The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 30
SHERIFFS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 30.12

30.12 Power to appoint sheriff.—If any sheriff in the state fails to attend, in person or by deputy, the circuit court or county court of the county, from sickness, death, or other cause, the judge attending the court may appoint an interim sheriff, who shall assume all the responsibilities, perform all the duties, and receive the same compensation as if he or she had been duly appointed sheriff for only the term of nonattendance and no longer.

History.—s. 1, ch. 1394, 1863; RS 1243; GS 1672; RGS 2877; CGL 4574; s. 3, ch. 22790, 1945; s. 4, ch. 73-334; s. 177, ch. 95-147; s. 4, ch. 2013-25.

F.S. 30.12 on Google Scholar

F.S. 30.12 on Casetext

Amendments to 30.12

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 30.12

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 30.12.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, In, 366 F. Supp. 3d 256 (D. P.R. 2019)

. . . Related Litigation...361 30.9 Bar Order...361 30.10 No Waiver...362 30.11 Supplemental Injunction...362 30.12 . . . Plan provides for any injunction against conduct not otherwise enjoined under the Bankruptcy Code. 30.12 . . .

IN RE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, In, 363 F. Supp. 3d 220 (D. P.R. 2019)

. . . Related Litigation...324 30.9 Bar Order...324 30.10 No Waiver...324 30.11 Supplemental Injunction...325 30.12 . . . Plan provides for any injunction against conduct not otherwise enjoined under the Bankruptcy Code. 30.12 . . .

CHRISTUS ST. VINCENT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, v. DISTRICT NATIONAL UNION OF HOSPITAL AND HEALTHCARE EMPLOYEES, AFL- CIO, AFSCME,, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1186 (D.N.M. 2016)

. . . meaning of a disputed clause of the CBA, and Count II alleges that Defendant breached that clause, § 30.12 . . . of the Nurse CBA which provides as follows: 30.12. . . . Defendant contends that the Hospital incorrectly relies on § 30.12 of the CBA to argue that the Union . . . Section 30.12 states that it is the intention of the parties “that the grievance procedure set forth . . . The waiver issue rests on the meaning of § 30.12 of the CBA as it applies to Ms. . . .

L. BUCHHAGEN, Ph. D. v. ICF INTERNATIONAL, INC. ICF Z-, 650 F. App'x 824 (4th Cir. 2016)

. . . Buchhagen negotiated a salary raise from $30.12 per hour to $60.00 per hour and accepted the position . . .

LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 771 F.3d 903 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . See Service Schedule MSS-3, Sec. 30.12 (formula for determining actual production costs); id. . . . Service Schedule MSS-3, Sec. 30.12, n.l. B. . . . FERC ¶ 61,023 at P 171 (“[F]or calculating the 2006 production payments to be made in 2007, section 30.12 . . . mandates that Entergy use actual data on the companies’ books is based on Footnotes 1 and 2 in Section 30.12 . . . Service Schedule MSS-3, Sec. 30.12. . . .

BOEING v. MOVASSAGHI,, 768 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . . §§ 30.12, 40.11, 70.11 (exempting NRC’s and DOE’s prime contractors from licensing requirements under . . .

LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 761 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . depreciation rates with its own reconstructed rates, FERC would change the formula set forth in Section 30.12 . . .

J. L. SPOONS, INC. v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,, 31 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ohio 2014)

. . . Nightclubs (01/28/08-09/07/10) 10.04 28.25 Non-Adult Bars and Nightclubs (09/08/10-04/18/13) 12.02 30.12 . . .

WOODARD, v. ANDRUS,, 272 F.R.D. 185 (W.D. La. 2010)

. . . (citing Manual For Complex Litigation Third, § 21.213, p. 44; § 30.11, p. 214; § 30.12, p. 215). . . .

UNITED STATES v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,, 626 F.3d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

. . . . §§ 30.12, 40.11, 70.11. . . .

In REMEC INCORPORATED SECURITIES LITIGATION., 702 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (S.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . Adding back the 5% for depreciation makes the assumption 30.12%, which is the same as the 30% assumption . . .

In RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 258 F.R.D. 167 (D.D.C. 2009)

. . . Gray, 133 F.R.D. at 41 (citing Manual For Complex Litigation (Second) § 30.12 (1985)). . . .

CALIFORNIA LOCKYER, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE s v., 459 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

. . . (Forest Service Handbook) at § 30.12(2) (emphasis added). . . . Id. at § 30.12(2). . . .

UNITED STATES v. S. GORDON,, 393 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2004)

. . . date of Gordon’s first “taking” of 54,525 shares, December 14, 1998, Teray-on’s day-high value was $30.12 . . .

BELL, v. DUPERRAULT,, 367 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 30.12 (1989). . . .

LARSON, Jr. E. J. v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a, 210 F.R.D. 663 (D. Minn. 2002)

. . . For its part, the Defendant cites that portion of Section 30.12 of the Manual, which provides as follows . . . On the other hand, the Plaintiffs place great weight on the portion of Section 30.12 which reads as follows . . .

THURMOND, On v. COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION,, 171 F. Supp. 2d 667 (E.D. Tex. 2001)

. . . First Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39 (N.D.Cal.1990); citing MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (THIRD) § 30.12 . . .

MUELLER, v. CBS, INC. f k a, 200 F.R.D. 242 (W.D. Pa. 2001)

. . . Feb. 21, 1997), quoting Manual for Complex Litigation (Third) § 30.12 (1995). . . .

BODNER, v. PARIBAS, v., 202 F.R.D. 370 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . As explained in the Federal Judicial Center’s Manual for Complex Litigation 3rd, at 30.12 (1995): Discovery . . .

WASTE CONTROL SPECIALISTS, LLC, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY M. In UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY M., 141 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 30.12(a) (1997). . 42 U.S.C. § 2021(b). . 42 U.S.C. §§ 2021(d)(1), 2021(o)(2). . . . . nuclear material” is defined as enriched plutonium or uranium. 42 U.S.C. § 2014(aa). . 10 C.F.R. § 30.12 . . .

SNOW, v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY,, 998 F. Supp. 852 (W.D. Tenn. 1998)

. . . . § 30.12(a). . . .

O. COX, v. E. SHALALA, a, 112 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 30.12. . . .

SANCHEZ, v. OVERMYER,, 891 F. Supp. 1253 (N.D. Ohio 1995)

. . . maintained in a clean and sanitary condition as indicated by testimony and plaintiffs’ Exhibits 30.9 to 30.12 . . .

GETTYSBURG NATIONAL BANK, v. UNITED STATES, 806 F. Supp. 511 (M.D. Pa. 1992)

. . . Flicker Hill Orchards $ 76,500 Emory Tuckey Tract $ 62,500 The total of these values is $393,000 which is 30.12% . . .

SIMMONS, v. KEMP,, 751 F. Supp. 815 (D. Minn. 1990)

. . . The rule is probably just clarified. 2 D.Herr & R.Haydock, Minnesota Practice, § 30.12 at 26 (Supp.1990 . . .

GRAY v. FIRST WINTHROP CORPORATION,, 133 F.R.D. 39 (N.D. Cal. 1990)

. . . See Manual for Complex Litigation 2d § 30.12 (1985). . . .

McELROY, McELROY v. FIRESTONE TIRE RUBBER COMPANY, a, 894 F.2d 1504 (11th Cir. 1990)

. . . Shapo, The Law of Products Liability IT 30.12[1], at 30-42 (1987). . . .

UNITED STATES v. H. JONES, UNITED STATES v. L. JONES, UNITED STATES v. PALAZZOLO, UNITED STATES v. J. W. PHILYAW, UNITED STATES v. J. PALAZZOLO,, 880 F.2d 55 (8th Cir. 1989)

. . . Waxner, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 30.12, at 169 (2d ed. 1988). . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. SONGER,, 655 F. Supp. 861 (N.D. Okla. 1987)

. . . 08' East 97.63 feet distant and from which point of beginning a steel rail bears North 29“ 07' West 30.12 . . .

SALLING, v. R. BOWEN,, 641 F. Supp. 1046 (W.D. Va. 1986)

. . . application of its own regulations are entitled to great weight, see 4 Davis, Administrative Law, § 30.12 . . .

S. SILVER, R. v. SCHROEDER, O., 474 So. 2d 857 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Parker, Page on Wills, § 30.12, at 90 (rev.1961). See Darpino v. D’arpino, 73 N.J. . . .

C. THOMPSON, III, R. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 761 F.2d 259 (6th Cir. 1985)

. . . Sales 1974 $29,823,071 $2,324,011 7.79% 1975 29,682,138 5,941,624 20.01% 1976 27,354,968 8,240,444 30.12% . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 18.16 37.02 26.38 22.61 30.57 20.64 14.71 33.60 38.12 29.54 34.82 25.64 15.65 18.87 34.55 22.50 20.70 30.12 . . .

L. A. SILVIS, v. HECKLER,, 578 F. Supp. 1401 (W.D. Pa. 1984)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law § 30.12 (1958). . . .

M. MUNSINGER, v. SCHWEIKER,, 709 F.2d 1212 (8th Cir. 1983)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 30.12, at 260-261 (1958). [603 F.2d at 718.] . . .

J. CUNNINGHAM, v. R. HARRIS,, 658 F.2d 239 (4th Cir. 1981)

. . . application of its own regulation is entitled to great weight, see 4 Davis, Ad- ministrative Law § 30.12 . . .

H. ROSS, a G. v. UNITED STATES, 640 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . ceiling 1,000 overcast visibility 7, temperature 65, dew point 62, wind 120 degrees at 9, altimeter 30.12 . . .

ALABAMA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, INC. v. AMERICAN FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 606 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1979)

. . . In one instance AMFI apparently paid as much as $30.12 per share, as its documents show an expenditure . . .

OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS, v. D. ANDRUS, V. OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS, v. D. ANDRUS, V., 603 F.2d 707 (8th Cir. 1979)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 30.12, at 260-261 (1958). . . .

MARSHALL, v. ANACONDA COMPANY,, 596 F.2d 370 (9th Cir. 1979)

. . . OSHRC, 488 F.2d 337 (5th Cir. 1973); 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 30.12. . . .

M. J. v., 70 T.C. 814 (T.C. 1978)

. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, sec. 30.12 et seq. (1959). . . .

J. B. TAYLOR v. E. P. PERINI,, 455 F. Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ohio 1978)

. . . Dormitory 32.25 30.25 51.60 48.40 7.70 1A Dormitory 25.25 37.50 40.24 59.76 3.66 2 Dormitory 18.75 43.50 30.12 . . .

MEAD DATA CENTRAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE,, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 30.12 (1958); cf. Griggs v. . . .

DIAMOND ROOFING CO. INC. v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION W. J. S. D. MULLINS COMPANY, INC. v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION W. J. LANCE ROOFING COMPANY, INC. v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION W. J., 528 F.2d 645 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . Macy, 1968, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 217, 392 F.2d 822; 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 30.12. Cf. . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. LEONARD,, 524 F.2d 1076 (2d Cir. 1975)

. . . See 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 30.12 at 261 & n.12 (1958). (3) The objection most strongly . . .

HAYES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, v. Dr. L. McLUCAS,, 509 F.2d 247 (5th Cir. 1975)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 30.12 (1958). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. RESERVE MINING COMPANY, 394 F. Supp. 233 (D. Minn. 1974)

. . . The Court also found that the discharge marked a continuing violation of Sec. 30.12 Wis.Stats., and Sec . . . However, in that Section 30.15 declares that a violation of Sec. 30.12 is a public nuisance, the Court . . . deposition of waste into Lake Superior is in violation of the Refuse Act, 33 U.S.C. § 407; Wis.Stat. §§ 30.12 . . .

UNITED STATES v. RESERVE MINING COMPANY, 380 F. Supp. 11 (D. Minn. 1974)

. . . oil, tar, garbage, refuse, debris, tanbark, ship ballast, stone, sand, except where permitted by s. 30.12 . . .

S. IMESON, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 487 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1973)

. . . .) § 30.12.) It is arguable, however, that Mrs. . . .

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,, 469 F.2d 130 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 30.12 (1958). . See note 4 supra. . . .

THOMSON PHOSPHATE COMPANY, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R. CO. v. UNITED STATES, 434 F.2d 180 (2d Cir. 1970)

. . . United States, 217 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1954); 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 30.12 (1958). . . .

A. Wm. SCHILD, v. E. BUSCH, E. R. A S C U. S., 293 F. Supp. 1353 (S.D. Tex. 1968)

. . . . §§ 30.12, .14 (1958 & 1965 Supp.). . . .

v., 48 T.C. 767 (T.C. 1967)

. . . I.T. 3957, 1949-1 C.B. 65; 5 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, secs. 30.12, 30.69, 30.74, and . . .

UNITED STATES v. RUSSELL ELECTRIC CO., 250 F. Supp. 2 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)

. . . . •3Í* ■Sr *)f -ír -Jf We will manufacture the additional 400 units at a price of $30.12 each. . . . Commander Clapham’s handwritten notation on the letter (Ex. 55) pointedly observed: Do not accept price of $30.12 . . . It called for delivery by January 16, 1953 of 400 gyro motors at a unit price of $30.12. . . . NOP issued Contract 1982 for the 400 motors to Redmond on May 15, 1952 at $30.12 per unit (Ex. 56); ( . . .

A. M. v., 43 T.C. 897 (T.C. 1965)

. . . See 5 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 30.12, p. 30; sec. 166(b), I.R.C. 1954. . . .

T. BERNER S. v. BRITISH COMMONWEALTH PACIFIC AIRLINES, LTD. a a, 219 F. Supp. 289 (S.D.N.Y. 1963)

. . . One altimeter was recovered with a barometric setting of approximately 30.12; the latest setting given . . .

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 277 F.2d 615 (10th Cir. 1960)

. . . Continental Oil Company to clear its asserted title to the mineral estate under a strip of land containing 30.12 . . . States a deed for the land constituting the right of way across the section, containing a total of 30.12 . . .

UNITED STATES v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, 169 F. Supp. 735 (D. Wyo. 1959)

. . . Section 35, Township 58 North, Range 98 West, of the 6th P.M., Park County, Wyoming, and comprising 30.12 . . . of the years 1917 to 1927, inclusive, describing the lands to be assessed in Section 35 as “All less 30.12 . . . United States without reservation or exception the fee simple estate of the 30.12 acres. . . . From what I have said I hold the Government is the owner in fee simple of the 30.12 acres and the minerals . . .

ROGERS v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., 95 F. Supp. 342 (W.D. La. 1951)

. . . .; and, in particular, Sections 30.18, 29.10, 30.08(d) and 30.12(b), LSA-RS 22:1418, 22:1360, 22:1408 . . .

UNITED STATES v. BIEHUNKO, 55 F. Supp. 706 (S.D. Tex. 1944)

. . . defendant to pay to the plaintiff the penalties accrued on the excess cotton marketed by him, amounting to $30.12 . . .

SHAW v. EASTERN TRANSP. CO. THE RUTH SHAW, 52 F. Supp. 202 (E.D.N.Y. 1943)

. . . been stipulated as follows: “ 8 a.m. 30.34 11 a.m. 30.26 Noon 30.22 1 p.m. 30.18 2 o’clock 30.15 3 " 30.12 . . .

THE T. J. HOOPER. THE NORTHERN NO. NO. THE MONTROSE. EASTERN TRANSP. CO. NEW ENGLAND COAL COKE CO. v. NORTHERN BARGE CORPORATION HARTWELL SON, v. SAME, 53 F.2d 107 (S.D.N.Y. 1931)

. . . These readings up to midnight on the 8th showed only normal fluctuations, ranging from 30.44 to 30.12 . . .

PONDER v. LAMAR LIFE INS. CO., 6 F.2d 294 (W.D. La. 1925)

. . . The first premium was paid, $30.12 cash and the balance in two notes, one dated April 16, 1866, payable . . .