Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 876.05 (2025)
Public employees; oath.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
876.05 Public employees; oath.—
(1) All persons who now or hereafter are employed by or who now or hereafter are on the payroll of the state, or any of its departments and agencies, subdivisions, counties, cities, school boards and districts of the free public school system of the state or counties, or institutions of higher learning, except candidates for federal office, are required to take an oath before any person duly authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments for public record in the state in the following form:
I, , a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an officer of and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.
(2) Said oath shall be filed with the records of the governing official or employing governmental agency prior to the approval of any voucher for the payment of salary, expenses, or other compensation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1954–2012 · leading case: The Florida Bar v. Sibley, 995 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2008).
The Florida Bar v. Sibley, 995 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2008). “Sibley relies on section 876.05, Florida Statutes. [1] Sibley's arguments and positions are both inaccurate and legally insufficient.”
Connell v. Higginbotham, 305 F. Supp. 445 (M.D. Fla. 1969). “is held to be without force or effect: "Any person having taken the oath provided for in § 876.05 and who thereafter * * * expresses any belief in * * * the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the state by violence or force * * * shall immediately be…”
Cramp v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Orange, 137 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1962). “Finally, we must decide whether the remainder of the so-called *830 Florida loyalty oath can properly remain in effect with the elimination of any constitutionally objectionable language.”
Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971). “She was interviewed by the principal of Callahan Elementary School, and on January 27, 1969, appellant was employed as a substitute classroom teacher in the fourth grade of that school.”
Cramp v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Orange Cty., 118 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1960). “Recently, the appellee Board of Public Instruction discovered that appellant had never subscribed to the so-called loyalty or non-communist oath required of all public officials and employees by Section 876.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. He was requested to do so.”
Falco v. State, 407 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1981). “Board of Public Instruction of Orange County , Florida, involved an action by a school teacher challenging the constitutionality of a loyalty oath required by section 876.05, Florida Statutes. The Supreme Court held the statute to be unconstitutionally vague and a denial of due…”
Cramp v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Orange Cty., 368 U.S. 278 (1961). “” Fla. Stat. § 876.05 . (Italics added.) The Supreme Court of Florida has construed the portion of the statutory oath printed in italics as follows: “We think the pertinent clause, despite its ungrammatical construction was meant to apply retrospectively and that it should be…”
Cramp v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Orange Cty., 125 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1960). “It was then discovered that through an oversight, he had never been required to execute the oath required by Section 876.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The appellee Board immediately demanded that the oath be executed.”
Treiman v. Malmquist, 342 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977). “l jurisdiction of the court to which election is sought; (d) The name of the county of his legal residence; (e) That he is qualified under the laws of this state to hold the judicial office to which he desires to be elected; (f) That he has not violated any of the laws of the…”
State Ex Rel. Siegendorf v. Stone, 266 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1972). “Klein challenges the constitutionality of the loyalty oath as required by Fla. Stat. §§ 876.05-876.10 , F.S.A. Since our ruling rests on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to decide this issue.”
State Ex Rel. Feldman v. Kelly, 76 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1954). “02(4) and (5), outlawing the Communist Party, contained no finding of fact by the legislature to stimulate its passage but eight years later, when Chapter 25046, Acts of 1949, F.S.A. § 876.05 et seq., was enacted, imposing the loyalty oath for officers and employees of the…”
Schurr v. Sanchez-Gronlier, 937 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “The loyalty oath required by § 876.05, signed by the candidate and duly acknowledged.”
— 876.05(1) — 1 case
City of Orlando v. State of Fla., 751 F. Supp. 974 (M.D. Fla. 1990).
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.