Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 825.106 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 825.106 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 825.106

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 825
ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION OF ELDERLY PERSONS AND DISABLED ADULTS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 825.106
825.106 Criminal actions involving elderly persons or disabled adults; speedy trial.In a criminal action in which an elderly person or disabled adult is a victim, the state may move the court to advance the trial on the docket. The presiding judge, after consideration of the age and health of the victim, may advance the trial on the docket. The motion may be filed and served with the information or charges or at any time thereafter.
History.s. 7, ch. 95-158.

F.S. 825.106 on Google Scholar

F.S. 825.106 on Casetext

Amendments to 825.106


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 825.106
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 825.106.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

VALENCIA, v. NORTH STAR GAS LTD. CO. a LLC, a, 291 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (S.D. Cal. 2018)

. . . . § 825.106. . . .

P. QUINTANA, v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, US L. P., 692 F. App'x 122 (4th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . Id. § 825.106(c). . . . Id. § 825.106(e). . . . Id. § 825.106(c). . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(e); see also Cuellar v. . . .

CHANICKA, v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, 243 F. Supp. 3d 356 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . . § 825.106(b)(2). . . .

GRIFFIN v. SIRVA INC., 835 F.3d 283 (2d Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 825.106(a)). . . .

KIEFFER, v. CPR RESTORATION CLEANING SERVICE, LLC,, 200 F. Supp. 3d 520 (E.D. Pa. 2016)

. . . . § 825.106 with § 825.104(c)(2). . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(a); Arculeo, 425 F.3d at 198 (citing Clinton’s Ditch Cooperative Co. v. . . . “may be separate and distinct entities with separate owners, managers, and facilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b)(1). . . .

TIBBS, v. ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF ILLINOIS COURTS,, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1015 (C.D. Ill. 2016)

. . . . § 825.106). . . .

T. GRASSO, v. GRASSO, 131 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Florida’s Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of Elderly Persons and Disabled Adults statute, §§ 825.101-825.106 . . .

WUYSCIK, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,, 126 F. Supp. 3d 507 (W.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . . § 825.106 (FMLA), which in these proceedings are to generally be determined by the DOL. . . . See, e.g., Enterprise, 683 F.3d at 468-9 (FLSA); see also 29 C.F.R. 825.106 (FMLA). . . . .

J. HAHN, v. OFFICE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL- CIO,, 107 F. Supp. 3d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . . § 825.106(c) (“[Ojnly the primary employer is responsible for giving required notices to its employees . . . of health benefits.”), and only a firing party is liable for discriminatory firing.- See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .

CUFF, v. TRANS STATES HOLDINGS, INC., 768 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . The joint-employment inquiry under § 825.106(a) is person-specific; it is possible for one person to . . . Regulation 825.106(a) supplies a list of factors to consider — all relevant, none dispositive. . . .

PORTER, v. FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE- MI, LLC LLC,, 26 F. Supp. 3d 694 (E.D. Mich. 2014)

. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . . § 825.106(a); see also Grace, 521 F.3d at 665. . . .

ARRIGO, v. LINK STOP, INC. E. LLC, s LLC d b a LLC,, 975 F. Supp. 2d 976 (W.D. Wis. 2013)

. . . . § 825.106 so that their number of employees could be combined in determining whether the 50-employee . . .

CUELLAR, v. KEPPEL AMFELS, L. L. C., 731 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . Id. § 825.106(c). . . . Id. § 825.106(c). . . . Id. § 825.106(e). . . . with a secondary employer may end and never be restored without any violation of the FMLA. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .

ARANGO, v. WORK WELL, INC., 930 F. Supp. 2d 940 (N.D. Ill. 2013)

. . . . §§ 825.104(c), 825.106(b)(2); see Baer v. . . .

DALTON, v. MANOR CARE OF WEST DES MOINES IA, LLC LLC HCR LLC, 986 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (S.D. Iowa 2013)

. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . found to exist when a temporary placement agency supplies employees to a second employer. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO,, 892 F. Supp. 2d 918 (S.D. Ohio 2012)

. . . . §§ 825.104(c), 825.106. The same regulations do not exist in the context of Title VII. . . . .

NEWSOME, v. YOUNG SUPPLY CO., 835 F. Supp. 2d 406 (E.D. Mich. 2011)

. . . determining that employee’s eligibility, when an employee is jointly employed by two or more employers (see § 825.106 . . . a)(3), however, provides that “when an employee is jointly employed by two or more employers (see § 825.106 . . .

CUFF, v. TRANS STATES HOLDINGS, INC. LLC, Ed, 816 F. Supp. 2d 556 (N.D. Ill. 2011)

. . . . § 825.106, and the “integrated employer” test, 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2). See Dey v. . . . employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . such, there was at least an implicit arrangement between Defendants to share his services. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .

VOLTAIRE, v. HOME SERVICES SYSTEMS, INC. H. A. N. A. C., 823 F. Supp. 2d 77 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . . § 825.106(a), Barbosa, 716 F.Supp.2d at 216. . . . instances in which “a joint employment relationship generally will be considered to exist.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . single criterion, but rather the entire relationship is to be viewed in its totality.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .

LEPKOWSKI, v. TELATRON MARKETING GROUP, INC., 766 F. Supp. 2d 572 (W.D. Pa. 2011)

. . . . § 825.106(b)(1)); Jacobson, 740 F.Supp.2d at 691-92. . . .

JACOBSON, v. COMCAST CORPORATION., 740 F. Supp. 2d 683 (D. Md. 2010)

. . . . § 825.106(b). III. A. Comcast unquestionably plays a role in hiring and firing technicians. . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 26 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 2009)

. . . the court, in the exercise of its discretion, shall take into consideration the dictates of sections 825.106 . . .

DiCARA, v. CONNECTICUT RIVERS COUNCIL,, 663 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D. Conn. 2009)

. . . . § 825.106(d) (“Employees jointly employed by two employers must be counted by both employers ... in . . . employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . Instead “the entire relationship is to be viewed in its totality.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b)(1). . . .

DOBROWSKI, v. JAY DEE CONTRACTORS, INC., 571 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 825.106. . . .

FREES, v. UA LOCAL PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS, a, 589 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (W.D. Wash. 2008)

. . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b). . . . See 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.106(c) & (e). . . . Id. at 950-53; see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b). . . . See 356 F.3d at 952-53; see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b). . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(c). . . .

N. MOLDENHAUER, v. TAZEWELL- PEKIN CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS CENTER,, 536 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . Remington Hybrid Seed Co., 495 F.3d 403, 408 (7th Cir.2007); 29 C.F.R. § 825.106. . . . The joint-employer regulation in the FLSA mirrors that in the FMLA, compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(a) with . . . found to exist when a temporary or leasing agency supplies employees to a second employer.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .

GRACE, v. USCAR LLC,, 521 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 825.106 [addressing joint employment] is entitled to deference, given that it is consistent with . . . businesses exercise some control over the work or working conditions of the employee.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . “may be separate and distinct entities with separate owners, managers, and facilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . See Mahoney, 444 F.Supp.2d at 1255-56 (applying the § 825.106 factors and determining that the staffing . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

C. TAYLOR, v. TEXACO, INC., 510 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (N.D. Ga. 2007)

. . . . § 825.106(a) notes that a joint employment relationship may exist where “an employee performs work . . . determined by any single criterion, but instead “the entire relationship is to be viewed in its totality.” § 825.106 . . .

ENGELHARDT, v. S. P. RICHARDS COMPANY, INC., 472 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006)

. . . another corporation, it is a separate employer unless it meets the “joint employment” test discussed in § 825.106 . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

E. MAHONEY, Sr. v. NOKIA, INC., 444 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2006)

. . . The facts of this case bring it within the purview of 29 C.F.R. section 825.106 (“Section 825.106”), . . . Section 825.106 addresses the distinction between primary and secondary employers in the context of a . . . Section 825.106 Factors 1) Aiáhority/responsibility to hire and fire Nokia played no role in Spherion . . . Therefore, the Court finds that Section 825.106(e) does not support Mahoney’s claim. IV. . . . 825.214 which, in turn, directs the reader to Section 825.106(e). . . .

HARRELL, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,, 445 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2006)

. . . See also § 825.106(e) for the obligations of joint employers. . . .

HARRELL, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,, 415 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2005)

. . . See also § 825.106(e) for the obligations of joint employers. . . .

E. HARBERT, v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC. a, 391 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 825.106(c). . . . Air France, 356 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir.2004); 29 C.F.R. 825.106. . . . determining that employee’s eligibility, when an employee is jointly employed by two or more employers (see § 825.106 . . . Section 825.106(a) states that two entities may be considered “joint employers” where they both exercise . . . Id. § 825.106(a). . . . Id. § 825.106(b). . . . Id. § 825.106(c). . . .

RUSSELL, v. BRONSON HEATING AND COOLING, BCN, 345 F. Supp. 2d 761 (E.D. Mich. 2004)

. . . . § 825.106, or the “integrated employer” test discussed in 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2). . . . Similarly, BHC cites 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(d) which describes the same scenario where a temporary help . . . The joint employment issue is addressed in 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 and it states: § 825.106 How is “joint . . . the existence of a “joint employment” relationship especially given explicit reference in 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . (BCN's Reply pg. 1). . 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b) states that "joint employment will ordinarily be found . . .

HOGE, v. HONDA OF AMERICA MFG. INC., 384 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . See also § 825.106(e) for the obligations of joint employers. . . .

L. MORRISON, v. MAGIC CARPET AVIATION, a RDV a a f. n. a., 383 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 825.106(a). . . .

SCHUBERT, v. BETHESDA HEALTH GROUP, INC., 319 F. Supp. 2d 963 (E.D. Mo. 2004)

. . . . § 825.106, which provides: (a) Where two or more businesses exercise some control over the work or . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b).” . . .

L. MORRISON, v. AMWAY CORPORATION, n k a, 336 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 825.106(a). The Court believes that the instant case fits none of those criteria. . . .

MOREAU, v. AIR FRANCE P. v., 356 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 825.106(a) & (b). . . . Id. at § 825.106(c). . . . . § 825.106(d). B. . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b). In a FLSA case, Bonnette v. . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(c). . . .

MOREAU, v. AIR FRANCE P. v., 343 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 825.106(a) & (b). . . . Id. at § 825.106(c). . . . . § 825.106(d). B. . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b). 1. . . . in the circumstances of this case, considering the entire relationship in its totality, 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .

CRUZ- LOVO, v. RYDER SYSTEM, INC., 298 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (S.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . §§ 825.104, 825.106. . . . The Joint Employment Theory The issue of joint employment liability is addressed in 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . Section 825.106(a) sets forth the three situations where separate employers may constitute a joint employer . . . employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . single employer of an employee provided they meet either the " 'joint employment' test discussed in § 825.106 . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 837 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2002)

. . . the court, in the exercise of its discretion, shall take into consideration the dictates of sections 825.106 . . .

E. HARBERT, v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., 173 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (D. Colo. 2001)

. . . . § 825.106(a) provides “[w]here two or more businesses exercise some eon-trol over the work or working . . . Id. at § 825.106(a)(1), (2), (3). . . . Id. at § 825.106(c). . . . Rather, both parties spend a great deal of energy analyzing the language of 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(a)(1) . . . addressing joint employment under the FLSA contains identical language to that used in 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 794 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 2000)

. . . the court, in the exercise of its discretion, shall take into consideration the dictates of sections 825.106 . . .

ALDERDICE, v. AMERICAN HEALTH HOLDING, INC., 118 F. Supp. 2d 856 (S.D. Ohio 2000)

. . . . § 825.106 and should be included in- AHH’s employee count for FMLA purposes. . . .

MILLER, v. DEFIANCE METAL PRODUCTS, INC., 989 F. Supp. 945 (N.D. Ohio 1997)

. . . or working conditions' of the employee, the businesses may be joint employers under FMLA.” 29 CFR § 825.106 . . . directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer in relation to the employee.” 29 CFR § 825.106 . . . ordinarily be found to exist when a temporary ... agency supplies employees to a second employer.” 29 CFR § 825.106 . . . counted by both employers ... in determining employer coverage and employee eligibility.” 29 CFR § 825.106 . . . joint employment is based upon the relationship as a whole and not on any single criterion. 29 CFR § 825.106 . . .

R. GAZDA, v. PIONEER CHLOR ALKALI COMPANY, INC., 10 F. Supp. 2d 656 (S.D. Tex. 1997)

. . . . § 825.106, or the "integrated employer” test in 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 685 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1996)

. . . The new subdivision, entitled “Motion to Expedite,” is added to comport with sections 825.106 and 918.0155 . . . the court, in the exercise of its discretion, shall take into consideration the dictates of sections 825.106 . . .