Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 658.90 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
Statute is currently reporting as:
F.S. 658.90 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 658.90

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXVIII
BANKS AND BANKING
Chapter 658
BANKS AND TRUST COMPANIES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 658.90
658.90 Receivers or liquidators under supervision of office.The provisions of ss. 658.79-658.96 shall apply to all receivers or liquidators of any bank or trust company heretofore appointed by the order of any circuit court, and all such receivers or liquidators, both those hereunder and those hereafter appointed by the circuit court, shall at all times be under the supervision and control of the office and subject at all times to summary discharge and dismissal by it. Any vacancy in such receivership may be filled by the office at any time.
History.s. 4, ch. 28016, 1953; ss. 12, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 113, 151, 152, ch. 80-260; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; s. 1, ch. 91-307; s. 1, ch. 92-303; s. 62, ch. 99-3; s. 1802, ch. 2003-261.
Note.Former s. 661.26.

F.S. 658.90 on Google Scholar

F.S. 658.90 on Casetext

Amendments to 658.90


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 658.90
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 658.90.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 658.90

Total Results: 1

Russ v. Russ

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-03-19

Citation: 576 So. 2d 414, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2340, 1991 WL 35316

Snippet: PER CURIAM. This is an appeal and cross appeal by the husband Clifford Russ and the wife Carole Russ, respectively, from a final judgment of marriage dissolution; the husband also appeals from a post-judgment order awarding reimbursement to the wife for certain expenditures for joint obligations incurred by the wife. We affirm. First, we find no merit in the husband’s attack on the final judgment, (a) The award to the wife of 65% of the proceeds on a mortgage held by the parties on a campground