The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 17
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 17.52

17.52 Moneys paid on warrants.—The Division of Treasury shall pay all warrants on the treasury drawn by the Chief Financial Officer or Comptroller and other orders by the Chief Financial Officer or Comptroller for the disbursement of state funds by electronic means or by means of a magnetic tape or any other transfer medium. No moneys shall be paid out of the treasury except on such warrants or other orders of the Chief Financial Officer or Comptroller.

History.—s. 5, ch. 9, 1845; RS 119; GS 124; RGS 135; CGL 165; s. 1, ch. 73-266; s. 1, ch. 75-115; s. 2, ch. 83-120; s. 1, ch. 83-122; s. 1, ch. 91-244; s. 48, ch. 2003-261.

Note.—Former s. 18.02.

F.S. 17.52 on Google Scholar

F.S. 17.52 on Casetext

Amendments to 17.52

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 17.52

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 17.52.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

VOIGT v. COYOTE CREEK MINING COMPANY, LLC, a, 329 F. Supp. 3d 735 (D. N.D. 2018)

. . . If the court's math is correct, this represents a total throughput of 17.52 million tpy. . . .

KINARD, v. DISH NETWORK COMPANY,, 228 F. Supp. 3d 771 (N.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . (normalized rate for FSS4 at Farmers Branch, $17.81; North Richland Hills, $17.52; Fort Worth, $23.36 . . .

DAVITA HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, INC. f k a f k a f k a d b a v. UNITED STATES,, 125 Fed. Cl. 394 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . . § 17.52(a), the VA may use individual authorizations to furnish medical services when there is infrequent . . . services associated with outpatient and inpatient care provided at non-VA facilities authorized under § 17.52 . . .

ASANTE, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES,, 155 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . B, State Plan Amendment (SPA) 13-004, approved by CMS on May 31, 2013, Attachment 4.19-A at 17.52. . . .

CITIZENS FOR FREE SPEECH, LLC, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA,, 114 F. Supp. 3d 952 (N.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . as-applied challenge; (2) a facial challenge as to the unfettered discretion granted by Zoning Ordinance §§ 17.52 . . .

BRAVERMAN KASKEY, P. C. v. TOIDZE,, 599 F. App'x 448 (3d Cir. 2015)

. . . As relief, BK sought transfer of a 17.52% equity interest in Maya’s Meals or, in the alternative, $377,275.95 . . . Connecticut Action presented “questions regarding the appropriateness of ... compelling Toidze to transfer a 17.52% . . .

BIO- MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF AQUADILLA, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 119 Fed. Cl. 546 (Fed. Cl. 2014)

. . . regulations have no applicability to the fee-basis beneficiary authorizations issued under sections 17.52 . . . other words, if certain veterans were not eligible for services under 38 U.S.C. § 1703 and section 17.52 . . . services they provided to veterans not eligible for services under 38 U.S.C. § 1703 and 38 C.F.R. § 17.52 . . . dialysis services provided to veterans eligible for services under 38 U.S.C. § 1703 and 38 C.F.R. § 17.52 . . . state that the complaint is silent as to veteran eligibility under 38 U.S.C. § 1703 and 38 C.F.R. § 17.52 . . .

DAVITA, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 110 Fed. Cl. 71 (Fed. Cl. 2013)

. . . services associated with outpatient and inpatient care provided at non-VA facilities authorized under § 17.52 . . . Specifically, 38 C.F.R. § 17.52 provides: When VA facilities or other government facilities are not capable . . . When demand is only for infrequent use, individual authorizations may be used.... 38 C.F.R. § 17.52(a . . . services associated with outpatient and inpatient care provided at non-VA facilities authorized under § 17.52 . . . When demand is only for infrequent use, individual authorizations may be used. 38 C.F.R. § 17.52(a) ( . . .

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION v. ICTSI OREGON, INC, IBEW ICTSI v. v. ICTSI, 932 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Or. 2013)

. . . In fact, § 17.52 expressly limits the power of arbitrators “strictly to the application and interpretation . . . PCLCD at § 17.52 (emphasis added).. . . .

ALLERGAN, INC. USA, L. L. C. v. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. FLORIDA,, 869 F. Supp. 2d 456 (D. Del. 2012)

. . . Derendorf calculated these values as 0.37 ng/ml and 17.52 ng/ml*hr, respectively. (Id.) . . . Derendorf testified that Paddock's product would have a steady state Cmin of 0.37 nghnl and an AUC of 17.52 . . .

SCHULTE, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK,, 805 F. Supp. 2d 560 (N.D. Ill. 2011)

. . . Because the consumer class recovered a total of $88 million, the fee comes to $17.52 million, or 19.9% . . .

In AT T MOBILITY WIRELESS DATA SERVICES SALES TAX LITIGATION, 792 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (N.D. Ill. 2011)

. . . Because the consumer class recovered a total of $88 million, the fee comes to $17.52 million, or 19.9% . . .

In NANOVATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v., 364 B.R. 308 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . price of Stamford’s stock as of September 30, 2000, the implied value of Nanovation’s common stock was $17.52 . . .

J. W. DEWIT FARMS, INC. d b a v. MINNESOTA CULTIVATED WILD RICE, 393 F. Supp. 2d 847 (D. Minn. 2005)

. . . . § 17.52. . . . See Minn.Stat. §§ 17.52, 17.54, subd. 1. . . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,, 537 F. Supp. 2d 700 (M.D. Pa. 2005)

. . . Verzilli then multiplied the difference in the two effective tax rates (17.52%) against the $391,400 . . .

CANTU, v. J. PRINCIPI,, 18 Vet. App. 92 (Vet. App. 2004)

. . . . § 17.52(a)(3) and that such hospitalization was not for the treatment of a medical emergency that posed . . . the Board misconstrued the requirements of section 1703 and the implementing regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 17.52 . . . Zimick, 11 Vet.App. at 51 (citing 38 C.F.R. § 17.52(a) (formerly 38 C.F.R. § 17.50b(a) (1992))). . . . appellant argues that the Board misconstrued the requirements of section 1703 and implementing regulation § 17.52 . . .

In SYNTHROID MARKETING LITIGATION, 325 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2003)

. . . Because the consumer class recovered a total of $88 million, the fee comes to $17.52 million, or 19.9% . . .

A. TELLEX, v. J. PRINCIPI,, 15 Vet. App. 233 (Vet. App. 2001)

. . . . § 17.52(a) [(2000)].” Zimick v. West, 11 Vet.App. 45, 51 (1998). . . .

A. TELLEX, v. W. GOBER,, 14 Vet. App. 196 (Vet. App. 2000)

. . . . §§ 17.52-17.54 (1999) (VA regulations implementing section 1703). . . . applicability to the appellant’s claim for reimbursement pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1703(a)(3) and 38 C.F.R. §§ 17.52 . . .

CONOCO, INC. v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 194 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . $2,005.02, representing $1,987.50 for 13.25 hours of legal services at an hourly rate of $150.00, and $17.52 . . .

ESTATE OF M. BRATTON, M. v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO., 24 F. Supp. 2d 667 (N.D. Miss. 1998)

. . . According to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), the larger amount, or $17.52, would have . . .

J. MEAKIN, Jr. v. D. WEST, Jr., 11 Vet. App. 183 (Vet. App. 1998)

. . . . § 17.52(a)(1)® (1997). The term “medical services” includes outpatient treatment. . . .

H. ZIMICK, v. D. WEST, Jr., 11 Vet. App. 45 (Vet. App. 1998)

. . . . § 17.52(a). . . . “transfer to a public or private hospital which has the necessary staff or equipment.” 38 C.F.R. § 17.52 . . .

R. MALONE, v. W. GOBER,, 10 Vet. App. 539 (Vet. App. 1997)

. . . . § 17.52 (1996) (formerly 38 C.F.R. § 17.50b (1989)); see also Hennessey v. . . . See 38 U.S.C. § 1703(a)(1), (3);. 38 C.F.R. § 17.52(1). . . .

UNITED STATES v. RAWLINGS,, 982 F.2d 590 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

. . . The officers searched appellant and found 29 zip-lock bags (17.52 grams) of 90% pure cocaine base in . . .

G. BURTON, REPUBLICAN PARTY, T. v. J. SHEHEEN, A. E. T. Y. A. L. I. STATEWIDE REAPPORTIONMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, v. A. CAMPBELL, Jr. I. BLANTON, A. E. Y. A. v. A. CAMPBELL, Jr., 793 F. Supp. 1329 (D.S.C. 1992)

. . . 51.17 -12.09 62.58 59.28 65.00 61.10 -17.71 55.64 51.67 54.34 50.28 -06.35 71.93 68.88 72.71 69.69 -17.52 . . .

WESCH, v. HUNT,, 785 F. Supp. 1491 (S.D. Ala. 1992)

. . . 2229 100.00% 1,423 63.84% 805 36.11% 1 0.04% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% ETHELSVILLE 742 100.00% 612 82.48% 130 17.52% . . .

MECHMET, v. FOUR SEASONS HOTELS, LIMITED, a a d b a, 639 F. Supp. 330 (N.D. Ill. 1986)

. . . 10.03 10.41 10.78 11.16 Cashiers & Food Checkers 8 $33.43 $35.03 $37.03 $39.03 $41.03 One Meal 3 16.72 17.52 . . .

CALIFORNIA v. ARIZONA, 452 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1981)

. . . N 75°21/26// W 17.52 feet; 255. N 27°01'17// W 188.36 feet; 256. N ÍS^S^' W 227.87 feet; 257. . . . N 75°21/26" W 17.52 feet; 255. N 27°01'17" W 188.36 feet; 256. N 13°08'58" W 227.87 feet; 257. . . .

R. WILLIAMS v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, 617 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir. 1980)

. . . Pacific Coast Longshore Agreement § 17.52.. . . .

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, v. SELB MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a a M. C. Jr., 481 F.2d 1204 (8th Cir. 1973)

. . . Jones, The Law of Evidence § 17.52 at 360 (6th Ed. 1972); compare, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. . . .

v. v., 59 T.C. 338 (T.C. 1972)

. . . In its reply brief, petitioner DFC claimed that the figures should read 17.91 percent, 17.52 percent, . . .

LOCAL INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN S AND WAREHOUSEMEN S UNION, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION s s, 441 F.2d 1061 (9th Cir. 1971)

. . . See particularly, sections 17.15, 17.52. . . .

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN S AND WAREHOUSEMEN S UNION, 304 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1969)

. . . to the “final and conclusive” decision of the Coast Arbitrator there is further relevant language : “17.52 . . .

PETER KIEWIT SONS CO. A CORPORATION, AND MORRISON- KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. A CORPORATION, ACTING AS JOINT CONTRACTORS AND CO- VENTURERS v. THE UNITED STATES, 138 Ct. Cl. 668 (Ct. Cl. 1957)

. . . installation of penstock, amounted to $31.44 for each of 137 sections installed prior to June 15, 1949, and $17.52 . . . The unit cost of $17.52 per section during the period June 15 to September 14, 1949 does not establish . . .

CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION v. GOGGIN. In EXETER REFINING CO., 183 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1950)

. . . follows this statement, “To the amount shown hereon [$3,926.36] additional interest in the sum of $17.52 . . .

BOARD OF COM RS OF TULSA COUNTY, OKL. v. UNITED STATES, 94 F.2d 450 (10th Cir. 1938)

. . . Homestead Valley Addition 1-13-28 1927 62.56 Lot 22, Block 1, Homestead Valley Addition 1-17-28 1927 17.52 . . .

INDIANA FARMER S GUIDE PUB. CO. v. PRAIRIE FARMER PUB. CO., 70 F.2d 3 (7th Cir. 1934)

. . . .; and in 1932, 17.52 per cent. . . .

TRUST CO. OF AMERICA v. CHICAGO, P. ST. L. RY. CO. OF ILLINOIS RAMSEY v. STEAD,, 199 F. 593 (S.D. Ill. 1912)

. . . .$342,862.64 $282,789.31 $60,073.33 17.52 V. Train Transportation. Total Expense. Freight. . . .