The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 506
STAMPED OR MARKED CONTAINERS AND BASKETS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 506.24

506.24 Unauthorized possession of field boxes or other specified containers; penalty.—

(1) Any person who shall have in his or her unauthorized possession any field box, pallet, crate, receptacle, or container marked or branded with any mark or brand registered under the provisions of ss. 506.19-506.28, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2) The possession by any person of any field box, pallet, crate, container, or receptacle so marked or branded, in the absence of written authority therefor, shall be prima facie evidence of the violation of the provisions of this section. However, the owner of such recorded or registered mark or brand may, in writing, authorize and designate any person to use or have in his or her possession any such field boxes, pallets, crates, containers, or receptacles.

History.—s. 5, ch. 16018, 1933; s. 5, ch. 16019, 1933; s. 5, ch. 16859, 1935; CGL 1936 Supp. 7433(3), (8), (16); s. 468, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 72-47; s. 656, ch. 97-103.

F.S. 506.24 on Google Scholar

F.S. 506.24 on Casetext

Amendments to 506.24

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 506.24

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

S506.24 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - POSSESS FIELD BOX WITH REGISTERED MARK - M: F

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

FRANK C. WALDROP AND WILLIAM C. SHELTON, SURVIVING EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ELEANOR PATTERSON, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES, 133 Ct. Cl. 902 (Ct. Cl. 1956)

. . . Internal Eevenue on August 1,1952, a claim for the refund of estate taxes paid in the amount of $319,-506.24 . . .

SPENCER v. MALONEY, UNITED STATES,, 73 F. Supp. 657 (D. Or. 1947)

. . . He had other income for said year in the amount of $506.24, and other deductions totaling $1,684.12 about . . .

v., 44 B.T.A. 793 (B.T.A. 1941)

. . . The respondent allowed as a deduction only $506.24, on the ground that this amount was embezzled in 1935 . . . He arrived at this $506.24 in the following manner, as stated in his deficiency notice: The audit also . . . A. 1290, it has been determined that the amount of allowable deduction in 1935 is $506.24, and that the . . .