Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 506.27 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 506.27 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 506.27

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. 506.27
506.27 Refusal to deliver marked field boxes or other specified containers to owner upon demand.The refusal of any person in possession thereof to deliver any field box, pallet, crate, container, or receptacle so marked or branded and registered as herein provided, to the registered owner of the same or his or her duly authorized agent, upon the demand of such registered owner or authorized agent, when said demand is accompanied with a display of the certificate of recordation and number of the same, as furnished to the registered owner by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shall be prima facie evidence in any court of this state of a fraudulent intent to convert said field box, pallet, crate, container, or receptacle to the use of the person or persons, so in possession of the same, and to deprive the registered owner thereof, and any person convicted of a violation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.s. 8, ch. 16018, 1933; s. 8, ch. 16019, 1933; s. 8, ch. 16859, 1935; CGL 1936 Supp. 7433(6), (11), (19); s. 1, ch. 67-18; ss. 14, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 470, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 72-47; s. 659, ch. 97-103.

F.S. 506.27 on Google Scholar

F.S. 506.27 on Casetext

Amendments to 506.27


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 506.27
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S506.27 - FRAUD - REFUSE RETURN MARKED FIELD BOX TO REGIST OWNER - M: F



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SUN BANK OF TAMPA BAY, a v. SPIGRIN PROPERTIES, LTD. a F. A. a, 469 So. 2d 240 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . $45,514.64 and a judgment for Sun Bank against Smith for three-sevenths of that amount or the sum of $19,-506.27 . . .

BARBER, a By BARBER, v. UNITED STATES, 676 F.2d 651 (Ct. Cl. 1982)

. . . Participation in the Survivor Benefit Plan would have reduced this amount approximately $24.40 to $506.27 . . .

KIMBERLY POKMI BARBER, a YONG CHA BARBER, YONG CHA BARBER v. THE UNITED STATES, 230 Ct. Cl. 287 (Ct. Cl. 1982)

. . . Participation in the Survivor Benefit Plan would have reduced this amount approximately $24.40 to $506.27 . . .