Florida Statute 564.09 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIV
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO

Chapter 564
WINE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 564.09

564.09 Restaurants; off-premises consumption of wine.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a restaurant licensed to sell wine on the premises may permit a patron to remove one unsealed bottle of wine for consumption off the premises if the patron has purchased a meal and consumed a portion of the bottle of wine on the restaurant premises. A partially consumed bottle of wine that is to be removed from the premises must be securely resealed by the licensee or its employees before removal from the premises. The partially consumed bottle of wine shall be placed in a bag or other container that is secured in such a manner that it is visibly apparent if the container has been subsequently opened or tampered with, and a dated receipt for the bottle of wine and meal shall be provided by the licensee and attached to the container. If transported in a motor vehicle, the container with the resealed bottle of wine must be placed in a locked glove compartment, a locked trunk, or the area behind the last upright seat of a motor vehicle that is not equipped with a trunk.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-250; s. 2, ch. 2021-30.

F.S. 564.09 on Google Scholar

F.S. 564.09 on Casetext

Amendments to 564.09

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 564.09

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 564.09.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 564.09

Total Results: 6

State v. Whitby

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2008-02-07T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 975 So. 2d 1124, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 90, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 143

Snippet: prima facie case of discrimination? 933 So.2d at 564.9 As explained above, the Melbourne test conforms

State v. Whitby

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2008-02-06T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 975 So. 2d 1124

Snippet: prima facie case of discrimination? 933 So.2d at 564.[9] As explained above, the Melbourne test conforms

Indian River Colony Club v. Schopke Const. & Engineering, Inc.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1993-04-23T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 619 So. 2d 6

Snippet: performed. Tech Corp. v. Permutit Co., 321 So.2d at 564. *9 Thus, Schopke is entitled to prejudgment interest

Foxworth v. Florida Industrial Commission

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1955-05-27T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 86 So. 2d 147

Snippet: Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 214 Minn. 564, 9 N.W.2d 6. Contra Bibb Mfg. Co. v. Alford, 51 Ga

Goodrich v. Thompson

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1928-07-26T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 118 So. 60, 96 Fla. 327

Snippet: v. Kaw. Val. Ry. Imp. Co., 130 U.S. 559, text 564, 9 Sup. Ct. R. 603; Tibbetts v. Olson, 91 Fla. 828

Tibbetts v. Olson

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1926-05-03T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 108 So. 679, 91 Fla. 824

Snippet: Huling v. Kaw Val. Ry. Imp. Co., 130 U.S. 559, text 564, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714…Huling v. Kaw Val. Ry. Imp. Co., 130 U.S. 559, text 564, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603; 6 R. C. L. 450, and of the present