The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 28
CLERKS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 28.44

28.44 Clerk discontinuance of court-related functions.—

(1) No function of the clerk of court being performed in support of the trial courts by the individual clerks of court on July 1, 2004, may be discontinued or substantially modified on a unilateral basis except pursuant to this section. A clerk of court may discontinue performing a function performed in support of the trial court only if:

(a) The chief judge of the circuit has consented in writing to the discontinuance or substantial modification of the function performed in support of the trial court; or

(b) The clerk of court has given written notice of the intention to substantially modify or discontinue a function performed in support of the trial court at least 1 year before the effective date of the discontinuance or substantial modification of the function.

(2) “Substantial modification” of a function performed in support of the trial court means a modification which has the effect of reducing the level of services provided to the trial court.

History.—s. 13, ch. 2005-236.

F.S. 28.44 on Google Scholar

F.S. 28.44 on Casetext

Amendments to 28.44

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 28.44

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 28.44.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

HUNT v. HADDEN, W. P. C., 159 F. Supp. 3d 800 (E.D. Mich. 2016)

. . . state that they made a $10,000 offer of judgment a year ago, and the judgment in this case was only $28.44 . . .

M. COOPER, v. HEWLETT- PACKARD CO., 592 F.3d 645 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . The pay stubs indicated that Cooper had been working between 28.44 to 92.61 hours at Ben Bridge Jewelers . . .

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE, UK LTD. v. SEA- LAND SERVICE, INC. M V, 122 F. Supp. 2d 481 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . prepaid charge of $597.24 for “FWDR COMMIS,” which for some unrevealed reason is based upon a rate of $28.44 . . .

PAKTANK CORPORATION- DEER PARK TERMINAL v. M V M. E. NUNEZ, L. d b a M M, 35 F. Supp. 2d 521 (S.D. Tex. 1999)

. . . of the horizontal steel beam on the fender mat to which the vertical wood timbers were attached, was 28.44 . . .

MILWAUKEE GUN CLUB, v. F. SCHULZ, G., 979 F.2d 1252 (7th Cir. 1992)

. . . See 10 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corpora^ tions § 28.44 (3d ed.rev.vol.1990) (transfer of . . .

F. BYGOTT, Jr. O v. LEASEWAY TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION,, 637 F. Supp. 1433 (E.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . Motion to Dismiss 0.25 3.0 Motion for Summary Judgment 22.0 Other Pretrial Motions and Preparation 35.56 28.44 . . .

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

. . . 15.48 28.06 24.28 25.93 26.24 20.53 20.78 23.21 13.97 34.86 26.68 26.11 31.91 23.95 30.23 12.60 5.14 28.44 . . .

Wm. Jr. C. v., 51 T.C. 863 (T.C. 1969)

. . . 21 Turtle Club of Dallas_ 319. 63 Undesignated _ 73.08 1, 972. 42 Of these expenditures, a total of $28.44 . . .

LANIER v. A. BRONSON, O. Jr. W. HAYMAN G. v. A. BRONSON, O. Jr., 215 So. 2d 776 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . The millage for the year 1964 was rolled back 28.44%, or from 10.9 mills to 7.8 mills. . . .

FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN GREENWICH S. F. As c. t. a. v. NATIONAL AIRLINES, INCORPORATED,, 171 F. Supp. 528 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)

. . . (Lumber) 28.44 April Ledger Pg. 12 Jos. . . .

D. v., 30 T.C. 1044 (T.C. 1958)

. . . In July 1949, Payne and Jenkins contracted to purchase 28.44 acres of land located outside the city limits . . .

WORTHINGTON PUMP AND MACHINERY CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 129 Ct. Cl. 87 (Ct. Cl. 1954)

. . . During the fiscal year ended January 31, 1948, it had total sales of $670,081.58, of which approximately 28.44% . . .

THE VELMA LYKES, 6 F. Supp. 886 (S.D. Tex. 1934)

. . . starboard side gangway carried away, deck on starboard side of boat deck tom up badly. 4 AM barometer 28.44 . . .

HAWES v. GAGE, 11 F. Cas. 867 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1871)

. . . They assessed the damages at $28.44. [For other cases involving this patent see note to Hawes v. . . .