Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 288.80 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 288.80 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 288.80

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIX
PUBLIC BUSINESS
Chapter 288
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 288.80
288.80 Short title.This section and ss. 288.8011-288.8018 may be cited as the “Gulf Coast Economic Corridor Act.”
History.s. 51, ch. 2013-39; s. 1, ch. 2017-63.

F.S. 288.80 on Google Scholar

F.S. 288.80 on Casetext

Amendments to 288.80


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 288.80
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 288.80.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

In L. DAVENPORT J. A. DAVIS, v. L. DAVENPORT, J. D. L. Jr. NDS, 147 B.R. 172 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1992)

. . . The Debtors realized net proceeds of $84,-288.80 from this sale. Mr. . . .

M. REDDICK, v. GLOBE LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,, 575 So. 2d 207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . In Security Life, supra, the insured gave the insurer a check for $288.80 to reinstate two life insurance . . . force for at least the ten-day period, during which the insured could have arranged for payment of the $288.80 . . .

J. v., 86 T.C. 643 (T.C. 1986)

. . . /77 1,132 7 113.20 Van 8/1/78 3,272 7 327.20 Auger 9/1/78 1,907 7 190.70 Chisel plow 9/1/78 2,888 7 288.80 . . . 12/1/76 478.80 Snow blower 12/1/77 113.20 Van 8/1/78 327.20 Auger 9/1/78 190.70 Chisel plow 9/1/78 288.80 . . .

SECURITY LIFE TRUST COMPANY, a v. JONES,, 202 So. 2d 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . Jones applied for reinstatement and in late July, 1964, sent appellant a check for the required $288.80 . . . Jones’ $288.80 check pending receipt of the additional sum. . . . Two weeks later, having heard nothing in that regard, appellant deposited the $288.80 check. . . . Appellant received this check on October 2 and, not yet knowing that the $288.80 check had again bounced . . . Frady that the $288.80 check had bounced could constitute a basis for estoppel. 12 Fla.Jur., Estoppel . . .