Florida Statute 582.30 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXV
AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, AND ANIMAL INDUSTRY

Chapter 582
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 582.30

582.30 Discontinuance of districts; referendum; commissioner’s authority.—

(1) Any time after 5 years from the organization of a district under the provisions of this chapter, any 10 percent of owners of land lying within the boundaries of such district may file a petition with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services praying that the operations of the district be terminated and the existence of the district discontinued. The department may conduct such public meetings and public hearings upon petition as may be necessary to assist it in the consideration thereof. Within 60 days after such a petition has been received by the department it shall give due notice of the holding of a referendum, and shall supervise such referendum, and issue appropriate regulations governing the conduct thereof, the question to be submitted by ballots upon which the words “For terminating the existence of the (Name of the soil and water conservation district to be here inserted) ” and “Against terminating the existence of the (Name of the soil and water conservation district to be here inserted) ” shall appear with a square before each proposition and a direction to insert an X mark in the square before one or the other of said propositions as the voter may favor or oppose discontinuance of such district. All owners of lands lying within the boundaries of the district shall be eligible to vote in such referendum. Only such landowners shall be eligible to vote. No informalities in the conduct of such referendum or in any matters relating thereto shall invalidate said referendum or the result thereof if notice thereof shall have been given substantially as herein provided and said referendum shall have been fairly conducted.

(2) If two-thirds or more of the qualified voters in such referendum shall have voted for the discontinuance of the district, the department shall certify to the supervisors of the district the result of such referendum and that the continued operation of the district is not administratively practicable and feasible.

(3) In the alternative, the Commissioner of Agriculture may dissolve or discontinue a district if:

(a) Upon review and recommendation of the Soil and Water Conservation Council, the council determines that the continued operation of the district is not administratively practicable and feasible under the provisions of this chapter;

(b) The district fails to comply with any audit or financial reporting requirement of chapter 189 and the department’s inspector general reviews and confirms in writing that the district has failed to comply with such requirement; or

(c) The department receives a resolution adopted by the supervisors of the district requesting that the commissioner issue a certificate determining that the continued operation of the district is not administratively practicable and feasible under the provisions of this chapter.

(4) If the requirements for dissolution or discontinuance of a district are satisfied under subsection (1), subsection (2), or subsection (3), the department shall publish notice of a proposed certification determining that the continued operation of the district is not administratively practicable and feasible under the provisions of this chapter. The notice shall be published once a week for 2 weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the county or counties in which the district is located, stating the name of the district and a general description of the territory included in the district, and requiring that any comments or objections to the proposed certification, or any claims against the assets of the district, must be filed with the department clerk not later than 60 days after the date of last publication.

(5)(a) Upon expiration of the 60-day period after the date of last publication, the commissioner, upon review of any comments or objections received under subsection (4), may issue a certificate determining that the continued operation of the district is not administratively practicable and feasible under the provisions of this chapter.

(b) If the commissioner issues a certificate determining that the continued operation of a district is not administratively practicable and feasible under the provisions of this chapter, the department shall file the original certificate with the Department of State and shall provide a copy of the certificate to the supervisors of the district at the district’s principal office designated under s. 582.15(1)(c).

History.—s. 14, ch. 18144, 1937; s. 7, ch. 19473, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 4151(485); s. 3, ch. 67-207; ss. 14, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 3, ch. 2003-97; s. 52, ch. 2011-206; s. 38, ch. 2012-190.

F.S. 582.30 on Google Scholar

F.S. 582.30 on Casetext

Amendments to 582.30

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 582.30

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 582.30.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 582.30

Total Results: 20

MARTIN E. O'BOYLE v. TOWN OF GULF STREAM

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2022-06-01

Snippet: the trial court awarded a total amount of $38,582.30. Significant to this appeal, the court determined

LeGrand v. Dean

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-05-31

Citation: 564 So. 2d 510, 1990 WL 73930

Snippet: known to the officer. Rogers v. State, [158 Fla. 582] 30 So.2d 625 (Fla. 1947). See also State v. Outten

Hilty v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1980-07-16

Citation: 386 So. 2d 1236

Snippet: v. Northway, 120 U.S. 327, 335, 75 S.Ct. 580, 582, 30 L.Ed. 664, 667 (1887). Later cases of both Florida

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1980-01-21

Snippet: modified, amended, or repealed that provision of s. 582.30 which restricts voting in a referendum to terminate

Peterson v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1979-12-05

Citation: 376 So. 2d 1230

Snippet: in the trial court. Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625; Carlile v. State, 129 Fla. 860, 176

Delaney v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1977-03-29

Citation: 342 So. 2d 1098, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15916

Snippet: appear in this regard. Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625 (1947); State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515

Arline v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1974-11-12

Citation: 303 So. 2d 37

Snippet: The Supreme Court in Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625 stated as follows: "The willingness of

Adams v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1970-05-19

Citation: 235 So. 2d 524, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6421

Snippet: accomplice. Cf. Rogers v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625, 628. Affirmed.

Betancourt v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1969-06-17

Citation: 224 So. 2d 378, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5512

Snippet: committed an offense. Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625 (1947); Benefield v. State, Fla., 1964

Thomas v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1969-04-02

Citation: 223 So. 2d 318, 1969 Fla. LEXIS 2285

Snippet: 188 So.2d 353; Rogers v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625. It is also contended that the arrest

Ludwig v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-11-26

Citation: 215 So. 2d 898

Snippet: stolen property. See Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625 (1947). The following excerpt from a

Paul v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-04-16

Citation: 209 So. 2d 464

Snippet: 1968, 206 So.2d 377; Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625 (1947); Grace v. State, Fla.App. 1968

Triana v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1967-09-26

Citation: 204 So. 2d 339, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4113

Snippet: 829 (Fla.App.1967); Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625 (1947); Mendez v. State, 39 So.2d 468

Fast v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1966-12-20

Citation: 193 So. 2d 210, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4740

Snippet: So. 689, 696 (1927); Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625 (1947).

Pessolano v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1964-06-23

Citation: 166 So. 2d 706, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4030

Snippet: objected to when made. See Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625. The jury charge complained of by the

Range v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1963-10-02

Citation: 156 So. 2d 534

Snippet: legal technicians. Rogers v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625; Bozeman v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 102

Gysin v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1963-03-26

Citation: 151 So. 2d 349, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3530

Snippet: mistrial in this case. See Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625. We do not, therefore, consider the effect

HI Holding Company v. Dade County

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1961-05-04

Citation: 129 So. 2d 693

Snippet: 114 So.2d 33; Rogers et al. v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625. It cannot be said that the remarks of

Garcia v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1959-04-03

Citation: 110 So. 2d 709

Snippet: Supreme Court in Rogers v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625, pointed out that sufficiency of the

Pait v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1959-03-11

Citation: 112 So. 2d 380

Snippet: in the trial court. Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625; Carlile v. State, 129 Fla. 860, 176