Florida Statute 589.33 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXV
AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, AND ANIMAL INDUSTRY

Chapter 589
FORESTRY

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 589.33

589.33 Expenditure of budgeted funds.—Any money budgeted for a fiscal period shall be expended by the Florida Forest Service during the period for which it was budgeted and amounts not expended or specifically obligated by contract or other legal procedure during that period shall be available for the next fiscal period or shall be returned to the Florida Forest Service and the county or municipality in the same proportions as appropriated. However, when 40 percent of the cost of 1 person-year of assistance equals or exceeds $3,000, then in that event all budget balance will revert to the Florida Forest Service.

History.—s. 6, ch. 20899, 1941; ss. 14, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 6, ch. 71-183; s. 953, ch. 97-103; s. 54, ch. 2012-7.

F.S. 589.33 on Google Scholar

F.S. 589.33 on Casetext

Amendments to 589.33

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 589.33

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 589.33.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 589.33

Total Results: 18

NCP Lake Power, Inc. v. Florida Power Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-04-06

Citation: 781 So. 2d 531, 2001 WL 331908

Snippet: Id. at 348 (quoting Hinote v. Brigman, 44 Fla. 589, 33 So. 303, 305 (Fla.1902)). As we have previously

Southeast Banks Trust Co., N.A. v. Higginbotham Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1984-01-05

Citation: 445 So. 2d 347, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11232

Snippet: in the early case of Hinote v. Brigman, 44 Fla. 589, 33 So. 303, 305 (1902): [Wjhere words or phrases used

D.F.S. Construction Co. v. Couse Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1983-09-14

Citation: 437 So. 2d 219, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23509

Snippet: cause of action. See Hinote v. Brigman, 44 Fla. 589, 33 So. 303 (1902); Delta Electrical Contractors, Inc

Gateway Cable TV, Inc. v. Vikoa Construction Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1971-10-21

Citation: 253 So. 2d 461, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5885

Snippet: finally signed."' Hinote v. Brigman et al., 44 Fla. 589, 33 So. 303, 305." We conclude that Rork is not controlling

Rork v. Las Olas Company

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1945-11-02

Citation: 23 So. 2d 839, 156 Fla. 510, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 912

Snippet: finally signed.' " Hinote v. Brigman et al., 44 Fla. 589, 33 So. 303. Again, in the light of this decision,

Halie v. Wickersham

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-10-23

Citation: 137 So. 226, 103 Fla. 254

Snippet: 199,89 So.2d 540; Hinote v. Brigman, 44 Fla. 589, 33 So.2d 303; Foye Tie Timber Co. v. Jackson, 86

Pick v. Adams

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1929-07-13

Citation: 123 So. 547, 98 Fla. 140

Snippet: 686; Hinote v. Brigman Crutchfield, 44 Fla. 589, 33 So. R. 303; A. C. L. Ry. Co. v. Crosby, 53 Fla

Foye Tie & Timber Co. v. Jackson

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1923-06-21

Citation: 86 Fla. 97, 97 So. 517

Snippet: 576; Hinote v. Brigman & Crutchfield 44 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 303; Camp v. First Nat. Bank of Ocala

Tripp v. Wade

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1921-10-27

Citation: 82 Fla. 325, 1921 Fla. LEXIS 472, 89 So. 870

Snippet: 36 South. Rep. 84; Hinote v. Brigman, 44 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 303; Bucki v. Seitz, 39 Fla. 55, 21

Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Co. v. Lancaster

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1915-07-13

Citation: 70 Fla. 200

Snippet: South. Rep. 925; Steenburg v. Richbourg, 45 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 521; Futch v. Adams Bros., 47 Fla.

Goulding Fertilizer Co. v. Johnson

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1913-02-25

Citation: 65 Fla. 195, 61 So. 441

Snippet: 95; Hinote v. Brigman *201& Crutchfield, 44 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 303; Anderson v. Northrup, 30 Fla.

Mitchell v. Mason

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1911-01-15

Citation: 61 Fla. 692

Snippet: South. Rep. 925; Steinburg. v. Richbourg, 45 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 521. In the order overruling the demurrer

Strong & Trowbridge Co. v. H. Baars & Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1910-06-15

Citation: 60 Fla. 253

Snippet: parties. Hinote v. Brigman & Crutchfield, 44 Fla., 589, 33 South. Rep., 303. In view of the conduct of the

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Merritt

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1908-01-15

Citation: 55 Fla. 462

Snippet: 29 N. E. Rep. 613; Hinote v. Brigman, 44 Fla. 589. 33 South. Rep. 303. The fourth assignment of error

Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Batchis

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1907-06-15

Citation: 54 Fla. 192

Snippet: 69; Hinote v. Brigman & Crutchfield, 44 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 303. As there was no allegation of

Reynolds v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1906-06-15

Citation: 52 Fla. 409

Snippet: dated August 11th. See Hinote v. Brigman, 44 Fla., 589, 33 South. Rep. 303. Under the first and second assignments

Walter v. Parry

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1906-01-15

Citation: 51 Fla. 344

Snippet: 84; Hinote v. Brigman & Crutchfield, 44 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 303. The instructions of the court

Futch v. Adams

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1904-01-15

Citation: 47 Fla. 257

Snippet: South. Rep. 925; Steinberg v. Richbourg, 45 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 521. The orders sustaining the demurrer