The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIX
PUBLIC BUSINESS

Chapter 279
REGISTERED PUBLIC OBLIGATIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 279.13

279.13 Obligations issued by public entities.—Obligations issued by public entities under the laws of one or more states, territories, or possessions, including the District of Columbia and the State of Florida, which obligations are in registered form, whether or not represented by an instrument, and which, except for their form, satisfy the requirements with regard to security for deposits of moneys of public agencies prescribed pursuant to any law of the state, shall be deemed to satisfy all such requirements even though they are in registered form if a security interest in such obligations is perfected on behalf of the public agencies the moneys of which are so deposited.

History.—s. 10, ch. 83-271.

F.S. 279.13 on Google Scholar

F.S. 279.13 on Casetext

Amendments to 279.13

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 279.13

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 279.13.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

B. C. B. M. v. PINE PLAINS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 971 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . effectuate timely personal service of a verified petition upon the respondent. 8 NYCRR §§ 279.2(b), 279.7, 279.13 . . . thereafter shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period.” 8 NYCRR § 279.2(b); 8 NYCRR § 279.13 . . . excuse a failure to timely serve or file a petition for review ... for good cause shown.” 8 NYCRR § 279.13 . . . The February 23, 2012 letter from the SRO further instructed that, “[i]n accordance with 8 NYCRR § 279.13 . . .

R. S. M. S. O. S. v. BEDFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 899 F. Supp. 2d 285 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . In dismissing the Plaintiffs’ appeal, the SRO relied on 8 NYCRR §§ 279.2(b) and 279.13. . . . timely serve or file a petition for review within the time specified for good cause shown,” id. at 279.13 . . . without any showing of good cause whatsoever — a showing the statute explicitly requires. 8 NYC RR § 279.13 . . .

T. W. H. W. P. W. v. SPENCERPORT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, CSD, 891 F. Supp. 2d 438 (W.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . . §§ 179.2(b), 279.13. . . . non-compliant petitions “may be rejected in the sole discretion of the State Review Officer”); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 279.13 . . .

WATERMAN, v. NASHUA- PLAINFIELD COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 446 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (N.D. Iowa 2006)

. . . 1963 to 2002, Nashua employed Waterman as a teacher under a written contract, pursuant to Iowa Code § 279.13 . . .

L. LOCKHART, v. CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 963 F. Supp. 805 (N.D. Iowa 1997)

. . . See, e.g., Winegar, 20 F.3d at 899 (citing Iowa Code §§ 279.13-279.19, which establishes procedures for . . . Id. at 269 (“‘the law now writes sections 279.13 to 279.19 of the Code into teachers’ contracts,’ ” quoting . . .

WINEGAR, v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 20 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 1994)

. . . . §§ 279.13-19 (West 1988). . . . The administrative procedures for such a hearing are already in place by virtue of Iowa Code Ann. §§ 279.13 . . . Iowa Code Ann. §§ 279.13-.19 prescribe procedures for teacher termination or non-renewal of teacher contracts . . .

STRAYER, v. REMSEN- UNION COMMUNITY SCHOOL, Ed, 668 F. Supp. 1275 (N.D. Iowa 1987)

. . . Because Iowa Code § 279.13 prevents school districts from contracting with teachers who are already under . . . There is no state law comparable to § 279.13 which would prohibit Bies from accepting a non-teaching . . .

ZOLL, v. EASTERN ALLAMAKEE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 588 F.2d 246 (8th Cir. 1978)

. . . Zoll’s request'on June 9,1975, pursuant to Iowa Code § 279.13 (1975). . . .

NORBECK, v. DAVENPORT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 545 F.2d 63 (8th Cir. 1976)

. . . breach of contract, and the board’s failure to conform with the procedural requirements of Iowa Code § 279.13 . . . upon denial of procedural due process (Count III); and (4) his claim for a violation of Iowa Code § 279.13 . . . asserting a denial of procedural due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment and Iowa Code § 279.13 . . . Iowa Code § 279.13 does not confer tenure or create an expectation of continued employment. . . . specific rules, regulations, or further definition by the Iowa Supreme Court, this court has interpreted § 279.13 . . .

R. BROUILLETTE, Jr. v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MERGED AREA IX, ALIAS EASTERN IOWA COMMUNITY COLLEGE,, 519 F.2d 126 (8th Cir. 1975)

. . . . § 279.13 (1972). . . . Section 279.13 does not set forth any form for the required hearing. . . . In the present case we are satisfied from the record that the requirements of § 279.13 were sufficiently . . . not decide whether a teacher has a formal right of confrontation or cross examination under I.C.A. § 279.13 . . . Under § 279.13 we believe that formal charges or accusations may be made by written document as they . . .

HIBBS, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF IOWA CENTRAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE,, 392 F. Supp. 1202 (N.D. Iowa 1975)

. . . He asserts that the provisions of § 279.13 of the Code of Iowa (1973), which govern the hearing procedures . . . Iowa has no teacher tenure law, but does provide a series of procedural guidelines via § 279.13 which . . . with this Court on November 27,1974, the parties agreed that the notice and hearing prescriptions of § 279.13 . . . Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the statutorily-provided notice and hearing opportunities of § 279.13 . . . that the final decision on teacher retention in public schools is to be made by local school board. § 279.13 . . .

J. SWAB, v. CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a, 494 F.2d 353 (8th Cir. 1974)

. . . the plaintiff on her timely appeal is whether the hearing procedures required by the Code of Iowa, § 279.13 . . . The procedure for terminating the contracts of teachers is set out in § 279.13. . . . plaintiff pursuant to the statute and the Board substantially followed the requirements of Section 279.13 . . . Inasmuch as it is clear that § 279.13 provides the plaintiff with procedural due process, we need not . . . All the board did here was to follow the termination procedure prescribed by § 279.13. . . .

SCHEELHAASE, v. WOODBURY CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 488 F.2d 237 (8th Cir. 1973)

. . . Under Section 279.13 of the Code of Iowa, you have the right to request a private conference with the . . . The notice of termination given by the Board reiterated: In compliance with Section 279.13 of the Code . . . “Under section 279.13 of the Code of Iowa, you have the right to request a private conference with the . . . “In compliance with Section 279.13 of the Code of Iowa, the following reason is given for your contract . . . board of directors to discharge a teacher for cause under the provisions of Sec. 279.24 * * * ” Sec. 279.13 . . .

SCHEELHAASE, v. WOODBURY CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 349 F. Supp. 988 (N.D. Iowa 1972)

. . . -1970 school year, plaintiff’s contract was terminated by the Board under provisions of Iowa Code § 279.13 . . . Iowa Code § 279.13 (1971). 3. . . . Iowa .Code § 279.13 (1971); Perry v. . . . Iowa Code § 279.13 (1971) provides in part as follows: Said contract shall remain in force and effect . . .

UNITED STATES v. WEST VIEW GRAIN COMPANY, a St. a UNITED STATES v. D. E. BENTON COMPANY, a St. a, 189 F. Supp. 482 (N.D. Iowa 1960)

. . . N.W.2d): “Concerning plaintiff’s argument as to the purpose of the legislature in enacting section 279.13 . . .