Florida Statute 480.049 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

Chapter 480
MASSAGE THERAPY PRACTICE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 480.049

480.049 Civil proceedings.—As cumulative to any other remedy or criminal prosecution, the department may file a proceeding in the name of the state seeking issuance of a restraining order, injunction, or writ of mandamus against any person who is or has been violating any of the provisions of this act or the lawful rules or orders of the department.

History.—s. 18, ch. 78-436; s. 2, ch. 81-318; ss. 12, 13, ch. 85-280; s. 4, ch. 91-429.

F.S. 480.049 on Google Scholar

F.S. 480.049 on Casetext

Amendments to 480.049

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 480.049

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 480.049.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 480.049

Total Results: 20

Williams Ex Rel. Summerlin v. Ricou

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1940-06-14

Citation: 196 So. 667, 143 Fla. 360, 1940 Fla. LEXIS 1208

Snippet: " In the case of Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 So. 31; Williams v. St. Petersburg, 57 Fla. 544

Heuacker v. Farrelly

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1938-11-15

Citation: 184 So. 649, 135 Fla. 47, 1938 Fla. LEXIS 1512

Snippet: 395, 992, text 996; Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. text 408, 47 South Rep. 31; Hartford

McCord v. Lee

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1937-02-10

Citation: 172 So. 853, 127 Fla. 65, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 1409

Snippet: bill is demurrable. Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31; Bridger v. Thrasher,22 Fla. 383

The Century Tr. Co. v. the Allison Realty Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1932-05-11

Citation: 141 So. 612, 105 Fla. 456

Snippet: appears in a bill. Murrell vs. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 So. 31; Trust Co. of Florida vs. Crider, 102 Fla

Ratliff v. Nowery, Admrx.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-10-01

Citation: 136 So. 895, 102 Fla. 1072

Snippet: defendant. In the case of Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 So. 31, this Court said: "While the rule as

Ritch v. Adams

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-09-19

Citation: 136 So. 719, 102 Fla. 983

Snippet: a proper ruling." Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 So. 31. The same rule necessarily applies to motions

Trust Co. of Fla. v. Crider

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-07-28

Citation: 136 So. 434, 102 Fla. 593

Snippet: multifarious. In Murrell vs. Peterson, et al.,57 Fla. 480, 49 So. 31, it is said: "While the rule as to multifariousness

Singleton v. Knott, as Treasurer

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-03-10

Citation: 133 So. 71, 101 Fla. 1077

Snippet: administration of justice. Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 So. 31; Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191

Gregg Corp. v. Burdine

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1930-05-14

Citation: 129 So. 868, 100 Fla. 1751

Snippet: by certainty See Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 So. R. 31; Hillsborough Grocery Co. v. Leman Wright

Royal Palm Realty Co. v. Gruber

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1930-04-02

Citation: 127 So. 329, 99 Fla. 726, 1930 Fla. LEXIS 1558

Snippet: 940, 43 So. R. 586; Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 So. R. 31; Geter v. Simmons, 57 Fla. 423, 49 So

Crandall v. Owen

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1929-02-13

Citation: 120 So. 319, 97 Fla. 198

Snippet: any useful purpose. Murrell v. Peterson,57 Fla. 480, 49 So. R. 31; Farrell v. Forest Investment Co.,73

Norton v. Jones

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1922-01-27

Citation: 83 Fla. 81, 90 So. 854

Snippet: South. Rep. 586; Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31; Hays v. Seattle, 251 U. S. 233

Chaves v. Chaves

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1920-04-21

Citation: 79 Fla. 602

Snippet: against the bill.” Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31; Barco v. Doyle, 50 Fla. 488, 39

Sommers v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1918-01-31

Citation: 75 Fla. 159, 78 So. 25

Snippet: decisions can be found in Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31, where there, is a very edifying

Mountein v. King

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1918-01-10

Citation: 75 Fla. 12, 77 So. 630

Snippet: were confused. In Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31, the complainant did not state a

State Plant Board v. Roberts

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1916-05-31

Citation: 71 Fla. 663, 72 So. 175

Snippet: parties defendant. See Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31, and prior decisions of this court

Moseley v. Taylor

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1914-11-17

Citation: 68 Fla. 294, 67 So. 95

Snippet: South. Rep. 272; Murrell v. Paterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31; Pinney v. Pinney, 46 Fla. 559,

Christopher v. Mungen

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1913-12-10

Citation: 66 Fla. 467, 63 So. 923

Snippet: 318. The cases of Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31, and Pinney v. Pinney, 46 Fla. 559

Carlton v. Hilliard

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1912-06-15

Citation: 64 Fla. 228

Snippet: South. Rep. 558; Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31. An accounting by one in possession

Law v. Taylor

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1912-01-15

Citation: 63 Fla. 487

Snippet: complaint multifaripus. Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31; Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning