The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 30
SHERIFFS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 30.22

30.22 When sheriff may accept service.—Sheriffs, when sued in their official capacity, may accept service, and when so sued with others may serve their codefendants and receive the fees allowed by law, except no fees shall be allowed for acceptance of service.

History.—s. 1, ch. 4411, 1895; GS 1674; RGS 2879; CGL 4576; s. 6, ch. 22790, 1945.

F.S. 30.22 on Google Scholar

F.S. 30.22 on Casetext

Amendments to 30.22

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 30.22

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 30.22.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

LAMPS PLUS, INC. v. VARELA, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (U.S. 2019)

. . . lawyer would have signed on to represent the [plaintiffs] for the possibility of fees stemming from a $ 30.22 . . .

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

. . . .364 30.19 Inconsistencies...364 30.20 Document Retention...364 30.21 Immediate Binding Effect...364 30.22 . . . does not meet the standards governing settlements under Bankruptcy Rule 9019 and other applicable law. 30.22 . . .

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

. . . .326 30.19 Inconsistencies...326 30.20 Document Retention...326 30.21 Immediate Binding Effect...327 30.22 . . . does not meet the standards governing settlements under Bankruptcy Rule 9019 and other applicable law. 30.22 . . .

SYNERGY SOLUTIONS, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 133 Fed. Cl. 716 (Fed. Cl. 2017)

. . . rate of $21.39) and adjudication (between $24.50 and $49.93 per hour, for an average hourly rate of $30.22 . . .

SALAZAR, v. B. KING, Jr., 822 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2016)

. . . . §§ 30.22, 34.5. . . .

GONZALEZ, On v. CORNING LLC, v. LLC,, 317 F.R.D. 443 (W.D. Pa. 2016)

. . . See e.g., Reyes, 802 F.3d at 491 (noting that no rational lawyer would represent a party who holds a $30.22 . . .

DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA, 136 S. Ct. 463 (U.S. 2015)

. . . S.Ct. 1740, customers brought a class action claiming that AT & T Mobility had improperly charged $30.22 . . . the contractual terms, and because few rational consumers would go through the hassle of pursuing a $30.22 . . . 1740 (BREYER, J., dissenting) (" '[T]he maximum gain to a customer for the hassle of arbitrating a $30.22 . . . dispute is still just $30.22.' " (quoting Laster v. . . .

REYES, v. NETDEPOSIT, LLC MP d b a N. A. N. A., 802 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015)

. . . have signed on to represent the [party] in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 . . .

MORTENSEN v. BRESNAN COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a, 722 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . Litigation resulted after plaintiffs were charged $30.22 in sales tax on the retail value of the phones . . .

HENDRICKS, v. AT T MOBILITY, LLC,, 823 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 . . .

CRUZ, Jr. v. CINGULAR WIRELESS, LLC, a AT T LLC,, 648 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . the claim's face value, such that 'the maximum gain to a customer for the hassle of arbitrating a $30.22 . . . dispute is still just $30.22.’ ”) (quoting Laster v. . . .

AT T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION, 563 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2011)

. . . the claim’s face value, such that “the maximum gain to a customer for the hassle of arbitrating a $30.22 . . . dispute is still just $30.22.” . . . have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 . . . sometimes have the effect of depriving claimants of their claims (say, for example, where claiming the $30.22 . . . including the provision of free phones; they were not charged for the phones, but they were charged $30.22 . . .

AT T MOBILITY LLC, v. VINCENT CONCEPCION, 179 L. Ed. 2d 742 (U.S. 2011)

. . . the claim’s face value, such that “the maximum gain to a customer for the hassle of arbitrating a $30.22 . . . dispute is still just $30.22.” . . . signed on to represent the Concep-cions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 . . . sometimes have the effect of depriving claimants of their claims (say, for example, where claiming the $30.22 . . . including the provision of free phones; they were not charged for the phones, but they were charged $30.22 . . .

L. LASTER v. AT T MOBILITY LLC,, 584 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . However, AT & T charged them $30.22 total in sales tax for the two phones, calculated as 7.75% of both . . . Here, the damages are $30.22 for the sales tax charged on cell phones AT & T advertised were “free.” . . . damages are predictably small, and in the end, the premium payment provision does not transform a $30.22 . . . Thus, the maximum gain to a customer for the hassle of arbitrating a $30.22 dispute is still just $30.22 . . . The $30.22 at issue here is even less of an incentive to file a claim. . . .

UNITED STATES v. PEREZ- OLIVEROS,, 479 F.3d 779 (11th Cir. 2007)

. . . Hidden in compartments beneath these panels were several packages later determined to hold 30.22 kilograms . . .

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, v. CARNEGIE TRADING GROUP, LTD., 450 F. Supp. 2d 788 (N.D. Ohio 2006)

. . . Vestfall’s cumulative rate of return for the life of the account was a negative 30.22%. . . .

SIERRA CLUB, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 446 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2006)

. . . , the Corps issued an environmental assessment (“EA”) for a proposed L-142 levee that would include 30.22 . . . defendant and alleging that its Memorandum of Agreement with the Corps and approval of a levee including 30.22 . . . Sierra Club also alleged that FEMA’s “determination to allow construction of the [L-142] levee on 30.22 . . . City that will modify the open space restrictions and allow construction of the L-142 levee” impacting 30.22 . . .

In HUFF, v., 343 B.R. 136 (W.D. Pa. 2006)

. . . . § 30.22. . . . For instance, the under the Department of Education’s regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 30.22 (entitled “What . . .

In McKESSON HBOC, INC. ERISA LITIGATION, 391 F. Supp. 2d 812 (N.D. Cal. 2005)

. . . price of McKesson HBOC stock for the months of May, June, July, and August 1999, was $33.14, $31.31, $30.22 . . .

J. HOFFMAN, v. C. HOFFMAN,, 841 So. 2d 695 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-five Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($193,255.75), which constitutes 30.22% . . . determine the total amount awarded to the Alternate Payee pursuant to paragraph 3.a. by allocating to her 30.22% . . . We express concern, however, that the wording of the second quoted portion would give the Wife 30.22 . . .

PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION, v. A CARGO OF M T OF HEAVY STEEL SCRAP, D, 159 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Tex. 2001)

. . . . § 30.22 imposes on a carrier, such as PNSC, the duty to deliver a fully executed SED to the local Customs . . . which such Shipper’s Export Declarations are required by the regulations of this part.” 15 C.F.R. § 30.22 . . . Contrary to PNSC’s arguments, however, the explicit language of the Regulation mandates that § 30.22’ . . .

PEREZ, v. PASADENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 958 F. Supp. 1196 (S.D. Tex. 1997)

. . . States Census of Population, the PISD had 187,047 residents, of whom 62.07 percent are Anglo (116,104); 30.22 . . . Residents Percentage of PISD Population Anglo 116,104 62.07% 87,824 66.84% Hispanic African-56,529 30.22% . . .

DEVITO, v. PENSION PLAN OF LOCAL I. B. T. PENSION FUND I. B. T., 975 F. Supp. 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . check covered the months of December 1981 through February 1982, representing a monthly amount of $30.22 . . . Plaintiff continued to receive monthly pension checks from the Plan in the amount of $30.22 until December . . . calculation of Plaintiffs pension and, using CIGNA’s formula, calculated her pension at $41.30 rather than $30.22 . . .

WESCH, v. HUNT,, 785 F. Supp. 1491 (S.D. Ala. 1992)

. . . Total Asian/PI Total Other Block 105 139 100.00% 42 30.22% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 106 12 100.00% . . .

GAMES, v. CAVAZOS,, 737 F. Supp. 1368 (D. Del. 1990)

. . . . § 30.22(b) (1987). . . .

Jo JUGUM v. FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION,, 646 F. Supp. 764 (W.D. Wash. 1986)

. . . Defendant relies on provisions of chapter 30.22, Revised Code of Washington, to support its argument. . . . RCW 30.22.-020(2). . . . “depositor”) urged by defendant would violate the purpose and principles of construction of chapter 30.22 . . . 30.20.-015, see Laws 1981, ch. 192, § 33, and in failing to reenact a similar provision in chapter 30.22 . . .

S. KRAMER, v. MARINE MIDLAND BANK, 559 F. Supp. 273 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)

. . . A few weeks later, however, he received in the mail a $30.22 refund because — so the bank advised him . . .

KRASNOW, v. UNITED STATES, 508 F. Supp. 1099 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . Mertens, The Law of Federal Income Taxation § 30.22. . . .

C. DEAKYNE v. COMMISSIONERS OF LEWES, a a M. H. C. T. H. B. Sr. T. a a M. H. C. T. H. B. Sr., 416 F.2d 290 (3d Cir. 1969)

. . . distinguishing the concepts of adverse possession and dedication, see 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations §§ 30.22 . . .

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

. . . vessel) at her Staten Island pier have been stipulated as follows: “ 8 a.m. 30.34 11 a.m. 30.26 Noon 30.22 . . .