Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 122.22 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 122.22 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 122.22

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. 122.22
122.22 Applicable law.Sections 122.01-122.12, 122.15, 122.16, 122.18 to 122.20, inclusive, in relation to administration of division B and to duties, rights, privileges and benefits of members of this division under this system, shall apply to said division B and membership therein, except to the extent that the provisions of ss. 122.21-122.24, 122.26 to 122.321, inclusive, may be at variance or in conflict therewith.
History.s. 2, ch. 57-382; s. 23, ch. 2014-17.

F.S. 122.22 on Google Scholar

F.S. 122.22 on Casetext

Amendments to 122.22


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 122.22
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 122.22.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

UNITED STATES v. STABL, INC. By-, 800 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2015)

. . . . §§ 122.22(d), 122.41

UNITED STATES v. HAGERMAN LLC,, 301 F. App'x 552 (7th Cir. 2008)

. . . . §§ 122.22, 122.41(k)(l), 123.25(a)(5), (12). . . .

UNITED STATES v. MURPHY OIL USA, INC., 143 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (W.D. Wis. 2001)

. . . . § 122.22. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CITY OF TOLEDO,, 867 F. Supp. 598 (N.D. Ohio 1994)

. . . . § 122.22. In this case, the MORs were filed with the State EPA. . . . See 40 C.F.R. § 122.22. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, 824 F. Supp. 640 (E.D. Tex. 1993)

. . . . § 122.22. . . .

PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP OF NEW JERSEY, INC. v. ELF ATOCHEM NORTH AMERICA, INC., 817 F. Supp. 1164 (D.N.J. 1993)

. . . . § 122.22(d)- It may not now refute its own report on the results of its testing. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CPS CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., 779 F. Supp. 437 (E.D. Ark. 1991)

. . . . § 122.22. . . .

SIERRA CLUB, v. SIMKINS INDUSTRIES, INC., 847 F.2d 1109 (4th Cir. 1988)

. . . . §§ 122.41(i )(4)(i); 122.22(b), (d). . . .

In AL S DEN, INC. a s In J. KREWSON, In WINWARD,, 81 B.R. 47 (Bankr. D. Haw. 1987)

. . . under the $100,000.00 note, $9,418.64 of installments under the $15,-122.00 note, and an amount of $122.22 . . .

CONNECTICUT FUND FOR ENVIRONMENT, INC. v. UPJOHN COMPANY, 660 F. Supp. 1397 (D. Conn. 1987)

. . . . § 122.22(d). In fulfillment of those obligations it chose to rely on GC/CD testing system. . . .

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, 608 F. Supp. 440 (D. Md. 1985)

. . . Permit holders must certify the accuracy of information contained in their DMRs. 40 C.F.R. 122.22(d). . . . contain a complete and accurate record of pollutant monitoring by the permit holders. 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.22 . . .

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. v. M. GORSUCH, U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. v. M. GORSUCH, U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. v. M. DIETRICH,, 713 F.2d 802 (D.C. Cir. 1983)

. . . These facilities are still required to submit a Part B permit application under 40 C.F.R. 122.22(a)(2 . . . Id.; 40 C.F.R. 122.22(a)(4). . . .

PAUL E. SMITH v. THE UNITED STATES, 165 Ct. Cl. 233 (Ct. Cl. 1964)

. . . . * * * Mission construes FSM III 122.22(e) permits travel government expense * * *. . . . (b) The provisions of the Foreign Service Manual (Vol. 1, Part III, § 122.22(e)), referred to in said . . . According to the Foreign Service Manual Order Part III 122.22(e), any employee in his second tour of . . . reassignment to Beirut was, in my understanding, governed by Foreign Service Manual Order Part III 122.22 . . .

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. CENTRAL- ILLINOIS SECURITIES CORP., 338 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1949)

. . . classes of Engineers’ preferred and obtained corresponding values of $111.11 for the $5.00 preferred, $122.22 . . .

CITY OF MOBILE v. MARX CO., 75 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1935)

. . . recovered judgment ■against the city of Mobile (hereinafter referred to as the city), in the sum of $39,-122.22 . . .

GRAY v. GRAND FORKS MERCANTILE CO., 138 F. 344 (8th Cir. 1905)

. . . Carroll, allowing $75 for Porter’s services and disallowing the balance of his claim, and allowing $122.22 . . .

v., 52 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1850)

. . . of the trespass, and assessed the damages of the United States at $ 362.50, for which amount, and $ 122.22 . . .