The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . Pollard brought an action alleging that Workforce violated section 448.24(l)(b) which outlines the duties . . . It concluded that in order to comply with section 448.24(l)(b), $1 was the maximum amount Workforce could . . . Subsequently, the supreme court reversed Liner 1, holding that section 448.24(l)(b) provided a single . . . Accordingly, we now affirm the trial court’s ruling that section 448.24(l)(b) is constitutional. . . . Section 448.24(l)(b) remained unchanged from 2000 until amended in chapter 2006-10, section 1, Laws of . . .
. . . 974 So.2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), in which the Second District Court of Appeal declared that section 448.24 . . .
. . . Ch. 2006-10, § 1, at 198, Laws of Fla; § 448.24(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). ii. . . . General Framework for Section 448.24(l)(b) Liner asserts that section 448.24(l)(b) has both a subjective . . . The legislative history of section 448.24(l)(b) also supports this interpretation. . . . (l)(b): s. 448.24, F.S. . . . The staff analysis prepared on March 10, 1995, stated: s. 448.24, F.S. . . .
. . . damages awarded to Michael Pollard based on the circuit court’s determination that it violated section 448.24 . . . Pollard brought an action alleging that Workforce violated section 448.24(l)(b) which outlines the duties . . . It concluded that in order to comply with section 448.24(l)(b), $1 was the maximum amount Workforce could . . . appeal, Workforce asserts that the final judgment should be reversed because the version of section 448.24 . . . similar facts, the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently addressed the constitutionality of section 448.24 . . .
. . . alleging that appellant, a labor pool company, violated a provision of Florida’s Labor Pool Act, section 448.24 . . . Workers Temporary Staffing, Inc., 962 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), we determined that section 448.24 . . .
. . . We affirm the circuit court’s finding that section 448.24(1)(b) is unconstitutionally vague. . . . Section 448.24(1)(b), which is central to this appeal, limits the amount that a labor pool may charge . . . WTS counterclaimed for declaratory relief, contending that section 448.24(l)(b) was unconstitutional. . . . The circuit court held that section 448.24(1)(b) was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of . . . Section 448.24(l)(b) was amended in 2006 to state: (1) No labor pool shall charge a day laborer: (b) . . .
. . . stockholders through Pegram, Jr., reimburse HLB for stock transfer stamps: Federal_$365. 60 State _ 82. 64 $448.24 . . .
. . . Austin, Deceased__ 448.24 49032 Joseph L. Buschman_ 348.06 49709 Paul C. . . .