The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 22
EMERGENCY CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 22.09

22.09 Removal of designees.—Until such time as the persons designated as emergency interim successors or special emergency judges are authorized to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of an office in accordance with ss. 22.01-22.10, said persons shall serve in their designated capacities at the pleasure of the designating authority and may be removed or replaced by said designating authority at any time, with or without cause.

History.—s. 9, ch. 59-447.

F.S. 22.09 on Google Scholar

F.S. 22.09 on Casetext

Amendments to 22.09

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 22.09

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 22.09.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

L. HARDMAN, v. UNITED STATES, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1144 (W.D. Mo. 2016)

. . . R. 22.09(a). . . .

P. CANNON, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 873 F. Supp. 2d 272 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . He earns $22.09 per hour — a salary of $45,943.00 annually — as a Supervisory Protective Services Officer . . . Regardless of whether it comes in their paychecks or in their pension checks, they earn and receive between $22.09 . . .

AMRON, v. MORGAN STANLEY INVESTMENT ADVISORS INC., 464 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2006)

. . . commonly used as a benchmark in order to measure the performance of the overall stock market — was 22.09% . . .

BEEKER, v. OLSZEWSKI, 415 F. Supp. 2d 734 (E.D. Mich. 2006)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 22.09-5, 22.09-6 (Supp.1970). . . .

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

. . . . §§21.01-21.07, 22.01-22.09 (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)

. . . sections 21.00 through 21.07 (cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) and title 940, sections 22.00 through 22.09 . . .

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

. . . See Mass.Regs.Code tit. 940, §§ 22.00-22.09, as amended Jan. 19, 2000. . . . title “Sales and Distribution of Cigars in Massachusetts” (the “Cigar Regulations”) 940 C.M.R. §§ 22.00-22.09 . . .

In M. WILLIAMS, M. v. G., 241 B.R. 387 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1999)

. . . 14 1998 $395.64 $21.52 $29,670.28 18 MAY 14 1998 $395.36 $21.80 $29,648.47 19 JUN 14 1998 $395.07 $22.09 . . .

CRESWELL TRADING CO. INC. SOUTH BAY FOUNDRY D L Co. Of Co. P. RSI Co. R. B. Co. P. P. Co. v. UNITED STATES, Co. Co. Co. U. S. Co., 24 F. Supp. 2d 318 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998)

. . . Ltd. 22.09% UMA Iron & Steel Co. 15.64% Kajaria Castings Ltd. 44.84% Super Castings (India) 29.40% Country-wide . . . Rate 22.09% The Court having reviewed the Redetermi-nation Results, and Commerce having complied with . . .

Co. D L Co. Co. P. RSI Co. R. B. Co. P. P. UMA Co. v. Co. Co. Co. U. S. Co., 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 957 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998)

. . . Ltd. 22.09% UMA Iron & Steel Co. 15.64% Kajaria Castings Ltd. 44.84% Super Castings (India) 29.40% Country-wide . . . Rate 22.09% The Court having reviewed the Redetermination Results, and Commerce having complied with . . .

In FRONTIER INSURANCE GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 172 F.R.D. 31 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions §§ 22.09-22.10 (2d ed.1985). C. . . .

In SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY II SECURITIES LITIGATION., 843 F. Supp. 1341 (N.D. Cal. 1994)

. . . Newberg, § 22.09 at 22-20. . . .

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INS. CO. v. C. ROCHE,, 830 F. Supp. 1241 (E.D. Wis. 1993)

. . . within § 1335, although the stakeholder is also a claimant of the fund. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, § 22.09 . . . interpleader is separate, of course, from the need for a federal forum.” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, § 22.09 . . .

SOTHEBY S, INC. v. H. GARCIA, 802 F. Supp. 1058 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . See generally 3A Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 22.09[5], at 22-88 — 22-90 (2d ed. 1992). . . . .

In HARDY, d b a J M, 146 B.R. 206 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1992)

. . . $152.09, regardless of whether the actual value of the beepers is the $25 suggested by the debtor, the $22.09 . . .

C W LEASING, INC. v. ORIX CREDIT ALLIANCE, INC., 957 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1992)

. . . Wells came up with a figure of 22.09%. . . .

Dr. H. ABBS v. SULLIVAN, Dr. V., 756 F. Supp. 1172 (W.D. Wis. 1990)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, §§ 22.09-5, 22.09-6 (Supp. 1970). United States v. . . .

COX CONSTRUCTION CO. Co. a v. UNITED STATES, 17 Cl. Ct. 29 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . Nov. 1986 21.65 20.79 21.98 22.09 22.95 23.49 First Half Second Half 1987 25.64 27.47 1988 31.35 34.69 . . .

NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, A. E. v. A. BAKER III, M. Jr., 636 F. Supp. 921 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)

. . . .-09-5, 22.09-6 (Supp.1970). . . .

Co. Co. A. E. Co. v. A. III, U. S. M. Jr. U. S. U. S. RAJ Co. Co., 10 Ct. Int'l Trade 345 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 22.09-5, 22.09-6 (Supp. 1970) RAJ’s emphasis on ADM’s size and . . .

M. STONE, M. D. v. WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, M. D. M. D. P. C., 782 F.2d 609 (6th Cir. 1986)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 22.09-5, 22.09-6 (Supp.1970). . . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 23.48 31.56 9.70 75.00 25.55 21.36 28.62 28.72 16.51 56.13 8.59 15.02 33.65 31.03 35.29 32.95 4.94 22.09 . . .

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

. . . . * * * 33-22.09 Review and Final Action. * * * (2) The Superintendent acts as the reviewing and approving . . .

ARKLA EXPLORATION CO. v. G. WATT,, 548 F. Supp. 466 (W.D. Ark. 1982)

. . . Davis, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE §§ 22.09-5, 22.09-6 (Supp.1970). . . .

UNITED STATES v. DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSION,, 548 F. Supp. 794 (S.D. Ala. 1982)

. . . Franklin 25,346 95.29 1,254 4.71 26,600 Greene 2.892 27.03 7,808 72.97 10.700 Houston 54,303 77.91 15,397 22.09 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MATTES,, 687 F.2d 1039 (7th Cir. 1982)

. . . Milwaukee, Wis., Charter, § 22.09(1) (1977). . . . Id. at § 22.09(2). . . .

In H. ESSER,, 22 B.R. 814 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1982)

. . . a history of the development of Chapter 13 under the Bankruptcy Act, see 10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 22.09 . . .

In POLAK,, 9 B.R. 502 (W.D. Mich. 1981)

. . . debts through installment payments instead of being adjudicated bankrupt. 10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 22.09 . . .

LUMMIS, R. Jr. v. WHITE, H. B. H. B., 629 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . California Regional Office, 497 F.2d 1325, 1327 (9th Cir. 1974); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, supra H 22.09 . . . But see 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, supra ' 22.09[1], . . . .

In MOZER,, 1 B.R. 350 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1979)

. . . See also, 10 Coilier on Bankruptcy ¶ 22.09 (14th Ed. 1978), where it is said: The mere fact that an individual . . .

BOSTON OLD COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BALBIN, 591 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1979)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice fl 22.09 (1978) (urging the contrary). . . .

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE v. W. KNECHT, 456 F. Supp. 889 (C.D. Cal. 1978)

. . . 669, 689 n. 14, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973) [quoting Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 22.09 . . .

F. A. v., 70 T.C. 756 (T.C. 1978)

. . . Willis, Partnership Taxation, sec. 22.09, pp. 262-263 (2d ed. 1976); A. . . .

PUBLIC CITIZEN v. LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, 565 F.2d 708 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 22.09-5, 22.09-6 (Supp.1970). . . .

In E. HOLLAND, d b a Co. CONTINENTAL AUTO SALES, INC. a v. F. SCHROEDER, d b a Co., 411 F. Supp. 730 (E.D. Wis. 1976)

. . . See, generally: Rule 102(b), Bankruptcy Rules; 2 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 22.09 (1975 ed.). III. . . .

PANIOR M. v. IBERVILLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 498 F.2d 1232 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . 2,026 2,026 2.050 —1.17% G 2,216 2,216 2.050 +8.09% H 2,146 2,146 2.050 +4.68% I 1,597 1,597 2.050 —22.09% . . .

DOSCHER, v. SEMINOLE COMMON CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, GAINES COUNTY, TEXAS,, 377 F. Supp. 1166 (N.D. Tex. 1974)

. . . With respect to the subject under consideration, Art. 22.09 of the Texas Education Code empowers the . . . and any contract for a longer period would have been voided unless the conditions set forth in Art. 22.09 . . . Sindermann, footnote 7, and it appears from the Texas Education Code, Art. 22.09; V.T.C.A., and Hix v . . .

UNITED STATES v. RICHARDSON, 418 U.S. 166 (U.S. 1974)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.09-6, p. 753 (Supp. 1970). . . .

CAFFEY, v. W. WYRICK,, 377 F. Supp. 160 (W.D. Mo. 1974)

. . . Petitioner further relies on Rules 22.01, 22.04, 22.09, and 29.01 of the Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedure . . .

EVANS v. T. LYNN,, 376 F. Supp. 327 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)

. . . .) § 22.09-7; Carlsbad Union School District v. Rafferty, 300 F.Supp. 434 (S.D.Cal.1969). . . .

KENT v. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL OFFICE OF AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE KENT v. UNITED STATES, 497 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1974)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶22.09[3], at 3067 (2d ed. 1974). . . .

D. SCHIAFFO, No. v. HELSTOSKI, No., 492 F.2d 413 (3d Cir. 1974)

. . . See Davis at §§ 22.00-3, 22.09-22.09-9. . . . . Davis at 22.09-2. . See, e. g., Sierra Club v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. STUDENTS CHALLENGING REGULATORY AGENCY PROCEDURES SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (U.S. 1973)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§22.09-5, 22.09-6 (Supp. 1970). . . .

UNITED STATES v. STATE OF TEXAS, 330 F. Supp. 235 (E.D. Tex. 1971)

. . . Texas Education Code (1969), Sections 22.09 and 23.28. . . .

AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY- CONSOLIDATED v. UNITED STATES, 423 F.2d 277 (Ct. Cl. 1970)

. . . computes the percentage of land actually leased by ASARCO to that which it had the right to lease at 22.09 . . .

AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY- CONSOLIDATED v. THE UNITED STATES, 191 Ct. Cl. 307 (Ct. Cl. 1970)

. . . computes the percentage of land actually leased by ASARCO to that which it had the right to lease at 22.09 . . .

FLAST v. COHEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,, 392 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1968)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §22.09 (1958), §§22.09-22.10 (1965 Supp.); Jaffe, Standing to Secure . . .

FLAST, D. C. L. v. W. GARDNER,, 271 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

. . . of Administrative Action”: A Review, 66 Colum.L.Rev. 635, 666 (1966); 3 Davis, Administrative Law, § 22.09 . . . Administrative Action”: A Review, 66 Colum.L.Rev. 635, 659-69 (1966); Davis, Administrative Law, § 22.09 . . .

FLAST, D. C. D. v. W. GARDNER,, 267 F. Supp. 351 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

. . . Judicial Review: Public Actions, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 1265, 1266, 1284 (1961); 3 Davis, Administrative Law, Sec. 22.09 . . .

STATE FARM FIRE CASUALTY CO. v. TASHIRE, 386 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1967)

. . . Ind. 1964); 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 22.09, at 3033. . . . Between State and Federal Courts 180-190 (Official Draft, Pt. 1, 1965); 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 22.09 . . .

UNITED STATES v. JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING COMPANY, 253 F. Supp. 129 (N.D. Cal. 1966)

. . . Sales and Exports California Sales Barrels Bank Percentage of share of market Imports — 1,123,387 1 22.09 . . .

SMITH v. GOVERNMENT OF VIRGIN ISLANDS,, 329 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1964)

. . . See Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1958, vol. 3, §§ 22.09, 22.10; Jaffe, Standing to Secure Judicial . . .

DAVID SMITH ERWIN GROSS, v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, MARIO LEWIS STEADMAN HODGE, 4 V.I. 489 (3d Cir. 1964)

. . . See Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1958, vol. 3, §§ 22.09, 22.10; Jaffe, Standing to Secure Judicial . . .

PAN AMERICAN FIRE CASUALTY COMPANY, v. F. REVERE, Sr. Ad F. Jr., 188 F. Supp. 474 (E.D. La. 1960)

. . . Supp. 66, 70, reversed on other grounds, 3 Cir., 246 F.2d 200; 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.09 . . .

GRAY a a v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a, 280 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1960)

. . . Bay City Bank and Trust Co., 9 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 513; 3 Moore, Federal Practice, para. 22.09 (1948 . . .

HAYNES, v. D. FELDER, Jr., 239 F.2d 868 (5th Cir. 1957)

. . . set forth with sufficient particularity to determine the effective holding of the case. . 3 Moore 1)22.09 . . . Chafee, supra, fn. 7, at 974-975. . 3 Moore 1)22.09[1], at 3029 (1948 ed.). . 178 E.2d at page 225. . . . . 3 Moore 1[22.09[4], at 3037 (1948 ed.). . 178 F.2d at page 224. . . . .

Al BIERMAN v. MARCUS a, 140 F. Supp. 66 (D.N.J. 1956)

. . . The question is discussed in 3 Moore, Federal Practice, paragraph 22.09, page 3029 (2d Ed. 1948), where . . .

HENRY L. DeBUSK v. THE UNITED STATES, 132 Ct. Cl. 790 (Ct. Cl. 1955)

. . . him by the agency were not countersigned by the appropriate personnel official as required by section 22.09 . . .

GLOBE RUTGERS FIRE INS. CO. v. VIELE, 110 F. Supp. 889 (D. Neb. 1953)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., Sec. 22.09(3), p. 3033, n. 30. . . .

ARKANSAS v. TENNESSEE, 271 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1926)

. . . A total length of boundary line of 116,641 feet, or 22.09 miles.” . . .