Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 122.20 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 122.20 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 122.20

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS
Chapter 122
STATE AND COUNTY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 122.20
122.20 Blind vending-stand operators; participation by.
(1) All blind or partially sighted persons who are now employed or licensed by the Florida Council for the Blind as vending-stand operators or who may hereafter be so licensed or employed are hereby declared to be state employees within the meaning of the State and County Officers and Employees’ Retirement System, and except as hereinafter provided shall be entitled to all the rights and benefits of other state employees thereunder.
(2) Blindness shall not be deemed a retirable disability within the provisions of the state and county retirement system for such employees as are contemplated by this section.
(3) Participation in the State Officers and Employees’ Retirement System shall be compulsory for all vending-stand operators licensed and employed after June 15, 1953.
History.s. 22, ch. 29801, 1955; s. 20, ch. 2001-60.

F.S. 122.20 on Google Scholar

F.S. 122.20 on Casetext

Amendments to 122.20


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 122.20
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 122.20.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, s v. EQUITY FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, s, 537 F. Supp. 2d 677 (D.N.J. 2008)

. . . (Answer ¶ 18; Pl.’s Exs. 1000, 1121, 1139; Trial Tr., Firth, 8/27/07, 117-4 to 121.18; 122.20 to 124.9 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GARAN,, 12 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 122.20(c)(1977) (currently codified at 13 C.F.R. § 120.201-1 (1993)) provides that the lending institution . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. MARGOLIS,, 758 F. Supp. 1482 (S.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . . § 122.20(c) provided the controlling legal authority with regard to modification of the terms of an . . .

V. J. GROWERS SUPPLY v. NEWSOME,, 496 So. 2d 234 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . obligations for large debts such as a residential mortgage or car loan; his only expenses, aside from $122.20 . . .

P. FOGARTY, v. UNITED STATES,, 6 Cl. Ct. 612 (Cl. Ct. 1984)

. . . Virginia, as employer, had paid plaintiff, as its employee, annual wages in the respective amounts of $18,-122.20 . . .

MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION U. S. U. S. GTE MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION U. S. U. S. GTE UNITED STATES TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MCI GTE SATELLITE BUSINESS SYSTEMS, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MCI U. S. U. S. GTE SATELLITE BUSINESS SYSTEMS, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MCI U. S. GTE MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION GTE U. S. BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MCI U. S. U. S. GTE U. S. TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MCI GTE, 712 F.2d 517 (D.C. Cir. 1983)

. . . from 3000 to 5823; the combined rate for Elements 2 and 3 under the proposal would have risen from $122.20 . . .

BENSON, v. UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, 644 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1981)

. . . . § 122.20(c) provides that lenders “shall not without the prior consent of the SBA, make or consent . . .

JOY, v. DANIELS,, 479 F.2d 1236 (4th Cir. 1973)

. . . It consists of a welfare benefit in the amount of $122.20, plus $126.00 worth of food stamps at a cost . . .

UNITED STATES v. P. RILEY, 340 F. Supp. 1164 (W.D. La. 1972)

. . . . § 636, as amended, and regulations issued pursuant thereto, 13 C.F.R., Chapter 1, particularly § 122.20 . . .

H. HORNE v. UNITED STATES, 419 F.2d 416 (Ct. Cl. 1969)

. . . deduction, which included $200 paid to credit unions, she submitted “a machine tape” in the amount of $122.20 . . .

LILLIAN H. HORNE v. THE UNITED STATES, 190 Ct. Cl. 145 (Ct. Cl. 1969)

. . . She now enclosed “a machine tape from one credit union in amount of $122.20,” and requested that the . . . deduction, which included $200 paid to credit unions, she submitted “a machine tape” in the amount of $122.20 . . .

MILLER v. O HEARNE,, 181 F. Supp. 105 (D. Md. 1960)

. . . earned more money than he had since 1951-1952; his average weekly wage at the time of his injury was $122.20 . . .