The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . . §§ 772.101 - 772.19, against Jorge, Acebo, Dr. Queral, Dr. . . .
. . . . § § 772.101-772.19 (hereinafter, the “Florida RICO Act”). . . .
. . . . — -772.19, Florida Statutes (1993), a violation of the Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act (Count . . .
. . . Bradstreet, M.D., Morgan Bunch, III, M.D., Lori Nelson, D.D.S., and Peter Taraschi, D.O. . 772.101-772.19 . . .
. . . dismissal could have been properly based on the state’s immunity from suit for damages pursuant to section 772.19 . . . Smith has also' argued that section 772.19, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional. . . . Section 772.19 preserves sovereign immunity from damages caused by such acts. . . .
. . . . § 772.19(b) (1981) was required to be treated as developed land. See, Doc. # 22, p. 35. . . . . § 772.19(a) indicates that noise abatement measures (and thus, application of design noise levels, . . . If such an approach had been taken, § 772.19(b) would have placed a further restriction on the classification . . . noise levels for areas along the corridor which were deemed to be undeveloped under the criteria in § 772.19 . . . Although such an approach would be permissible under 23 C.F.R. § 772.19(a), the FEIS discusses noise . . .