Florida Statute 601.95 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

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 Citing Statute 601.95

Total Results: 15

Delhall v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-07-12

Citation: 95 So. 3d 134, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 468, 2012 WL 2848691, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 1352

Snippet: Amendment.’” Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 601, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (quoting Boyd

Archive America, Inc. v. Variety Children's Hosp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-03-24

Citation: 873 So. 2d 359, 2004 WL 575717

Snippet: Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975); Mitchell v. W

Goodman v. Brasseria La Capannina, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-06-11

Citation: 602 So. 2d 1245, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 353, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1028, 1992 WL 125114

Snippet: Ga. Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975), we held the prior

Cenvill Investors, Inc. v. Condominium Owners Organization of Century Village East, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-02-14

Citation: 556 So. 2d 1197, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 878, 1990 WL 11125

Snippet: Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975). Florida exposure

Matthews v. Wood

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1986-03-19

Citation: 485 So. 2d 472, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 703, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6949

Snippet: Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975), the Court declared

In re Forfeiture of One 1981 Chevrolet El Camino VIN CCW80K3BD422125 License DDP 148

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1985-05-15

Citation: 468 So. 2d 1093, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1239, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14198

Snippet: Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975), and declared

Lease Fin. v. Nat. Commuter Airlines

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1985-01-15

Citation: 462 So. 2d 564

Snippet: Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. DiChem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975). See also Waite

Live Supply, Inc. v. C & S Plumbing, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1981-08-12

Citation: 402 So. 2d 505, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20743

Snippet: Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975); Ray Lein Construction

State v. Miller

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1979-07-18

Citation: 373 So. 2d 677, 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4755

Snippet: Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975), where Georgia’s

Gazil, Inc. v. Super Food Services, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1978-03-09

Citation: 356 So. 2d 312

Snippet: Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975).

Hauser v. Dr. Chatelier's Plant Food Co., Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1977-10-05

Citation: 350 So. 2d 548

Snippet: Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. DiChem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975) (invalidating

Ray Lein Const., Inc. v. Wainwright

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1977-05-26

Citation: 346 So. 2d 1029

Snippet: Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975), wherein a similar

Phillips v. Guin & Hunt, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1977-03-31

Citation: 344 So. 2d 568

Snippet: Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975). We are now asked

Unique Caterers, Inc. v. Rudy's Farm Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1976-09-23

Citation: 338 So. 2d 1067, 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4561

Snippet: Georgia Finishing Inc. v. Di-Chem Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975). Their effect

Interest of Rlj

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1976-07-19

Citation: 336 So. 2d 132, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15203

Snippet: 29 L.Ed. 746, 752 (1886); Brown, 422 U.S. at 601, 95 S.Ct. at 2260, 45 L.Ed.2d at 425. Appellant was