 269 B.R. 693 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2001)

. . . According to the schedules, the Debtors lease a 1998 Toyota pickup truck ($478.51 a month) and own a . . .

EDWARD P. STAHEL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 78 F. Supp. 800 (Ct. Cl. 1948)

. . . Sakura Mills, Inc., $478.51. C. J. . . .

EDWARD P. STAHEL CO. INC. v. THE UNITED STATES INTERSTATE HOSIERY MILLS, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES LIBERTY LACE NETTING WORKS, A CORPORATION, v. THE UNITED STATES COOPER, WELLS COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES MAY McEWEN KAISER COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES OSCAR HEINEMAN CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES SAKURA MILLS, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES C. J. ABEGG AND EMIL RINGGER, DOING BUSINESS AS ABEGG COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES REAL SILK HOSIERY MILLS, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 111 Ct. Cl. 682 (Ct. Cl. 1948)

. . . Sakura Mills, Inc., $478.51. C. J. . . .

SNYDER v. BRACHEN, 22 F. Cas. 739 (C.C.D. Wisc. 1860)

. . . July 16, 1858, a jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs of $478.51, and judgment was entered upon . . .