The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXV
AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, AND ANIMAL INDUSTRY

Chapter 601
FLORIDA CITRUS CODE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 601.95

601.95 Seizure of citrus fruit containing arsenic.—Whenever any citrus fruit inspector shall find citrus fruit, except grapefruit, at any packinghouse, canning plant, concentrating plant, or other place that the same is being received or prepared for sale or transportation which citrus fruit shall, when tested, show an abnormal and excessively high ratio of total soluble solids of the juice thereof to the anhydrous citric acid thereof indicating the presence of arsenic therein, said inspector shall at once seize and take possession of said citrus fruit, except grapefruit, pending the procuring of the chemical analysis provided for in this chapter notifying the manager or other person in charge of said packinghouse, canning plant, concentrating plant, or other place where the said fruit is being received of such seizure. It is unlawful for the manager of said packinghouse, canning plant, concentrating plant, or other place where the fruit is being received, or the owner of said citrus fruit, or any person whomsoever to sell, transport, or in any way move or dispose of any of said fruit from the time of seizure thereof until after the making of said chemical analysis and the receipt of the chemist’s report thereon; provided that no citrus fruit so seized may be held by any inspector more than 96 hours after the time of seizure thereof unless the same shall be shown by the chemist’s analysis to contain arsenic.

History.—s. 95, ch. 25149, 1949; s. 10, ch. 26484, 1951.

F.S. 601.95 on Google Scholar

F.S. 601.95 on Casetext

Amendments to 601.95

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 601.95

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

S601.95 - OBSTRUCT CRIMINAL INVEST - SELL TRANSPORT DISP FRUIT BEFORE CHEM ANALYSIS - M: F

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

CORDER, v. GATES,, 688 F. Supp. 1418 (C.D. Cal. 1988)

. . . Jordan, supra at 1263. a) Reasonable Hours Plaintiffs’ counsel claims that his firm expended a total of 601.95 . . .

NELSON v. KERZNER, 110 F. Supp. 949 (E.D. Pa. 1953)

. . . fee allowed as aforesaid, so that the judgment as amended by the said credit shall be in the sum of $601.95 . . .