The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 17
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 17.08

17.08 Accounts, etc., on which warrants drawn, to be filed.—All accounts, vouchers, and evidence, upon which warrants have heretofore been, or shall hereafter be, drawn upon the treasury by the Chief Financial Officer shall be filed and deposited in the office of Chief Financial Officer or the office of the Chief Financial Officer’s designee, in accordance with requirements established by the Secretary of State.

History.—ch. 351, 1851; RS 100; GS 104; RGS 117; CGL 147; s. 4, ch. 95-312; s. 2, ch. 97-96; s. 25, ch. 2003-261.

F.S. 17.08 on Google Scholar

F.S. 17.08 on Casetext

Amendments to 17.08

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 17.08

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 17.08.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

Y. USENKO, v. MEMC LLC, 926 F.3d 468 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . By the end of the day, SunEdison's stock closed at $ 17.08 per share. . . .

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES, 335 F. Supp. 3d 889 (S.D. Tex. 2018)

. . . following method: In Exxon's internal "Allocation Base," the Baytown refinery and chemical plant made up 17.08 . . .

In ROSARIO v. LLC, In In N. L. In A. In M. In In K., 493 B.R. 292 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2013)

. . . Hil-linger, Chapter 11 Theory and Practice, A Guide to Reorganization §§ 17.03-17.08. . . . .

REACHING HEARTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY,, 831 F. Supp. 2d 871 (D. Md. 2011)

. . . RHI’s Property and Water and Sewer Service Category Change Applications The 17.08 acre property purchased . . .

SUN SECURED FINANCING LLC v. ARCS COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CO. LP, 730 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C. 2010)

. . . . § 17.08 (specifying methods by which sufficient written notice can be provided). . . .

REACHING HEARTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY,, 584 F. Supp. 2d 766 (D. Md. 2008)

. . . The 17.08-acre Property is comprised of two parcels of land, and there is a wooded area in the rear parcel . . .

COATES, v. HALL,, 512 F. Supp. 2d 770 (W.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . 2004 hearing on Plaintiffs’ applications, Walthour prepared a hearing report pursuant to District Rule 17.08 . . .

MADVIG, v. L. GAITHER, Jr. P. P. II W. O. E. S. J., 461 F. Supp. 2d 398 (W.D.N.C. 2006)

. . . Robinson, II, Robinson on North Carolina Corporation Law, § 17.08 (2005). . . .

COLINDRES, v. QUIETFLEX MANUFACTURING,, 235 F.R.D. 347 (S.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . operators in Department 911 earned, during the same week, per hour, $18.10, $17.93, $17.32, $17.32, and $17.08 . . .

CLARK, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION,, 436 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2006)

. . . Indeed, the compensatory award in Boerner was 8.54 or 17.08 times larger than the compensatory award . . .

CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. v. NAXOS OF AMERICA, INC., 372 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004)

. . . See Nimmer § 17.08[A], at 17-48.2. . . .

UNITED STATES v. COLLINS, v., 97 F. App'x 818 (10th Cir. 2004)

. . . Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.08 (5th ed. 2000). . . .

L. NICHOLS, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a a, 287 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . to February 1, 2003 $ 7 months @ $529.71/mo. 3707.97 February 2, 2003 to February 6, 2003 $ 4 days @ 17.08 . . .

UNITED STATES, v. NAVAJO NATION, 123 S. Ct. 1079 (U.S. 2003)

. . . prepared by a private management consultant firm at the request of the Navajo, advocated a rate of between 17.08 . . . The Tribe identifies a single federal coal lease with a royalty rate of 17.08 percent, see Brief for . . .

UNITED STATES, v. NAVAJO NATION, 123 S. Ct. 1079 (U.S. 2003)

UNITED STATES v. NAVAJO NATION, 537 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2003)

PETIT, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a, 239 F. Supp. 2d 761 (N.D. Ill. 2002)

. . . occurred, African-Americans and Whites were selected at less than 80% of the Hispanic selection rate (17.08% . . .

H. VOGEL E. v. VENEMAN, U. S. H. E. v. U. S., 276 F.3d 729 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . lien against the property in the amount of $151,921.80 as of April 1, 2000, together with interest at $17.08 . . . Ill We hold that FSA has a valid lien in the amount of $151,921.80 plus $17.08 per diem as of April 1 . . .

DAVIDSON, v. M. DEAN,, 204 F.R.D. 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . Silberberg, Civil Practice in the Southern District of New York, § 17.08 at 17-24 (2d ed.2001). . . .

H. VOGEL E. v. A. GLICKMAN, U. S., 117 F. Supp. 2d 572 (W.D. Tex. 2000)

. . . interest as of April 1, 2000, after accruing interest, of $151,912.22 plus a per diem interest accrual of $17.08 . . . , is $82,631.03, fór a total subrogated amount of $151,912.80, with a per diem interest accrual of $17.08 . . . Accrued interest to date, as set forth above, is $82,631.03 through April 1, 2000, with a $17.08 per . . . Accrued interest is $82,631.03 through April 1, 2000, with a $17.08 per diem interest accrual thereafter . . .

D. BROWN N. v. COLEMAN INVESTMENTS, INC., 993 F. Supp. 416 (M.D. La. 1998)

. . . , overstated the “amount financed” by $17.08 and understated the “annual percentage rate;” (2) Coleman . . . (I)(A)(1) Effects of the Alleged $17.08 Understatement of the “Finance Charge” This claim centers on . . . Brown contends Coleman Toyota violated TILA by including the $17.08 up-charge in the “amount financed . . . Coleman Toyota understated the “finance charge” disclosed to Brown by $17.08 in violation of 15 U.S.C . . . This conflict between the documents does not make it “apparent” that $17.08 of the $40 is allegedly a . . .

D. BROWN N. v. COLEMAN INVESTMENTS, INC., 993 F. Supp. 439 (M.D. La. 1998)

. . . for a “license fee” that actually cost $22.92, Coleman Toyota understated the “finance charge” by $17.08 . . . , overstated the “amount financed” by $17.08 and understated the “annual percentage rate;” (2) Coleman . . . Toyota failed to disclose the fact of or amount of the $17.08 upeharge in the “license fee;” and (3) . . . the “license fee” when the actual cost of the “license fee” was $22.92, amounting to an up-charge of $17.08 . . . charge,” Coleman Toyota necessarily overstated the “amount financed” disclosed to Brown and Gomes by $17.08 . . .

REILLY, III, v. GOULD, INC., 965 F. Supp. 588 (M.D. Pa. 1997)

. . . Conte, 3 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS, § 17.08 (2d d.1985) at 374 n. 66)(size of class may be difficult to . . .

LANGONE, v. RUSSO BROTHERS, INC., 964 F. Supp. 24 (D. Mass. 1996)

. . . In particular, Francis Russo told Bell that Russo could no longer afford to pay the existing $17.08 hourly . . . The company nevertheless continued to pay its employees an hourly wage of $17.08. . . .

UNITED STATES CROWDER, UNITED STATES v. DAVIS,, 87 F.3d 1405 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

. . . O’Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.08 (4th ed.1992). . . .

LaSOCIETE GENERALE IMMOBILIERE, a LSGI, a v. MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 44 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 1994)

. . . The language of this section requires us to consider the provisions of Section 17.08 entitled "Enforced . . . Therefore, LSGI could not seek the benefit of the extension for performance provided under Section 17.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MONTOYA- ORTIZ,, 7 F.3d 1171 (5th Cir. 1993)

. . . O’Malley, 1 Federal Jury Practice & Instructions: Civil and Criminal, § 17.08, at 661-62 (4th ed. 1992 . . .

S. HOLZENDORF, v. R. BELL, CITIZENS PETITION AGAINST THE GARBAGE FEE, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE,, 606 So. 2d 645 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . petitions to amend the charter are required to be executed in the same manner as provided in section 17.08 . . . Section 17.08 provides that copies of a petition may be used, but in such a case, “one of the signers . . . The charter, section 17.08, clearly calls for affirmation under oath of each petition by “one of the . . . The duty of the Supervisor, under section 17.08, is confined to the ascertainment of “whether the petition . . . matter, however, it would appear to us that through the exercise of the authority found in section 17.08 . . .

In MANLEY BRYAN, v. MANLEY,, 135 B.R. 137 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1992)

. . . . 357, 69 L.Ed. 739 (1925), 1A Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1978) ¶¶ 17.02, 17.03, 17.04, 17.05, 17.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. H. JONES, UNITED STATES v. L. JONES, UNITED STATES v. PALAZZOLO, UNITED STATES v. J. W. PHILYAW, UNITED STATES v. J. PALAZZOLO,, 880 F.2d 55 (8th Cir. 1989)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.08 (3d ed. 1977). . . . .

IRBY, v. H. FITZ- HUGH,, 693 F. Supp. 424 (E.D. Va. 1988)

. . . jurisdictions which appoint school board members through the SBSC, and school boards in these jurisdictions are 17.08% . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOWMAN a k a a k a a k a J. D. S. a k a a k a, 798 F.2d 333 (8th Cir. 1986)

. . . .-04, 17.08 and 17.09. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. W. DODSON, Jr. U. S., 22 M.J. 257 (C.M.A. 1986)

. . . consider that a limiting instruction is, of course, required, and I will give one taken from Paragraph 17.08 . . .

SOUTH AFRICAN MARINE CORPORATION, LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 640 F. Supp. 247 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)

. . . Moore, supra, ¶ 17.08 at 17-81. . . .

v., 10 Ct. Int'l Trade 415 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)

. . . Moore, supra, ¶ 17.08 at 17-81. . . .

A. STUCKI COMPANY v. A. SCHWAM, 634 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . Id. at § 17.02[1] at 17-10.2, § 17.08 at 17-49 — 17.50.2. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ROCKWELL, G., 781 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1986)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice And Instructions § 17.08 (3d ed.1977). . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. WELSH, O., 774 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. 1985)

. . . .1972)); earlier contradictory statements are admissible to impeach the credibility of a witness (§ 17.08 . . .

DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1985)

. . . Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals § 17.08 (2d ed. 1985). . . .

In CORPORATION OF WINDHAM COLLEGE, I. MEYERS, v. TOWN OF PUTNEY,, 34 B.R. 408 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1983)

. . . Kurland, Moore’s Manual: Federal Practice and Procedure [hereinafter cited as Moore’s Manual] § 17.08 . . .

ROSE HALL, LTD. v. CHASE MANHATTAN OVERSEAS BANKING CORPORATION, 566 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Del. 1983)

. . . -June, 1983(C) 11.94 12,69 8.19 10.62 Average(P) 15.40 17.08 11.34 11.59 Composite Average 13.85% (A) . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERNDON,, 693 F.2d 57 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . . § 17.08, and an instruction cautioning the jury to weigh the testimony of co-conspirators with great . . .

In CAIRONE, RHODE ISLAND LOTTERY COMMISSION, v. CAIRONE,, 12 B.R. 60 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1981)

. . . .-24, at 17.08 (14th ed. 1976). . . .

UNITED STATES v. B. ANTON, a k a Dr. B. ANTON, 597 F.2d 371 (3d Cir. 1979)

. . . Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.08 (3d ed. 1977). . . .

BROWN v. JONES,, 473 F. Supp. 439 (N.D. Tex. 1979)

. . . . § 17.08. . . .

DRUG PACKAGE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AFL- CIO- CLC,, 570 F.2d 1340 (8th Cir. 1978)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 17.08 (Supp. 1970). . . .

In R. KAWCZYNSKI d b a BESROI CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. R. KAWCZYNSKI, COR- WYN LUMBER COMPANY, DIVISION OF BUSY BEAVER BUILDING CENTERS, INC. v. R. KAWCZYNSKI,, 442 F. Supp. 413 (W.D.N.Y. 1977)

. . . Forsyth, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 202, 11 L.Ed. 236 (1844); 1A Cullier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.24, at 17.08 (14th . . .

PORT TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION v. UNITED STATES, 551 F.2d 1336 (5th Cir. 1977)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, Vol. 2, §§ 17.07, 17.08 (1958); L. . . .

INTERNATIONAL REDISCOUNT CORP. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY,, 425 F. Supp. 669 (D. Del. 1977)

. . . in determining whether diversity exists.” 57 F.R.D. 503 at 505. .See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice Ufl 17.08 . . . name joining if necessary, the assignor, the owner of the legal right. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.08 . . .

M. JOHNSON, v. JOHANSEN, 338 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . Section 17.08 provides for recall by the voters of any “officer elected in any consolidated government . . .

UNITED STATES v. AUSTIN,, 533 F.2d 879 (3d Cir. 1976)

. . . .) § 10.01 at page 187 and § 17.08 at page 321, or this instruction given in Pope v. . . .

CALVIN v. B. CONLISK, Jr., 520 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1975)

. . . See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, If 17.08 at p. 262; If 17.09[1.-1], If 17.13[1]. . . .

UNITED STATES v. WILSON,, 506 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1974)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.08 (2d ed. 1970). We disagree. . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. McCRACKEN,, 488 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . the jury in arriving at a verdict as to guilt or innocence. 1 Devitt & Black-mar, supra note 20, at § 17.08 . . .

COATES TRUST v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 480 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1973)

. . . such it was subject to the tax on the transfer thereof. 2 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 17.08 . . .

RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STOKE UNION, AFL- CIO, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. COCA COLA BOTTLING WORKS, INC., 466 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

. . . See also Davis, Administrative Law § 17.08 (1970 Supp.), where Professor Davis observes: “Surely the . . .

C. E. RUSSELL, d b a C. E. d b a v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY S. S. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY S. S., 244 F. Supp. 419 (W.D. Mo. 1965)

. . . for $1,565.44 (cashed April 11, 1961) paid all invoices for the months of February and March (the $17.08 . . .

S. Co. v., 39 Cust. Ct. 568 (Cust. Ct. 1957)

. . . 243442-A, $18.29 each, plus packing, for 243443-A, 243444r-A and 243445-A, for bicycles marked “A”, $17.08 . . . 243442-A, $18.29 each, plus packing, for 243443-A, 243444-A, and 243445-A, for bicycles, marked “A,” $17.08 . . .

J. J. v., 28 T.C. 692 (T.C. 1957)

. . . percentage amounts claimed, petitioner, in 1949, for example, would have had to pay all officers at least 17.08 . . .

C. J. v., 37 Cust. Ct. 212 (Cust. Ct. 1956)

. . . numbers 3850, 3864, 3950, and 4024, containing the following percentages of silicon, respectively, 17.08 . . .

Co. v., 29 Cust. Ct. 302 (Cust. Ct. 1952)

. . . The average tare weight of one case, therefore, is 17.08 kilos. . . .

In KEESHIN FREIGHT LINES,, 86 F. Supp. 439 (N.D. Ill. 1949)

. . . discloses the following percentages : Operating Percentage Percentage Ratio of Profit of Loss 1936 117.08% 17.08% . . .

STATE FARM MUT. LIABILITY INS. CO. v. UNITED STATES, 172 F.2d 737 (1st Cir. 1949)

. . . United States, 3 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 374; Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.08. . . .

YORKSHIRE INS. CO. v. UNITED STATES HOME INS. CO. v. UNITED STATES, 171 F.2d 374 (3d Cir. 1948)

. . . Otis Elevator Co., D.C.W.D.S.C. 1941, 40 F.Supp. 11; 2 Moore, Federal Practice § 17.08, p. 2057 (1938 . . . See Note, 96 A.L.R. 879, sec. b (1935). 2 Moore, Federal Practice § 17.08, p. 2057 (1938); 2 Williston . . .

A. M. v., 44 B.T.A. 279 (B.T.A. 1941)

. . . The Commissioner determined a deficiency in income tax for the calendar year 1936 in the amount of $17.08 . . .

THORN v. BROWNE, 257 F. 519 (8th Cir. 1919)

. . . delivery as follows: January 25, 1917 200 bales at 16.83 cents per pound 400 16.84 27 200 17.06 29 400 17.08 . . .