The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 772
CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 772.19

772.19 Exemption.—No damages shall be recoverable under this chapter against the state or its agencies, instrumentalities, subdivisions, or municipalities.

History.—s. 3, ch. 86-277.

F.S. 772.19 on Google Scholar

F.S. 772.19 on Casetext

Amendments to 772.19

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 772.19

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 772.19.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO. v. QUALITY DIAGNOSTIC HEALTH CARE, INC., 369 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

. . . . §§ 772.101 - 772.19, against Jorge, Acebo, Dr. Queral, Dr. . . .

ARTHUR, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA,, 569 F. App'x 669 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § § 772.101-772.19 (hereinafter, the “Florida RICO Act”). . . .

AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. GOLD COAST MARINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., 771 So. 2d 579 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . . — -772.19, Florida Statutes (1993), a violation of the Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act (Count . . .

CHANDRA, M. D. v. J. BRADSTREET, M. D., 727 So. 2d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Bradstreet, M.D., Morgan Bunch, III, M.D., Lori Nelson, D.D.S., and Peter Taraschi, D.O. . 772.101-772.19 . . .

L. SMITH, v. STATE BOARD OF REGENTS, On FLORIDA A M UNIVERSITY, a F., 701 So. 2d 348 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . dismissal could have been properly based on the state’s immunity from suit for damages pursuant to section 772.19 . . . Smith has also' argued that section 772.19, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional. . . . Section 772.19 preserves sovereign immunity from damages caused by such acts. . . .

CITIZENS COMMITTEE AGAINST INTERSTATE ROUTE v. LEWIS, U. S., 542 F. Supp. 496 (S.D. Ohio 1982)

. . . . § 772.19(b) (1981) was required to be treated as developed land. See, Doc. # 22, p. 35. . . . . § 772.19(a) indicates that noise abatement measures (and thus, application of design noise levels, . . . If such an approach had been taken, § 772.19(b) would have placed a further restriction on the classification . . . noise levels for areas along the corridor which were deemed to be undeveloped under the criteria in § 772.19 . . . Although such an approach would be permissible under 23 C.F.R. § 772.19(a), the FEIS discusses noise . . .