The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 30
SHERIFFS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 30.60

¹30.60 Establishment of neighborhood crime watch programs.—A county sheriff or municipal police department may establish neighborhood crime watch programs within the county or municipality. The participants of a neighborhood crime watch program shall include, but need not be limited to, residents of the county or municipality and owners of businesses located within the county or municipality.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2004-18.

¹Note.—Also published at s. 166.0485.

F.S. 30.60 on Google Scholar

F.S. 30.60 on Casetext

Amendments to 30.60

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 30.60

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 30.60.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE KENNEDY,, 568 B.R. 367 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2017)

. . . . § 30.60 to provide the formula for calculating a percentage charge for collection costs. . . . amount the same borrower would be charged for the cost of collection under the formula in 34 C.F.R. § 30.60 . . . states that the amount “must equal” the lesser of the amount provided by the formula in 34 C.F.R. § 30.60 . . . Navient asserts that its collection cost rate of 22.5% is based on the formula provided in 34 C.F.R. § 30.60 . . . But contrary to Debtor’s position, the regulation does exactly that: § 682.410(b)(2) refers to both § 30.60 . . .

KINARD, v. DISH NETWORK COMPANY,, 228 F. Supp. 3d 771 (N.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . Level 4 technicians previously making an average of $30.60 per hour under QPC, now made $17.00 per hour . . .

M. BRECKENRIDGE, v. VARGO AND JANSON, P. C., 225 F. Supp. 3d 1216 (D. Colo. 2016)

. . . . § 30.60. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶21, 22.) . . .

ARCE, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,, 311 F.R.D. 504 (N.D. Ill. 2015)

. . . See 7 James William Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 30.60 (3d ed. 2013); Christopher Macehiaroli . . .

BIBLE, v. UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC., 799 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2015)

. . . amount the same borrower would be charged for the cost of collection under the formula in 34 C.F.R; [§ ] 30.60 . . .

GARRETT INVESTMENTS, LLC, v. SE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, v. B. IV M., 956 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Ala. 2013)

. . . Calculating the lodestar Hourly rate Hours Amount Graham $250.00 67.30 $16,825.00 Fincher $225.00 30.60 . . .

LEWIS, v. HEARTLAND INNS OF AMERICA, L. L. C. d b a, 764 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (S.D. Iowa 2011)

. . . significant expenses” consisted of payments of $50 to each focus group participant, for a total of $300, and $30.60 . . .

In M. KIRKLAND, v. M., 600 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 30.60, or (2) the amount the borrower would be charged for collection costs if the loan were held . . .

In M. KIRKLAND, v. M., 600 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 30.60, or (2) the amount the borrower would be charged for collection costs if the loan were held . . .

In SPROLITO,, 359 B.R. 423 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2006)

. . . The amount the same borrower would be charged for the cost of collection under the formula in 34 CFR 30.60 . . . Section 34 CFR 30.60 describes the formula to be used when calculating the collection costs. . . .

M. BLACK, Jr. v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, 459 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2006)

. . . . §§ 6682.410(b)(2) and 30.60(c), which allows the use of a flat “make whole” rate, in lieu of actual . . . See 34 C.F.R. § 30.60. . . . no dispute in this case that ECMC accurately calculated this rate using the formula in 34 C.F.R. § 30.60 . . .

M. BLACK, Jr. v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, 459 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2006)

UNITED STATES, v. VILUS, v. v. E. v. v., 419 F. Supp. 2d 293 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . . § 30.60; or (ii)[t]he amount the same borrower would be charged for the cost of collection if the loan . . . The percentage is then input into the formula in 34 C.F.R. § 30.60 to determine the amount assessed to . . . Therefore, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 30.60, collection agencies may assess collection costs at the rate . . . determined by the lesser of the amount determined by reference to the formula set forth in § 30.60 or . . . These costs may not only exceed the thresholds prescribed by 34 CFR 30.60, but in the case of certain . . .

ABUSAID, Jr. a. k. a. v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, s a s, 405 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 30.60 (“A county sheriff ... may establish neighborhood crime watch programs within the county .. . . .

In EVANS, In I., 322 B.R. 429 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2005)

. . . . § 30.60 and 34 C.F.R. § 682.410(b)(2) dealing with collection costs and other charges. . . . . § 30.60, delinquent student loan borrowers may be charged for costs pursuant to the formula set forth . . . C.F.R. § 682.410(b)(2), and is limited to the lesser of (i) the amount calculated under 34 C.F.R. § 30.60 . . . this goal, DOE chose to use a cost averaging method and the formula approach set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 30.60 . . . right to assess and recover collection charges pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 682.410(b)(2) and 34 C.F.R. § 30.60 . . .

EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, v. A. BARNES K., 318 B.R. 482 (S.D. Ind. 2004)

. . . The amount the same borrower would be charged for the cost of collection under the formula in 34 CFR 30.60 . . . Department held the loans is detailed in 34 C.F.R. § 30.60 and, when applied by ECMC, results in a flat . . .

In BROWN,, 310 B.R. 341 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2004)

. . . The amount the same borrower would be charged for the cost of collection under the formula in 34 CFR 30.60 . . .

In L. STEFFEN,, 294 B.R. 388 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . The Taxpayers contend that their investment in BPLP-1 is 30.60%, which equates to $23,366,705. . . .

In M. SCHLEHR, d b a D. h i i D. In a k a a k a a k a S. In E. J. a k a J. a k a In, 290 B.R. 387 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2003)

. . . at a rate of twenty five percent (25%), which he testified is the ceding under the regulations at § 30.60 . . . These percentages are place in a spreadsheet according to a mathematic equation found at 34 CFR § 30.60 . . . He testified that 34 CFR § 30.60 provides the equation, I over (1 minus CR), which gives the percentage . . . ) The amount the borrower would be charged for the cost of collection under the formula in 34 CFR § 30.60 . . . Thus Fisher’s testimony, that 34 CFR § 30.60 provides the formula ECMC used to allocate its collection . . .

PADILLA, v. PAYCO GENERAL AMERICAN CREDITS, INC., 161 F. Supp. 2d 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . amount the same borrower would be charged for the cost of collection under the formula in § 34 CFR 30.60 . . .

GEORGE W. W. a By v. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 149 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (E.D. Cal. 2000)

. . . (i) The amount the borrower would be charged for the cost of collection under the formula in 34 CFR 30.60 . . . The amount the same borrower would be charged for the cost of collection under the formula in 34 CFR 30.60 . . .

In FEARS,, 247 B.R. 219 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2000)

. . . . § 30.60, which is an average collection cost of all loans held by a particular guaranty agency, or . . .

H. SMITH v. UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC., 8 F. Supp. 2d 562 (E.D. La. 1998)

. . . . §§ 30.60 and 682.410(b)(2); Supplemental Affidavit of Carl Dalstrom, Jan. 21,1998. . . .

UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS,, 856 F.2d 675 (4th Cir. 1988)

. . . After a two-day bench trial, the district court found that one of the tracts, containing approximately 30.60 . . .

v., 89 T.C. 1086 (T.C. 1987)

. . . 00 7,886 97 78.14 6.68 18.54 (3.36) 100.00 211 (93) 1,284 4,844 414 1,149 (208) 6,199 581 66.13 1.17 30.60 . . .

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

. . . 27.25 27.42 25 30 28 26 21 5 25 20 18 27 27 13 49 6 10 28 36 21 26 3 27 18 33 37 32 31 28.08 26.54 30.60 . . .

B. v., 83 T.C. 755 (T.C. 1984)

. . . . $812.50 Murray Corp. 499.80 Wallace-Murray Pfd. 30.60 Cecil A. . . .

UNITED STATES R. v. E. HAYES,, 722 F.2d 723 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . Stewart .82-5170 11/14/83 U.S. v. 30.60 acres of land, more or less situate in Brunswick County .82-1648 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ACRES OF LAND,, 535 F. Supp. 33 (E.D.N.C. 1981)

. . . UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. 30.60 ACRES OF LAND, etc., et al., Defendants. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CHAS. PFIZER CO. INC., 367 F. Supp. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)

. . . . /. 30.60 Private Hospital . 30.60 Wholesale . 24.22 Upjobn did not sell to wholesalers. . . .

TRANS OCEAN VAN SERVICE v. THE UNITED STATES, 200 Ct. Cl. 122 (Ct. Cl. 1972)

. . . a line-haul transportation charge of $215.38 (based on a rate of $30.99, the single-factor rate of $30.60 . . .

M. L. R. v., 58 T.C. 699 (T.C. 1972)

. . . shares, common stock, General Motors Corporation, at 49%, the inventory value_ 107, 613. 00 (c) Cash _ 30.60 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CHAS. PFIZER CO., 426 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1970)

. . . capsules, a 1956 cost of $1.76 and a 1958 cost of $1.59 against a selling price to the druggist of $30.60 . . . The druggist paid $30.60 — 2,000% mark-up. * * * I think it is a fair inference from this chart that . . .

AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, BRISTOL- MYERS COMPANY v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, CHAS. PFIZER CO. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, UPJOHN COMPANY, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,, 363 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1966)

. . . And at this same time your price to the druggist was $30.60. Mr. Duncan. That is correct. Mr. . . . I believe the prices were $30.60 to the retail trade per bottle of a hundred and the wholesale price, . . . this in great detail earlier — for instance, your price to the druggist previously per hundred was $30.60 . . .

UNITED STATES TAYLOR v. FIDELITY DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND HAVEMANN,, 4 F. Supp. 211 (D. Idaho 1930)

. . . bolt..........10 1 repair link..........15 9/9 50# 1% drill steel.... 10.00 60 ft. 1" drill steel.... 30.60 . . .

MANHATTAN CANNING CO. v. WILSON, 217 F. 41 (9th Cir. 1914)

. . . The decree of the court below awarded the appellee $30.60 for hospital services, $50 for medical attendance . . .

WILSON v. MANHATTAN CANNING CO., 205 F. 996 (W.D. Wash. 1913)

. . . Seattle, 'where it is alleged he remained until the 5th day of May, 1913, incurring a hospital bill of $30.60 . . .

MATTIE W. JACKSON, WIDOW, ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES, 47 Ct. Cl. 579 (Ct. Cl. 1912)

. . . Red River Landing. 1888. 45.35 42.80 38.10 44.18 43.4 41.75 1889. 34.53 34.10 29.40 34.45 30.60 34.15 . . .

v., 3 Ct. Cust. 256 (C.C.P.A. 1912)

. . . reliquidated the entry upon the basis of the certified invoice and required payment of the additional duties, $30.60 . . .

ANTHONY v. CAMPBELL CAMPBELL v. ANTHONY, 112 F. 212 (8th Cir. 1901)

. . . Morrell for a price that would net $30.60 upon each ¿100 of outstanding debentures. . . .

WILSON v. MARTINEZ MARTINEZ v. WILSON, 108 F. 705 (5th Cir. 1901)

. . . said loan is evidenced by 77 promissory notes of even date with this mortgage, each for the sum of $30.60 . . . .'¡¡30.60, which became payable a short time thereafter, payment of which was tendered to the receiver . . .

MANORITA v. FIDELITY TRUST LOAN CO., 101 F. 8 (S.D. Ala. 1900)

. . . said loan is evidenced by 77 promissory notes of even date with this mortgage, each for the sum of $30.60 . . . the time the affairs of the company went into the hands of the receiver, except the last: note of $30.60 . . .

SCHROEDER v. YOUNG, 161 U.S. 334 (U.S. 1896)

. . . Young, Henry Goddard, and George Goddard in the sum of $1673.36, ■with $30.60 costs. Frank B. . . .

OGDEN v. MAXWELL, 18 F. Cas. 613 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1855)

. . . Liverpool, and, under like circumstances, and a like exaction by the collector, the plaintiffs paid $30.60 . . .