The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 22
EMERGENCY CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 22.06

22.06 Emergency interim successors for local officers.—The provisions of this section shall be applicable to officers of political subdivisions (including, but not limited to, cities, towns, villages, townships, and counties, as well as school, fire, power, and drainage districts) not included in s. 22.05. Such officers, subject to such regulations as the executive head of the political subdivision may issue, shall upon approval of ss. 22.01-22.10, designate by title (if feasible) or by named person, emergency interim successors and specify their order of succession. The officer shall review and revise, as necessary, designations made pursuant to ss. 22.01-22.10 to ensure their current status. The officer will designate a sufficient number of persons so that there will be not less than three, nor more than seven, emergency interim successors or any combination thereof at any time. In the event that any officer of any political subdivision is unavailable, the powers of the office shall be exercised and duties shall be discharged by his or her designated emergency interim successors in the order specified. The emergency interim successor shall exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the office to which designated until such time as a vacancy which may exist shall be filled in accordance with the constitution or statutes or until the officer (or a preceding emergency interim successor) again becomes available to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of office.

History.—s. 6, ch. 59-447; s. 83, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 22.06 on Google Scholar

F.S. 22.06 on Casetext

Amendments to 22.06

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 22.06

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 22.06.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

WAL- MART STORES, INCORPORATED L. L. C. s v. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, 935 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Code §§ 22.04, 22.05, 22.06, 22.16 ) that govern the issuances of permits that allow for the retail sale . . . Code § 22.06 is not at issue on appeal. . . .

RUBENSTEIN, v. INTERNATIONAL VALUE ADVISERS, LLC, IVA f k a, 363 F. Supp. 3d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Shares Sold Price/share June 16, 2016 11,096 $17.33 July 18, 2016 24,578 $22.06 August 16, 2016 55,022 . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INC. LLC, s v. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, Jr. M., 313 F. Supp. 3d 751 (W.D. Tex. 2018)

. . . Code §§ 22.04, 22.05, 22.06, 22.16, governing the issuance of package store permits, which allow the . . . Id. § 22.06(a)(2). . . . Section 22.06(a)(2) Survives Rational Basis Review 113. . . . Next, the Court turns to section 22.06(a)(2), which prohibits the holder of a wine and beer retailer's . . . Here, section 22.06(a)(2) treats all entities the same: they may elect to obtain a BQ permit or not. . . .

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. ARRILLAGA- TORR NS, Jr., 212 F. Supp. 3d 312 (D.P.R. 2016)

. . . Couch on Insurance 3d, §. 131:33, p. 131-40; New Appleman Law of Liability Insurance § 22.06[2](c) (2015 . . . Couch on Insurance 3d, § 131:34, p. 131—40,131-41; New Appleman Law of Liability Insurance, § 22.06(2 . . .

FAKHRI, v. MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL HOTELS, INC., 201 F. Supp. 3d 696 (D. Md. 2016)

. . . Dismiss, Ex. 6, Management Agreement ¶ 22.06, ECF No. 104-7. . . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INC. v. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION,, 110 F. Supp. 3d 719 (W.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . . § 22.06 (restricting package store permit holders from also owning interest in wine and beer retailer . . .

J. PLOTT, v. STATE, 165 So. 3d 33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . sentencing, the trial court departed from the 1995 guidelines, which called for a maximum sentence of 22.06 . . .

J. PLOTT, v. STATE, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014)

. . . under the 1994 sentencing guidelines, the maximum sentence he could have received on resentencing was 22.06 . . . note that the resentencing scoresheet indicated that Plott was subject to a maximum prison term of 22.06 . . .

UNITED STATES v. LOGAN, v., 845 F. Supp. 2d 499 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Thus, when combining the February and April incidents, Logan was accountable for a total of 22.06 net . . . The Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) filed by the Probation Department found a total drug quantity of 22.06 . . . Under the Guidelines Amendment, the Defendant’s Base Offense Level that corresponds with 22.06 grams . . .

ALCON RESEARCH, LTD. f k a Co. v. APOTEX INC., 790 F. Supp. 2d 868 (S.D. Ind. 2011)

. . . (Kaliner Tr. 496:19-^98:8; AA-22.01-.03; AA-22.06; AA-22.08). 36. . . .

TRIBBLE, v. CHUFF, Jr. v. Jr., 642 F. Supp. 2d 737 (E.D. Mich. 2009)

. . . Bryant, 410 F.3d 842, 856 (6th Cir.2005) (quoting 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.06, at 22-98 to 22- . . .

CURCI VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MARIA,, 14 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Likewise, section 22.06 states that “every Unit Owner shall ... . . .

ROTHE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE U. S., 499 F. Supp. 2d 775 (W.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . Minority Business Enterprises represent 22.06 percent of the available standard services firms and received . . .

HOLMES v. ARTISTS RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CORP. AREC v. UMG, 148 F. App'x 252 (6th Cir. 2005)

. . . should not be reversed unless the district court abused that discretion. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.06 . . .

FIRST TRUST CORPORATION, v. BRYANT,, 410 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 2005)

. . . Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, § 1719, at 674. 4 Moore’s Federal Praotice, supra, § 22.06, at . . .

HORN, v. McQUEEN,, 353 F. Supp. 2d 785 (W.D. Ky. 2004)

. . . Perdue, Qualified Pension and Profit-Sharing Plans ¶ 22.06 at p. 22-38 (2003). . . .

In PORRAZZO, v., 307 B.R. 345 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2004)

. . . #110 for $22.86 payable to Amazon,com, check #113 for $13.96 payable to Amazon.com, check #112 for $22.06 . . .

UNITED STATES v. EXSON,, 328 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2003)

. . . denied his motion in respect to the underlying distribution offense and found Exson responsible for 22.06 . . .

WESTFED HOLDINGS, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 55 Fed. Cl. 544 (Fed. Cl. 2003)

. . . Defendant also approved the $20 million purchase of Bell stock, PX 58 at WOF009 1057, and the $22.06 . . . The amount consists of (1) $148.34 million to acquire Old Western common stock; (2) $22.06 million for . . .

LIFE INVESTORS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. CHILDS, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (M.D. Ala. 2002)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 22.06 at 22-98 (3rd ed.2002). - Federal practice, however, has followed . . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 22.06 at 22-104 (3rd ed.2002) (discussing normal-eourse-of-business . . .

LUTHERAN BROTHERHOOD, v. M. COMYNE M. Sr., 216 F. Supp. 2d 859 (E.D. Wis. 2002)

. . . not, however, enjoy universal support from the courts. 4 Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.06 . . .

AMEX ASSURANCE CO. v. CARIPIDES,, 179 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Stein & Day, Inc., 884 F.2d 675, 683 (2d Cir.1989); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.06 (Matthew Bender . . .

LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS,, 533 U.S. 525 (U.S. 2001)

. . . . §21.04(5) (2000), which governs cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, and § 22.06(5), which governs cigars . . . Regs. §§21.04(5)(b), 22.06(5)(b) (2000). . . . all allowed to display a 576-square-inch black-and-white sign reading “Tobacco Products Sold Here.” §22.06 . . . See §§21.04(2)(a), (c)-(d), §§22.06(2)(a), (c)-(d). . . . See §§21.04(1), 22.06(1). . . . Except as otherwise provided in [§ 22.06(4)], it shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice for . . . Regs. §§21.04(5)(a), 22.06(5)(a) (2000). . . . Regs. §§21.04(5)(b), 22.06(5)(b) (2000). . . . Regs. §§ 21.04(2)(c)-(d), 22.06(2)(c)-(d) (2000). . . . Regs. § 22.06(l)(a) (2000). . . .

CONSOLIDATED CIGAR CORPORATION Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. REILLY, R. J. R. J. v. F. Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. R. J. Co. L. J. Co. USA R. J. Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. R. J. Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. R. J. L. J. Co. USA v. F. Co. L. J. Co. USA RJ. v. F., 218 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2000)

. . . . §§ 21.04(1), 22.06(1), as well as measures aimed specifically at outlet sales practices, see id. §§ . . . 21.04(2)-(3), 22.06(2)-(3). . . . Id. §§ 21.04(5), 22.06(5). . . . . §§ 21.04(6), 22.06(6), but this provision was struck down by the district court on preemption grounds . . . See 940 C.M.R. § 22.06. . . .

LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. R. J. Co. Co. v. REILLY, Co. L. J. Co. USA v., 84 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D. Mass. 2000)

. . . . § 22.06(5). B. First Amendment Issues 1. . . . For the same reason, the companion Cigar Regulation at 940 C.M.R. § 22.06(5)(b) cannot stand. . . . Section 22.06(5)(b) is therefore invalid. 2. . . . The restrictions on sales restrictions at § 22.06(1) and (2) are valid. C. . . . This Court did not address the corresponding Cigar Regulation, 940 C.M.R. § 22.06(6)'. . . .

NOELLER, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. W., 190 F.R.D. 202 (E.D. Tex. 1999)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.06 (3d ed.1999). B. . . .

DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. ADHERENCE GROUP, INC., 72 F.3d 371 (3d Cir. 1995)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 22.06 (2d ed. 1994). . . .

F. KNIGHT, Jr. S. T. D. S. S. Jr. L. Dr. W. Y. N. S. Dr. Jr. v. STATE ALABAMA M. Jr. S. Jr. B. H. J. P. Dr. D. III, F. A. A. Sr. A. G. A M W. Dr. A M Jr. W. M. H. B. L. A. R. C. Dr. V. Dr. E. B. F. W. Jr. W. T. Jr. R. R. E. W. A. C. J. D. Jr. T. B. Jr. O. H. Jr. T. Jr. E. G. Jr. S. H. Jr. B. Dr. A. UNITED STATES v. STATE OF ALABAMA A M a a a a a a a a a a, 787 F. Supp. 1030 (N.D. Ala. 1991)

. . . 20.40 20.87 Ala State — Montgomery 12.15 15.75 12.25 10.15 11.83 Auburn U — Auburn 19.90 23.10 22.71 22.06 . . .

REESE, v. FREY,, 801 F.2d 348 (8th Cir. 1986)

. . . R. 22.06. . . . R. 22.06, which provides: Any person arrested without a warrant and confined in any place for the alleged . . .

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADAIR COUNTY HEALTH CENTER, INC. v. M. HECKLER,, 639 F. Supp. 434 (D.D.C. 1986)

. . . At $22.06 per patient day, Memorial’s cost was approximately 42 percent greater than the next highest . . .

GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., 605 F. Supp. 126 (D.D.C. 1985)

. . . Long, The Law of Liability Insurance §§ 22.06, 22.07A (1981). . . .

REDMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 10 Fla. Supp. 2d 162 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1985)

. . . the basis of such confinement or left in the inmate population pending disposition of the charge. 33-22.06 . . . But Rule 33-22.06, Florida Administrative Code, while it describes the conduct of disciplinary hearing . . . staff member appointed ... to assist an inmate shall not function as a[n] all-out advocate”), Rule 33-22.06 . . . In Rule 33-22.06(11), Florida Administrative Code, there is reference to “findings of fact that are supported . . . The thrust of petitioner’s contention is that Rule 33-22.06, Florida Administrative Code, should be declared . . .

AMERICAN BANK TRUST CO. v. DALLAS COUNTY, 463 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1983)

. . . . §§21.09, 22.06, 23.11, 25.14 (1982). Until 1982, and at all times pertinent to these cases, Tex. . . .

COMPANION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. I. SCHAFFER, 442 F. Supp. 826 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)

. . . See generally 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 22.02 at 3003 et seq. and ¶ 22.06 at 3034, et seq. (2d ed . . .

TRANSPORT INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY,, 535 F.2d 232 (3d Cir. 1976)

. . . Long, The Law of Liability Insurance § 22.06 (1975). . . .

Dr. E. FATTER, A. v. A. USRY, Dr. A. FATTER, J. v. A. USRY,, 269 F. Supp. 582 (E.D. La. 1967)

. . . See also Mertens, Law of Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, § 22.06, p. 61 and cases there cited. . . . .

WEYMOUTH C. E. v. COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY, COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY, v. WEYMOUTH C. E., 367 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1966)

. . . Field Allowable (bcf) Lessee-Pipeline Allowable (bcf) Lessee-Pipeline Per Cent 1957 536.613 118.360 22.06 . . .

J. CORDNER, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 234 F. Supp. 765 (S.D.N.Y. 1964)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., ¶ 22.06, for the legislative history of the Interpleader Act. . . .

B. SCHNEIDER, J. v. UNITED STATES, 188 F. Supp. 911 (E.D.N.Y. 1960)

. . . According to the National Life Tables of 1949 to 1951, the life expectancy of the decedent was 22.06 . . .

MITCHELL, v. UNITED STATES, 135 F. Supp. 289 (D.N.J. 1955)

. . . the United States Census of 1950, the expectancy of life of plaintiff at the time of the accident was 22.06 . . .

AETNA LIFE INS. CO. v. DU ROURE CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. v. DU ROURE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INS. CO. v. DU ROURE UNION CENT. LIFE INS. CO. v. DU ROURE, 123 F. Supp. 736 (S.D.N.Y. 1954)

. . . Professor Moore in commenting On the case in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., ¶ 22.06, says: “While . . .

BURKE v. COLUMBIA LUMBER CO. OF ALASKA, 108 F. Supp. 743 (D. Alaska 1952)

. . . Phelan, 9 Cir., 104 F.2d 85; McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, 3d Ed., Sec. 22.06. . . .

MANAGUA NAV. CO. v. AKTIESELSKABET BORGESTAD, 7 F.2d 990 (5th Cir. 1925)

. . . draft of the Managua was 14 feet forward and 14.8 feet aft, and of the Borgestad 24 feet forward and 22.06 . . .

CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 57 Ct. Cl. 300 (Ct. Cl. 1922)

. . . Godfrey, Ill., and Kansas City, Mo., 292.11 miles, 22.06 t. a. w., Chicago and Alton E. E. Co., Áv. . . .