Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 30.29 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 30.29 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 30.29

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Chapter 30
SHERIFFS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 30.29
30.29 Sheriffs may furnish vital war industries guard service against sabotage.
(1) The sheriffs of the respective counties of the state be and they are hereby authorized and empowered to furnish adequate guard service to vital war industries if requested to so do by such industries; provided, such industries reimburse said sheriffs the actual cost of such guard service; that the furnishing of guard service by said sheriffs to vital war industries is and shall be an official act of the various sheriffs and said guards shall be deemed to be in the employ of the various sheriffs as an instrumentality of the state.
(2) Such guards shall be regular or special deputy sheriffs, residents of the state, citizens of the United States, and bonded, with no prior criminal record, and shall be always under the control of the respective sheriffs who employ said guards. All orders to said guards shall emanate from the respective sheriffs; provided, however, that industry shall have the right to supervise said guards and make recommendations in connection with the guarding of its property to said sheriffs.
(3) The term “industry,” as used in this section, shall be construed to include any person, firm, or corporation engaged, directly or indirectly, in the manufacture or furnishing of any materials, equipment, commodities, or services which contribute to the prosecution of the war effort.
(4) The said guards employed by the various sheriffs hereunder shall be acceptable to the particular industry involved at all times and shall receive such pay as is agreeable to the sheriff, industry, and the guard to be employed.
(5) All guards heretofore employed by sheriffs and used in connection with the guarding of industry, shall be deemed to have been employed according to the terms and conditions of this section and the employment by the various sheriffs in this connection is hereby ratified, confirmed, and held to be employment in their official capacities as an instrumentality of the state.
(6) The powers given to the various sheriffs of the various counties of this state herein shall not be deemed to be limiting the powers of the sheriffs already existing but shall be deemed to be cumulative.
History.ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, ch. 21798, 1943.

F.S. 30.29 on Google Scholar

F.S. 30.29 on Casetext

Amendments to 30.29


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 30.29
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 30.29.



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)

. . . Assigns...365 30.26 Notices...365 30.27 Term of Injunctions or Stays...366 30.28 Entire Agreement...367 30.29 . . . and representations on such subjects, all of which have become merged and integrated into the Plan. 30.29 . . .

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

. . . Assigns...328 30.26 Notices...328 30.27 Term of Injunctions or Stays...328 30.28 Entire Agreement...329 30.29 . . . and representations on such subjects, all of which have become merged and integrated into the Plan. 30.29 . . .

FRITO- LAY, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,, 20 F. Supp. 3d 548 (N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . . § 60-30.29 operates to close the record when a remand for reconsideration of part of the record has . . .

THRIVENT FINANCIAL FOR LUTHERANS, v. STROJNY, 882 F. Supp. 2d 260 (D. Mass. 2012)

. . . payable under the Life Policy totaled $59,917.21 and the amount payable under the Annuity totaled $30.29 . . .

HARO G. a v. SEBELIUS,, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Ariz. 2011)

. . . . § 30.29(a)(3). . . . . § 30.29(c)(1). . . . . § 30.29(c)(2). . . . Consequently, it would violate section 30.29(c)(2) if she did as her letters of notice to the Plaintiffs . . . This averment brings her conduct into line with the general practices authorized by 45 C.F.R. § 30.29 . . .

In G. SADLER, Jr. L., 378 B.R. 780 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . This amount reflects a 30.29% dividend based upon the Debtors’ estimate of $73,611 of general unsecured . . .

VOLVO GM HEAVY TRUCK CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR B., 118 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 1997)

. . . Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board issues a final administrative order. 41 C.F.R. 60-30.29 . . .

In GREENWOOD AIR CRASH, 924 F. Supp. 1518 (S.D. Ind. 1995)

. . . temperature 70 degrees fahrenheit, dew point 49 degrees fahrenheit; wind 020 degrees. at 10 knots; altimeter 30.29 . . .

S. MASHBURN, v. NATIONAL HEALTHCARE, INC. a, 684 F. Supp. 679 (M.D. Ala. 1988)

. . . Hence, the requested fee is 30.29% of the cash portion of the settlement fund plus the $1.5 million present . . .

UNITED STATES v. ACRES, MORE OR LESS, IN KEELER TOWNSHIP, VANBUREN COUNTY, MICHIGAN, a, 666 F. Supp. 1017 (W.D. Mich. 1987)

. . . Depreciation x (1 — Tax Rate) = 16 X .15 = 2.40 Net Cash Income X (1 — Tax Rate) = 32.81 X .85 = $27.89 Total $30.29 . . . NPV-Investment $128.00 $ 79.06 $ 51.51 $ 33.57 $292.14 NPV-Income = $30.29 x 14.53 (5.5% at 30 yrs.) . . .

ISLA PETROLEUM CORPORATION De v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS PHILLIPS PUERTO RICO CORE, INC. v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, TEXACO PUERTO RICO, INC. v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, H Mr. CIA. PETROLERA CARIBE, INC. v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, SHELL COMPANY PUERTO RICO LIMITED v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, ESSO STANDARD OIL CO. P. R. v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, CARIBBEAN GULF REFINING CORPORATION, v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, TENOCO OIL CO. INC. De El v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, 640 F. Supp. 474 (D.P.R. 1986)

. . . The new tax, as of May 1986, added an additional 14.29 cents per gallon, for a total tax of 30.29 cents . . .

B. ALLEN J. v. PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY, MARYLAND,, 538 F. Supp. 833 (D. Md. 1982)

. . . 46.62 62 16 25.81 -3.40 SD Off/CIerical 2,428 919 37.85 238 72 30.25 -2.54 SD Skilled Craft 274 83 30.29 . . .

UNITED STATES v. LUBBOCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 455 F. Supp. 1223 (N.D. Tex. 1978)

. . . 1,975 Program Capacity 1,286 Current Enrollment 1.27% Minority in ’54-55 4.78% ’61-62 25.16% ’67-68 30.29% . . .

W. DUSTIN C. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 467 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 1972)

. . . Mertens, supra note 2, § 30.29; Ohl, The Deduction for Bad Debts: A Study in Flexibility and Inflexibility . . .

H. C. Co- v., 55 T.C. 522 (T.C. 1970)

. . . Summary of Values Low ground — 15 acres at $400_ $6, 000. 00 High, ground — 30.29 acres at $1600 (after . . .

PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 187 Ct. Cl. 129 (Ct. Cl. 1969)

. . . 1946- 29.47 36.95 18.18 60.80 1947- 28.94 35.31 16.81 52.02 1948- 28.88 32.80 20.49 43.58 1949- 26.92 30.29 . . .

W. v. L. S. v., 50 T.C. 813 (T.C. 1968)

. . . Steadman, 50 T.C. 369 (1968); 5 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 30.29, p. 77 (Zimet rev . . .

D. HOVER, v. DONALD ENGINEERING CO., 183 F. Supp. 427 (S.D. Iowa 1960)

. . . The mortality table shows a normal life expectancy for a person of that age to be 30.29 years. . . .

J. VIGDERMAN, F. J. F. L. v. UNITED STATES, 175 F. Supp. 802 (E.D. Pa. 1959)

. . . the time of the trial, plaintiff’s decedent would have been 41 years of age with a life expectancy of 30.29 . . . With decedent’s life expectancy at the time of the trial being 30.29 years and his earnings at or around . . .

LEWIS v. FLORIDA POWER LIGHT CO., 69 F. Supp. 23 (S.D. Fla. 1946)

. . . . § 30.29 and note, the furnishing of guard service such as that furnished by the Sheriff of Dade County . . . As a matter of law under the provisions of Chapter 21798, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1943, F.S.A. § 30.29 . . . As a matter of law, Chapter 21798, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1943, F.S.A. § 30.29 and note, authorized . . .

JOHN A. ROEBLING S SONS CO. OF CALIFORNIA v. KINNICUTT, 248 F. 596 (S.D.N.Y. 1917)

. . . and decreed that Railway was indebted to plaintiff upon its above-mentioned claim in the sum of $24,9(30.29 . . .

THE NIMROD, 173 F. 520 (S.D. Ala. 1909)

. . . St. 1901, p. 30.29); Hughes on Admiralty, p. 216. . . .