The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 34
COUNTY COURTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 34.08

34.08 Compensation of sheriff.—The compensation of the sheriff for serving processes in cases in the county court, and for other services in connection therewith, shall be the same as that for like services in the circuit court.

History.—RS 2839; GS 3897; RGS 5994; CGL 8288.

F.S. 34.08 on Google Scholar

F.S. 34.08 on Casetext

Amendments to 34.08

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 34.08

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 34.08.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC., 602 B.R. 564 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . approximately $ 51.9 million; on the date the PBA was terminated, the shares were worth approximately $ 34.08 . . .

FRIENDS OF MAHA ULEPU, INC. a i v. HAWAI I DAIRY FARMS, LLC, a LLC a LLC a, 224 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (D. Haw. 2016)

. . . permit for discharge associated with construction “shall comply with the NOI requirements of § 11-55-34.08 . . . R.] § 11-55-34.08(j). . . .

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, v. GONZALEZ FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC., 77 F. Supp. 3d 584 (S.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . Under § 34.08, “[a] person may not commence an action challenging the validity of a tax sale after the . . . Id. § 34.08(b). . . . Section 34.08(b) turns on the limitations period in § 33.54. See Tex. . . . but that goes to § 34.08(a), which requires that plaintiffs first "deposit! . . . Tax.Code. § 34.08(a). . . .

FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 92 Fed. Cl. 598 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

. . . Fuchs’s calculations of labor costs are based on 222 additional man-hours at an actual labor rate of $34.08 . . .

CITY OF SAN BENITO, v. KINDER MORGAN TEJAS PIPELINE, L. P., 411 F. Supp. 2d 683 (S.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . U5, at 15 (quoting 12 Eugene McQuillan, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 34.08, at p. 29 (3d ed.1988 . . .

RIDGE LINE, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 346 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

. . . Reskin, Niohols on Eminent Domain § 34.08[1] (3d ed. 1980 & Supp. 2002). . . .

In PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AVERAGE WHOLESALE PRICE LITIGATION, 263 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2003)

. . . 63.91 12,531% Heparin Lock Flush_$ 38.30 $ 13.60 $ 24.70 182% Metholprednisolone Sodium _Succinate_$ 34.08 . . .

In CENTENNIAL TEXTILES, INC. M. HIRSCH, v. GERSTEN, MBL, 220 B.R. 165 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . 12.92 1,795,371 DEC 1995 10.14 3,526,586 AUG 1995 17.02 3,118,788 JAN 1996 12.59 3,719,597 SEP 1995 34.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SEITZ, 952 F. Supp. 229 (D.D.C. 1997)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 34.08 (3d ed. 1978)), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N . . .

MOLOKAI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, a a a v. KUKUI MOLOKAI INC. a a Co. a, 891 F. Supp. 1389 (D. Haw. 1995)

. . . permit for discharge associated with construction “shall comply with the NOI requirements of § 11-55-34.08 . . . H.A.R. § 11 — 55—34.08(j). . . . H.A.R. § 11 — 55—34.08(j) (emphasis added). . . .

In HAMMOND, BANK ONE, COLUMBUS, N. A. v. HAMMOND,, 140 B.R. 197 (S.D. Ohio 1992)

. . . Coggeshall, 280 F.2d 654, 659 (D.C.Cir.1960); see generally 4A Moore’s Federal Practice para. 34.08[3 . . .

GRIFFITH, v. JOHNSTON,, 899 F.2d 1427 (5th Cir. 1990)

. . . . §§ 16.032(a)-(e), (n), 16.09, 34.08 (Vernon Supp.1990). . . .

In J. RASSIER D. d b a, 85 B.R. 524 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1988)

. . . Interest continues to accrue on the debt at a rate of $34.08 a day (approximately $1,022.40 a month). . . . converted to chapter 11 on March 18, 1988. .Interest accrues on the outstanding notes at a rate of $34.08 . . .

APL CORPORATION, a a v. AETNA CASUALTY SURETY COMPANY, 91 F.R.D. 10 (D. Md. 1980)

. . . See also ¶¶ 26.63[8], 34.08. . . .

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

. . . Finally, the court in Sims also ruled that the use of the computer reporting service, CANRIS, under § 34.08 . . . where the child may be, to allow entrance for the interview, above examinations, and investigation. § 34.08 . . .

PLUMMER v. CHICAGO JOURNEYMAN PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. U. A., 77 F.R.D. 399 (N.D. Ill. 1977)

. . . “show facts to indicate that the objection^] [are] not well taken.” 4A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 34.08 . . .

SIMS v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF STATE OF TEXAS WOODS v. JIMENEZ, 438 F. Supp. 1179 (S.D. Tex. 1977)

. . . A second constitutional defect in the system of reporting child abuse appears in Section 34.08, which . . . provisions of Title 2, Texas Family Code — Sections 11.10, 11.15, 17.02, 17.03, 17.05, 17.06, 34.-05(c), and 34.08 . . .

a, 207 Ct. Cl. 985 (Ct. Cl. 1975)

. . . each case and must be decided within the discretion of the trial judge. 4A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 . . .

UNITED STATES S. v. BROWN, W., 349 F. Supp. 420 (N.D. Ill. 1972)

. . . argument to the court in an effective manner based upon this knowledge. 4A Moore’s Federal Practice, Par. 34.08 . . .

STRUTHERS SCIENTIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, v. GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, v. STRUTHERS SCIENTIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, 50 F.R.D. 184 (D. Del. 1970)

. . . .) § 34.08. . . .

NATIONAL UTILITY SERVICE, INC. v. NORTHWESTERN STEEL AND WIRE CO., 426 F.2d 222 (7th Cir. 1970)

. . . requirements or formalities are imposed for the establishment of good cause. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 . . .

KING, Ed v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY C. MOREMAN v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, 50 F.R.D. 134 (N.D. Ga. 1970)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice j] 34.08, 2479-2481 (2d Ed.1966). . . .

NATIONAL UTILITY SERVICE, INC. v. WISCONSIN CENTRIFUGAL FOUNDRY, INC., 49 F.R.D. 30 (E.D. Wis. 1970)

. . . See 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 (2d ed. 1969). . . .

NATTA, v. ZLETZ, 418 F.2d 633 (7th Cir. 1969)

. . . Cf. 4 Moore, Federal Practice, § 34.08 (1969). . . .

I. H. BASS, Jo F. V. v. GULF OIL CORPORATION, 304 F. Supp. 1041 (S.D. Miss. 1969)

. . . Par. 34.08, p. 2467. In Crowe v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. . . .

B. BLACK, Jr. v. SHERATON CORPORATION OF AMERICA,, 47 F.R.D. 263 (D.D.C. 1969)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, par. 34.08 at 2478 (2 ed. 1968). See Hickman v. . . .

STAMATAKOS v. HUNTER SHIPPING COMPANY, S. A., 49 F.R.D. 23 (E.D. Pa. 1969)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 34.08, at 2452 (2d ed. 1950). . . .

HUGHES v. H. GROVES,, 47 F.R.D. 52 (W.D. Mo. 1969)

. . . Trimble, supra; Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 (1968 ed.). . . .

W. SAUNDERS H. v. UNITED STATES, 294 F. Supp. 1276 (D. Haw. 1968)

. . . United States, 3 AFTR2d 476, Rabkin & Johnson, Feder.al Income Gift and Estate Taxation, § 34.08(1), . . .

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. AMERICAN BERYLLIUM OIL CORPORATION, 47 F.R.D. 66 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)

. . . James, Civil Procedure § 6.10 (1965); 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶34.08 (2d ed. 1968). . . .

SPEEDRACK INC. v. L. BAYBARZ, F. L., 45 F.R.D. 254 (E.D. Cal. 1968)

. . . is in some way necessary to the adequate preparation of the case. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, para. 34.08 . . .

PARRETT v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,, 47 F.R.D. 22 (W.D. Mo. 1968)

. . . Capitol Transit Co., (D.C., 1948) 7 F.R.D. 732; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶34.08; Developments In The . . .

L. FREEMAN, v. SELIGSON, SELIGSON, v. L. FREEMAN,, 405 F.2d 1326 (D.C. Cir. 1968)

. . . Ibid., quoting 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 (2d ed. 1966). . . . . See generally 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 (2d ed. 1966). . Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. . . .

TURMENNE d b a s v. WHITE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC. d b a Co., 266 F. Supp. 35 (D. Mass. 1967)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.08. . . .

T. BELBACK, v. WILSON FREIGHT FORWARDING COMPANY, a v. B P MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. a F. HARSHELL, v. WILSON FREIGHT FORWARDING COMPANY, a v. B P MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. a, 40 F.R.D. 16 (M.D. Pa. 1966)

. . . .-41, pp. 1445 et seq., ¶ 34.08, pp. 2449 et seq. (2d ed. 1963). But see, Safeway Stores, Inc. v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN OPTICAL COMPANY, a, 39 F.R.D. 580 (N.D. Cal. 1966)

. . . prejudice the preparation of his case or cause him hardship or injustice. 4 Moore, Federal Practice, para. 34.08 . . . Coggeshall, supra, 280 F.2d at 659; 4 Moore, supra, para. 34.08, at 2450. Mr. . . .

THOMAS, v. NUSS, 353 F.2d 257 (6th Cir. 1965)

. . . .) § 34.08, p. 2451, states that: “ * * * good cause is not shown when the mover has the information . . .

BERCOW, v. KIDDER, PEABODY CO. A. I., 39 F.R.D. 357 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)

. . . Dingfelder, 2 F.R.D. 49 (S.D.N.Y.1941) ; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, ,¶ 34.08 (1963). . . .

R. FLICKINGER, D. R. L. P. F. F. D. D. v. AETNA CASUALTY SURETY COMPANY, a a, 37 F.R.D. 533 (W.D. Pa. 1965)

. . . , 432, and § 799, pp. 458-459 (Wright ed. 1961); 4 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 34.05, p. 2437, and ¶ 34.08 . . .

ROCKAWAY PIX THEATRE, INC. v. METRO- GOLDWYN- MAYER, INC., 36 F.R.D. 15 (E.D.N.Y. 1964)

. . . See 4 Moore, Federal Practice ff 34.08 (1950). . . . See 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 (1950). . . .

H. STEELMAN A. v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, 35 F.R.D. 120 (W.D. Mo. 1964)

. . . As stated in 4 Moore, Federal Practice § 34.08, pp. 2454-55: “Even less of a showing of good cause should . . .

C. MARSHALL, D. A. v. M. HARE, D. W. C. S., 227 F. Supp. 989 (E.D. Mich. 1964)

. . . It has 34.08% of the population of the state, nearly four times the population of the next most populous . . . of Seats in Seats Percentage of Population House Giving 0.7% Provision Full Effect Wayne County 37 34.08 . . . MOST POPULOUS COUNTIES Seats Percentage of Population Percentage of Seats in Senate Wayne County 10 34.08 . . .

H. GRAY P. v. Z. ALPERT,, 220 F. Supp. 887 (W.D. Pa. 1963)

. . . Cir., 1960); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 3819; Vol. 10, Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure § 34.08 . . .

DIAMOND, d. b. a. v. MOHAWK RUBBER COMPANY,, 33 F.R.D. 264 (D. Colo. 1963)

. . . Ohio, 1953), 14 F.R.D. 154; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 2454, ¶[34.08 and cases cited. . . .

Z. GOOSMAN, a v. A. DUIE PYLE, INC. a, 320 F.2d 45 (4th Cir. 1963)

. . . R., 17 F.R.D. 324 (S.D.N.Y.1955); 4 Moore, Federal Practice § 34.08, at 2452 (2d ed. 1950); Annot., 73 . . .

SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, v. I. CAMPBELL,, 309 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1962)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, Yol. 4, Par. 34.08. The principles of Hickman v. . . .

J. HARKOBUSIC, v. GENERAL AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION,, 31 F.R.D. 264 (W.D. Pa. 1962)

. . . Pa.1946); see also, Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., vol. 4, ¶ 34.08, pp. 2450-2451. . . .

HANOVER SHOE, INC. v. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION,, 207 F. Supp. 407 (M.D. Pa. 1962)

. . . . * * *” See also 4 Moore, Federal Practice, par. 26.23 [8], at 1147-1149 and par. 34.08, at 2452-2455 . . .

UNCLE BEN S, INC. v. UNCLE BEN S PANCAKE HOUSES, INC., 30 F.R.D. 506 (S.D. Tex. 1962)

. . . See, e. g., 4 Moore Federal Procedure, Sec. 34.08 at 2453-54; 2A Barron & Holtzoff Federal Practice and . . .

K. C. WILLIAMS, v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a, 30 F.R.D. 26 (D. Mont. 1962)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 2452, § 34.08; New York Central Railroad Company v. . . .

GUILFORD NATIONAL BANK OF GREENSBORO, c. t. a. d. b. n. M. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, v. BATCHELOR, J., 297 F.2d 921 (4th Cir. 1962)

. . . R., 17 F.R.D. 324 (S.D.N.Y.1955); 4 Moore, Federal Practice § 34.08, at 2452 (2d ed. 1950); Annot., 73 . . .

ESSENBURG, a D. N. v. CABANE,, 196 F. Supp. 83 (D. Haw. 1961)

. . . “Your verdict on each of these remaining issues must be unanimous.” . 10 Cyc.Fed.Proc. secs. 34.04, 34.08 . . .

In CONSUMERS UNION OF UNITED STATES, INC., 27 F.R.D. 251 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)

. . . 519, certiorari denied 1950, 339 U.S. 963, 70 S.Ct. 997, 94 L.Ed. 1372; 4 Moore, Federal Practice § 34.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, B. R., 26 F.R.D. 607 (S.D. Tex. 1960)

. . . constitutes “good cause” rests largely in the discretion of the court. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 34.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, B. R., 26 F.R.D. 603 (S.D. Tex. 1960)

. . . clear ■that the matter rests largely in the discretion of the court. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 34.08 . . . unobtainable by other means, or alternative modes are much more troublesome. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 34.08 . . .

BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY, v. COGGESHALL, COGGESHALL, v. BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY, BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY, v. COGGESHALL,, 280 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1960)

. . . See 4 Moore, Federal Practice, para. 34.08, p. 2451. See, also, Hickman v. . . . because none of the Government’s case before the Tax Court came from these files. . 4 Moore, supra, para. 34.08 . . .

WILLIAMSON v. CLARK, 120 So. 2d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)

. . . As a result, the actual interest charged Upon the first note of April 7, 1956, amounted to 34.08%, and . . .

HOUDRY PROCESS CORPORATION, v. COMMONWEALTH OIL REFINING COMPANY,, 24 F.R.D. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)

. . . Prac. (2d ed. 1950) section 34.08, some of the situations that have been held to satisfy the requirement . . . information therein through other methods than the rules of discovery.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 34.08 . . .

HENRIK MANNERFRID, INC. v. A. TEEGARDEN, 23 F.R.D. 173 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)

. . . have and that may contain relevant evidence otherwise unavailable. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 34.08 . . .

WESTERN CONTRACTING CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 144 Ct. Cl. 318 (Ct. Cl. 1958)

. . . For the period as a whole the average of land equipment on'the job represented 34.08 percent of the value . . .

UNITED STATES v. CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY,, 22 F.R.D. 235 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)

. . . See 4 Moore, Federal Practice, Par. 34.08. . . .

UNITED STATES v. PROCTER GAMBLE CO., 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958)

. . . analysis rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed. 1950) §34.08 . . .

H. FISHER, v. W. DELEHANT,, 250 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1957)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, Second Edition, Yol. 4, para. 34.08. . . .

JENSEN, v. BOSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a JENSEN, 20 F.R.D. 619 (N.D. Cal. 1957)

. . . so long as the categories are defined in a reasonably specific manner (4 Moore, Federal Practice, § 34.08 . . .

TOMAINE, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, a, 144 F. Supp. 445 (W.D. Pa. 1956)

. . . Vol. 10 Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure § 34.08. . . .

DE GAETANO v. FRANK A. CLENDANIEL,, 15 F.R.D. 114 (D. Del. 1953)

. . . defendants’ motion for production should be denied. . 28 U.S.C.A. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., § 34.08 . . .

WILLIAMS v. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 14 F.R.D. 58 (W.D. Okla. 1953)

. . . Sec. 34.08 regarding what constitutes “good cause”. . 1940, 304 Ill.App. 607, 27 N.E.2d 67. . . .

GOLDNER v. CHICAGO N. W. RY. SYSTEM, 13 F.R.D. 326 (N.D. Ill. 1952)

. . . .) § 34.08. . . .

McCAFFREY v. UNITED STATES, 13 F.R.D. 512 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice, §'34.08 on all this. . . .

FLORES v. MATSON NAV. CO., 12 F.R.D. 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1951)

. . . These allegations are insufficient. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., § 34.08; The Kegums, D.C., 73 . . .

HOLT v. THE JAMES SHERIDAN, 12 F.R.D. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1951)

. . . . § 34.08, The Kegums, D.C., 73 F.Supp. 831; Marzo v. . . .

STATE THEATRE CO. v. TRI- STATES THEATRE CORP., 11 F.R.D. 381 (D. Neb. 1951)

. . . is a reason for ordering production and discovery unuder Rule 34.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 34.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SHUBERT, 11 F.R.D. 528 (S.D.N.Y. 1951)

. . . In 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § '34.08 (2nd Edition) the factors required to establish “good cause” . . .

CANNON v. AETNA FREIGHT LINES,, 11 F.R.D. 93 (N.D. Ohio 1950)

. . . Moore in 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 34.08 indicates that the more liberal view is preferable, and if . . .

BOWDLE v. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN, 11 F.R.D. 148 (D. Del. 1950)

. . . Co., D. 0., 8 F.R.D. 616. . 4 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.) 34.08. . 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ( . . . 2d Ed.) 34.08. . . . .

HEMLER v. UNION PRODUCING CO., 40 F. Supp. 824 (W.D. La. 1941)

. . . It sold 98.000. 000.000 feet or 34.08 per cent under long-term pipeline contracts and 641,000,-000 feet . . .

J. L. LANCASTER AND CHARLES L. WALLACE, RECEIVERS OF THE TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY, v. THE UNITED STATES, 60 Ct. Cl. 80 (Ct. Cl. 1924)

. . . . - Plaintiffs originally claimed $34.08 and payment was made at net fare of $28.38 by the Auditor for . . .

SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. REID, 222 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1912)

. . . On September 23,1907, the company named the sum of $34.08 as the amount necessary to prepay the freight . . .