838.15
Commercial bribe receiving.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
838.15 Commercial bribe receiving.—
(1) A person commits the crime of commercial bribe receiving if the person solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept a benefit with intent to violate a statutory or common-law duty to which that person is subject as:
(a) An agent or employee of another;
(b) A trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary;
(c) A lawyer, physician, accountant, appraiser, or other professional adviser;
(d) An officer, director, partner, manager, or other participant in the direction of the affairs of an organization; or
(e) An arbitrator or other purportedly disinterested adjudicator or referee.
History.—s. 1, ch. 90-301.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Roque v. State
Roque v. State (1995)
“§ 838.15, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1990). We have declared similar statutes invalid on various grounds: [1] Some were impermissibly vague [2] or were subject to arbitrary application.”
In Re the Extradition of Chan Seong-I (2004)
“§ 53a-160 (misdemeanor); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 838.15 (felony); Haw. Rev.”
State v. Roque (1994)
“The State appeals a trial court order which declared the commercial bribe receiving statute, Florida Statutes Section 838.15 (Supp.1990), unconstitutionally vague.”
OCEAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. THE JEWELRY CHANNEL (2020)
“The Florida Supreme Court has held that § 838.15 is invalid because it is unconstitutionally vague and subject to arbitrary application.”
Pampa Beverages, LLC d/b/a Transnational Supply v. Hussing (2024)
“”92 Thus, notwithstanding the dicta in numerous reported decisions stating that an employee owes his or her employer a fiduciary duty, it is actually not at all “well-established” under Florida law that an employee owes a fiduciary duty to his or her employer.”
— 838.15(1) — 1 case
OCEAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. THE JEWELRY CHANNEL (2020)
“The Florida Supreme Court has held that § 838.15 is invalid because it is unconstitutionally vague and subject to arbitrary application.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.