Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 7.03 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 7.03 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 7.03 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 7.03

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION
Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES
View Entire Chapter
7.03 Bay County.—The boundary lines of Bay County are as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of section eighteen in township two, north, range eleven, west; thence west on the section line to the southwest corner of section eighteen in township two, north, range twelve, west; thence south on the range line dividing ranges twelve and thirteen, west, to the Meridian base line; thence west on the base line to the thread of Pine Log Creek in range sixteen, west; thence southwesterly along the thread of said creek into the Choctawhatchee River to the thread of said river; thence southwesterly along the thread of said river to a point where said river intersects the range line dividing ranges seventeen and eighteen, west; thence south on said range line to the Gulf of America; thence in a southeastwardly direction following the meanderings of said gulf, including the waters of said gulf within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, including all islands opposite the shoreline to a point where range line dividing ranges eleven and twelve, west, intersects with said gulf; thence north on said range line to place of beginning.
History.—ss. 1, chs. 6505, 6506, 6508, 1913; RGS 15; CGL 17; s. 1, ch. 2025-8.

F.S. 7.03 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.03 on CourtListener

Amendments to 7.03


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 7.03

Total Results: 95  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Johnson Enter. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 162 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 1998).

Cited 255 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 37 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 244, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 31647, 1998 WL 886794

See E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts § 7.3, at 476 (2d ed. 1990). In this case, a merger clause
Copy

Michael Lee Sammons v. Maury Taylor, Six Unidentified Fbi Agents or Dep't of Just. Employees United States of Am., 967 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1992).

Cited 131 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 18033, 1992 WL 172394

Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 7.3(c), at 91 (2d ed. 1987). However, following the
Copy

Jimmy Ledford v. Shelby Peeples, Jr., 657 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2011).

Cited 91 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

assistance in funding the Put and Call. Citing § 7.3 of the Operating Agreement, which authorized the
Copy

Cmty. State Bank v. Strong, 651 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2011).

Cited 85 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17767, 2011 WL 3715769

Ga.Code Ann. § 7-3-1 et seq., by failing to be licensed under the statute, id. § 7-3-8,[4] and charging
Copy

In Re Jlj Inc., D/B/A All Am. Trade Day, Debtor. Karen B. Rush v. Jlj Inc., D/B/A All Am. Trade Day, Rush Bldg. Co., Inc., 988 F.2d 1112 (11th Cir. 1993).

Cited 72 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 8347, 1993 WL 97595

Code § 7-3-202(2) allows an agent to indorse instruments for the principal, and Alabama Code § 7-3-401(2)
Copy

Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., as Receiver of Twin City Sav., Fsa v. Robert L. McCullough & Mary Nan McCullough, 911 F.2d 593 (11th Cir. 1990).

Cited 58 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 15736, 1990 WL 120740

McCulloughs now complain. See 1975 Ala.Code § 7-3-304(4)(d). More significantly, the McCulloughs’
Copy

CafÉ Erotica of Florida, Inc., a Florida Corp., CafÉ Erotica / We Dare to Bare / Adult Toys / Great Food / Exit 94, Inc., a Florida Corp., Plaintiffs-counter-defendant-appellees v. St. Johns Cnty., a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant-counter-claimant-appellant. Cafe erotica/we Dare to bare/adult toys/great food/exit 94, Inc., a Florida Corp. v. St. Johns Cnty., a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, 360 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2004).

Cited 38 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 3243

...it not imposed on similarly situated businesses. 2 4 Both district courts permanently enjoined the County from enforcing Ordinance 99-51 and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Each district court declared Sections 7.00.01, 3 7.00.08, 4 and 7.03.01 5 of Ordinance 99-51 unconstitutional, and determined that these sections could not be severed from the rest of Article VII of the LDC....
...(quoting Naturist Soc'y, Inc. v. Fillyaw, 958 F.2d 1515, 1520 (11th Cir.1992)). Thus, we consider only the constitutionality of Ordinance 99-51 in this appeal. Specifically, we consider appellees' facial challenges to sections 7.00.01, 7.00.08, and 7.03.01 of Ordinance 99-51, taking into account other provisions that may affect the constitutionality of those provisions....
...Off-premise signs, by contrast, contain similar advertisements for a product or business that is not located or furnished on the property where the sign is erected. See LDC § 12.01.00. 3. POLITICAL MESSAGE SIGNS 18 "Political message signs" are regulated under a third category of signs called "special use signs." LDC § 7.03.00....
...ment message and not containing a commercial message." LDC § 12.01.00 (emphasis added). Under this definition, the separate requirements for "political message signs" appear to govern all non-commercial signs. Political message signs are limited by § 7.03.01(L) to between six and thirty-two square feet....
...775 (upholding an ordinance listing thirteen specific grounds under which a permit application may be denied, none of which "has anything to do with what a speaker might say"). 13 36 VI. APPLICABLE FIRST AMENDMENT FRAMEWORK FOR CONTENT BASED ANALYSIS 37 We now consider whether § 7.03.01, which limits "political message signs" to thirty-two square feet, impermissibly favors commercial messages over non-commercial ones....
...Louwsma, 970 F.2d 797, 799 (11th Cir.1992) ("a precisely drawn statute dealing with a specific subject controls over a statute covering a more generalized spectrum"). 45 Second, the County's interpretation, which would allow purely political messages to be displayed on billboards, is inconsistent with LDC § 7.03.01(L). Section 7.03.01(L) states in its entirety, "political message signs [are] limited to thirty-two (32) square feet, except those in residential districts which shall not exceed six (6) square feet....
...Johns County sign Ordinance, codified as Article VII of the St. Johns County LDC. X. CONCLUSION 61 We reverse the district courts' ruling that § 7.00.01 27 and § 7.00.08 28 are facially unconstitutional. We affirm the district courts' ruling that § 7.03.01 29 of Ordinance 99-51 is facially unconstitutional and cannot be severed from the rest of Article VII of the LDC....
...The County issued a notice of violation on January 30, 2001. The sign has since been removed 3 Section 7.00.01 sets forth the time limits in which St. Johns County must approve or deny a sign permit 4 Section 7.00.08 describes the appeals process and sets time limits for challenging a permit denial 5 Section 7.03.01 sets forth the requirements for "special use signs," and specifically limits "political message signs" to thirty-two square feet, or six square feet if located in a residential district 6 The district court in We Dare to Bare granted...
...manner regulation. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. at 790 , 109 S.Ct. 2746 . 19 But note that under Ordinance 99-51, "political message signs" can be no larger than thirty-two square feet, while billboards can be as large as 560 square feet See LDC §§ 7.03.01(L), 7.01.03(A)....
...71 On the first point, the plain text of the St. John's ordinance permits both commercial and political messages on billboards, which can be as large as 560 square feet. Section 7.01.03 regulates the size of billboards and contains no reference to the content. Section 7.03.01, by contrast, regulates special use signs....
...The most natural reading of the ordinance, however, leads to a different interpretation. Billboards, as large as 560 square feet, may contain political or commercial messages under § 7.01.03. Other signs bearing political messages are allowed in addition to billboards, but are limited to 32 square feet under § 7.03.01. In short, the political message signs provision in § 7.03.01 does not limit the size of political messages on billboards, but simply permits signs other than billboards....
Copy

Panama City Med. Diagnostic Ltd. v. Williams, 13 F.3d 1541 (11th Cir. 1994).

Cited 38 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 2487

"designated health services," defined by the Act in section 7(3)(d) to mean "clinical laboratory services, physical
Copy

Senco of Florida, Inc. v. Clark, 473 F. Supp. 902 (M.D. Fla. 1979).

Cited 26 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13526

accordance with the aforesaid requirements: "Section 7.3. No part of the assets of the Trust shall be
Copy

APA Excelsior III L.P. v. Premiere Tech., Inc., 476 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2007).

Cited 26 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 2269, 2007 WL 286258

Thomas Lee Hazen, The Law of Securities Regulation § 7.3[4], at 587 (4th ed.2002); accord Barnes, SIS
Copy

Leasing Serv. Corp. v. River City Constr., Inc., & Welborn Dent, 743 F.2d 871 (11th Cir. 1984).

Cited 17 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1054, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17891

in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. Ala.Code § 7-3-305; Ga.Code Ann. § 109A-9-305; N.Y.U. C.C. § 3-305
Copy

Richard M. Hanley v. Nicholas Daniel Roy, 485 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2007).

Cited 14 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9894, 2007 WL 1238537

so acting.” Guardianship of Infants Act of 1964, § 7(3). If the surviving parent objects, “the testamentary
Copy

Nellen v. State, 226 So. 2d 354 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969).

Cited 12 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

14 Am.Jur.2d 779, Certiorari, § 2. [4] Art. V, § 7(3), Constitution of Florida. [5] Rule 1.230(e), Fla
Copy

State Ex Rel. Booth v. Byington, 168 So. 2d 164 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964).

Cited 12 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

estates of decedents, as in the instant case. Section 7(3), Article V, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A.
Copy

In Re the Complaint of Sheen, 709 F. Supp. 1123 (S.D. Fla. 1989).

Cited 12 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1989 A.M.C. 1345, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3143, 1989 WL 29327

(citing Gilmore & Black, The Law of Admiralty, section 7-3 at 488 (2d ed. 1975)). From these guidelines
Copy

Two Trees v. Builders Transp., Inc., 471 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2006).

Cited 12 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 29747, 47 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 122, 2006 WL 3490844

Id. The lease agreement provides in section 7.3 that the letter of credit secured the rent and
Copy

Bambrick v. Bambrick, 165 So. 2d 449 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964).

Cited 11 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

jurisdiction under the provisions of Article V, § 7(3), Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., to appoint the
Copy

Moore v. Pennsylvania Castle Energy Corp., 89 F.3d 791 (11th Cir. 1996).

Cited 11 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 18781, 1996 WL 396332

See also II Farnsworth on Contracts § 7.3, at 204-07 (1990). Stated differently, the absence
Copy

Colonial Life & Accident Ins. v. Hartford Fire Ins., 358 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2004).

Cited 11 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1751, 2004 WL 213193

involved.” Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 7(3) (1971). We agree with Judge De Ment’s holding
Copy

City of Winter Park v. Jones, 392 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17292

City, was convicted in county court of violating § 7-3 of the City's Code of Ordinances by operating his
Copy

White v. Reserve Ins. Co., 299 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

plaintiff's attorney." (Laws of 1971, Ch. 71-252, § 7(3)(b). Emphasis added.) The equivalent language found
Copy

Life Concepts, Inc. v. Harden, 562 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2886, 1990 WL 51693

court entered a summary judgment finding that section 7.3(9)(c)(1) of the City of Apopka Zoning Code is
Copy

Calvin Steele v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 783 F.2d 1016 (11th Cir. 1986).

Cited 8 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 37217

through July 26, it contends that under O.C.G.A. § 7-3-17 it properly calculated the amount of the interest
Copy

In Re DuVal's Est., 174 So. 2d 580 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965).

Cited 8 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

money judgment against appellees. Article V, Section 7(3), Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., vests the
Copy

Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, a P'ship v. United States, 802 F.2d 1323 (11th Cir. 1986).

Cited 6 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 32413

order or to bearer or in blank. Alabama Code § 7-3-202: (1) Negotiation is the transfer of an
Copy

In Re Est. of Biederman, 161 So. 2d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964).

Cited 6 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

155 Fla. 45, 19 So.2d 563. Pursuant to Article V, § 7(3), Fla. Const., 26 F.S.A., the County Judge's Court
Copy

Hirsch v. Jupiter Golf Club LLC, 232 F. Supp. 3d 1243 (S.D. Fla. 2017).

Cited 6 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2017 WL 448952, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56798

(citing E. Allen Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts, § 7.3, at 228 (2d ed.1998)). Accordingly, the Court may
Copy

Ledford v. Peeples, 605 F.3d 871 (11th Cir. 2010).

Cited 5 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9327, 2010 WL 1796568

assistance in funding the Put and Call. Citing § 7.3 of the Operating Agreement, which authorized the
Copy

Dzikowski v. Edmonds (In Re Cameron), 223 B.R. 20 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1998).

Cited 5 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 263, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 693

the creator." N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts ("EPTL") § 7-3.1(a) (McKinney 1997) (formerly Personal Property
Copy

In Re Joe Morgan, Inc., 985 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1993).

Cited 5 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 20 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 401, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 5198

court concluded that UCON was an HDC under Ala.Code § 7-3-302 with respect to the checks sent to UCON from
Copy

Cedar Cove Efficiency Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. CEDAR COVE PROP. INC., 558 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

authority to maintain condominium exteriors. Section 7.3 authorizes the association to maintain and replace
Copy

Garrison v. City of Lakeland, 954 F. Supp. 246 (M.D. Fla. 1997).

Cited 5 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2650, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1430, 1997 WL 57162

employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in [Section 7]." [3] Although originally not a party this action
Copy

In Re Brown's Est., 134 So. 2d 290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961).

Cited 4 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

property involved exceeds one hundred dollars. Section 7(3) of Article V of the Constitution. It has no
Copy

Xerox Corp. v. Smartech Document Mgmt., 979 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 4179413

thereby excepted as well from the requirements of Section 7.3 [the arbitration clause], are disputes regarding:
Copy

In Re Shepherd's Est., 130 So. 2d 888 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961).

Cited 4 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

pertinent to the problem before us, Article V, section 7(3), Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., specifies:
Copy

Williams v. Gateway Ins. Co., 331 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1976).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4310

plaintiff's attorney" (Laws of 1971, Ch. 71-252, § 7(3)(b). Emphasis added.) We read these two paragraphs
Copy

Witten v. Pitman, 613 F. Supp. 63 (S.D. Fla. 1985).

Cited 3 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24071

crossing into the United States, we turn to 18 U.S.C. § 7(3) which defines "territorial jurisdiction" (as used
Copy

Hagberg v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 321 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (N.D. Fla. 2004).

Cited 3 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11324, 2004 WL 1368396

(AR 1031), Group Disability Income Policy, Section 7. [3] Under Liberty's policy, Plaintiff is eligible
Copy

Paul B. Tartell, M.D. v. South Florida Sinus & Allergy Ctr., Inc., 790 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2015).

Cited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 115 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1268, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10567, 2015 WL 3857338

McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 7.3 (4th ed.2009) (“[T]he prominence of a word or symbol
Copy

Cari v. Erickson, 394 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

probate court has exclusive jurisdiction (Art. V, § 7(3), Fla. Const.) to award attorneys' fees in the settling
Copy

Panama City Med. Diagnostic Ltd. v. Williams, 13 F.3d 1541 (11th Cir. 1994).

Cited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1994 WL 23231

“designated health services,” defined by the Act in section 7(3)(d) to mean “clinical laboratory services, physical
Copy

Ledford v. Peeples, 630 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2011).

Cited 2 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

assistance in funding the Put and Call. Citing § 7.3 of the Operating Agreement, which authorized the
Copy

In Re Apache Prods. Co., 293 B.R. 545 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2003).

Cited 2 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 126, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 531, 2003 WL 21289973

Eagle against the Debtor and Jasper pursuant to section 7.3(a) of the Asset Agreement. Moreover, the Lease
Copy

Bar-Ram Irrigation Prods. v. Phenix-Girard Bank, Shalom Irrigation, Inc., 779 F.2d 1501 (11th Cir. 1986).

Cited 2 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 937, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 21741

required by Alabama law, which provides in Ala.Code § 7-3-410(1) (1975): Acceptance is the drawee’s signed
Copy

White v. State, 710 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1998).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1998 WL 79060

see also 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 7.3(b), at 83 (2d ed.1987). For all these reasons, we
Copy

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. G7 Advisory Servs., LLC, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (S.D. Fla. 2005).

Cited 2 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38209, 2005 WL 3577149

Stat. 1000 (1922)(codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. § 7(3)(4))). Congress amended the Grain Futures Act in
Copy

In re Dahl, 125 So. 2d 332 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960).

Cited 2 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2244

pertaining to courts of probate.” Article 5, section 7(3), Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A
Copy

Nikooie v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 183 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20020, 2014 WL 6911148

the Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages section 7.3 recognizes, a mortgage refinanced with a new
Copy

Varner v. Century Fin. Co., 738 F.2d 1143 (11th Cir. 1984).

Cited 2 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1047

amount and 4% on any excess. Off. Code Ga.Ann. § 7-3-14(2). Presumably Termplan’s disclosure was an attempt
Copy

Cmty. State Bank v. Strong, 651 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2007).

Cited 2 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2011 WL 3715769

violations of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act, O.C.G.A. § 7-3-1,et seq.; the Georgia Usury Statute, O.C.G.A. §
Copy

Suntrust Bank v. Nichols, 701 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 608558

statutes applicable here. Id. at 686 (citing Art. V, § 7(3), Fla. Const. (1868)). The currently applicable
Copy

Goodman v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 240 So. 2d 496 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 75 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2552, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5601

participation in the plan were as follows: "Section 7.3 — Partially Vested Accounts In the event that
Copy

Julian Depot Miami, LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 364 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2018).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida

Home Depot points to one provision of the Lease-section 7.3-that explicitly absolves Home Depot of the obligation
Copy

Gettinger v. Gettinger, 157 So. 2d 692 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

pertaining to courts of probate.” Fla.Const, art. 5, § 7(3), F.S.A. Under this broad grant, these courts have
Copy

Hanley v. Roy, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30924, 2006 WL 1302449

with the grandparents as is his right under section 7(3). 1. Guardianship vs. Custody In Ireland, there
Copy

Ledford v. Peeples, 630 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2009).

Cited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2011 WL 149890

assistance in funding the Put and Call. Citing Section 7.3 of the Operating Agreement, which authorized
Copy

MAVERICK MEDIA Grp. v. Hillsborough Cnty., Fla., 508 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (M.D. Fla. 2007).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35731, 2007 WL 1455963

...The ordinance set forth regulations governing four categories of signs: (1) signs exempt from the permit requirement; (2) signs expressly prohibited; (3) permitted temporary signs; and (4) permitted permanent signs. See, e.g., §§ 7.01.00, 7.02.00, 7.03.00, 7.04.00....
...These included, among others, building and road construction signs; subdivision signs; signs announcing public or semi-public events and functions; signs announcing temporary, seasonal and new businesses; and certain on-site flags and balloons. See § 7.03.02....
...ng the right of free speech and expression in the display of signs. (Doc. 18, Ex. 1 at § 7.00.02). [12] The new regulations address nonconforming signs and still contain categories of permitted, exempt, and prohibited signs, see id. at §§ 7.01.00-7.03.00, but there are notable changes and omissions in each....
...Off-premises signs still are prohibited, see id. at § 7.02.02(J), but billboards are not listed as such. [13] On-premises signs are permitted, but there are maximum sign areas for building signs and maximum height requirements for ground signs. See id. at § 7.03.00(A), (B)....
...e decoration); 7.01.00(R) (which fails to contain objective standards as to what groups fall within public, charitable, educational or religious institutions); 7.02.02(R)(1) (which allows officials discretion to determine whether a sign is obscene); 7.03.02(D) (which fails to *1144 reference what types of signs qualify as "public" or "semi-public" signs); and 7.03.02(F) (which gives officials discretion to determine whether flags and balloon signs "may" be temporarily permitted)....
...ctions of the old regulations are unconstitutional content-based provisions. See (Docs. 93 at 3-5, 97 at 17-20) (citing to, among other sections, §§ 7.01.00(C), 7.01.00(D), 7.01.00(K), 7.01.00(L), 7.01.00(R), 7.02.02(B), 7.02.02(D), 7.02.02(R)(1), 7.03.02(D), 7.05.02(B)(3), 7.05.02(B)(6))....
Copy

Donald Frederick Evans & Assocs., Inc. v. Cont'l Homes, Inc., 785 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1986).

Cited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 54 U.S.L.W. 2582, 229 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 321, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 23620

Unit B 1981);19 see also 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.03, at 7-11 — 7-12. Evans did not include such a condition
Copy

Palmer v. State, 448 So. 2d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12663

Whitebread, Constitutional Criminal Procedure, § 7.3 at 110-114. The converse of this proposition, however
Copy

Bird v. Eastman Kodak Co., 390 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (M.D. Fla. 2005).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28415, 2005 WL 1054450

...The Plan in effect in 1997 did allow a participant in retiree status (as was John Bird) to change his contingent annuitant under certain circumstances, or to add a new contingent annuitant if his prior designated contingent annuitant predeceased him. The requirements for such changes as of 1997 are provided in Plan § 7.03(g)(3): Participant's Right to Revoke the Form of Payment After the Annuity/Benefit Starting Date....
...tive date of the election, which is the first day of the second month following the month in which KRIPCO receives satisfactory evidence of the good health of the Participant and/or the Contingent Annuitant, whichever is appropriate. (1997 Plan Doc. § 7.03(g)(3) [EK00230].) The Summary Plan Description ("SPD") similarly states: Changes in forms of payment: You may change your form of payment before you begin receiving benefit payments by contacting Benefits information....
...After consideration of these documents, Ms. Metras determined that Plaintiff could not be considered a "contingent annuitant" under the Plan's terms and thus was not eligible to receive a benefit as John Bird's surviving spouse. Ms. Metras reviewed and interpreted § 7.03(g)(3) of the Plan document in effect in July 1997, as well as the SPD in effect at that time, as clearly stating the requirement that proof of good health must be submitted by either the participant or the survivor, "whichever is appropriate." [5] ( See 1997 Plan Doc. § 7.03(g)(3) [EK00115]; 1995 SPD at 122 [EK00488] (change of contingent annuitant "will depend upon" providing satisfactory proof of good health).) Ms....
...Metras reviewed, interpreted, and applied the Plan's language governing changes to a participant's contingent annuitant. Because John Bird began receiving benefits in 1979, Ms. Metras found that any change to his contingent annuitant in 1997 would be governed by § 7.03(g)(3) of the Plan, then in effect, which provided the requirements for changes to a participant's contingent annuitant made after his Annuity Starting Date....
...tive date of the election, which is the first day of the second month following the month in which KRIPCO receives satisfactory evidence of the good health of the participant and/or the contingent annuitant, whichever is appropriate. (1997 Plan Doc. § 7.03(g)(3) [EK00230].) Based on these terms, Ms....
...by him) in 1998 are interpretations of an ambiguous Plan provision. The Plan document and SPD contain a clear and unambiguous requirement that a proof of good health be completed before a participant may designate a new "contingent annuitant." (Plan § 7.03(g)(3)) (Committee must "receive[] satisfactory evidence of the good health of the Participant and/or the Contingent Annuitant, whichever is appropriate"); SPD at 122 ("Any changes you wish to make ......
Copy

In re Est. of McVay, 226 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5350

boundaries of real estate * * * ”. Article V, Section 7(3) of the Constitution provides that “[t]he county
Copy

Managed Care Advisory Grp., LLC v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc. (11th Cir. 2019).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Drummond and Rouse did not consider orders under § 7.3 Instead, Drummond states the general rule that
Copy

Williams & Reed, Inc. v. Chase, 227 So. 2d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5028

Const. art. V, § 6(3), F.S.A.; Fla.Const. art. V, § 7(3); F.S. 1967, Section 36.01, F.S.A.; F.S.1967, Section
Copy

Michaels v. Dillon, 191 So. 2d 80 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4991

property involved exceeds one hundred dollars. Section 7 (3) of Article V of the Constitution. It has no
Copy

Kaplan v. Kaplan, 744 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14768, 1999 WL 1004652

should it subsequently appear that one of the section 7^3.07(2) exceptions is applicable. Hunter, 626 So
Copy

Sire Plan, Inc. v. Brown, 134 So. 2d 290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

property involved exceeds one hundred dollars. Section 7(3) of Article V of the Constitution. It has no
Copy

Donaldson v. Brainard, 147 So. 2d 552 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

pertaining to courts of probate.” F.S.A.Const. art. 5, § 7(3). See sections 36.01(1), (3), and 732.01, F.S.A
Copy

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1998).

Published | Florida Attorney General Reports

96-519, Laws of Fla. 4 Section 7(3)(d), Ch. 96-519, Laws of Fla. 5 Section 7(3)(a), Ch. 96-519, Laws of
Copy

Ledford v. Peeples, 568 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14168, 2009 WL 1425256

assistance in funding the Put and Call. Citing Section 7.3 of the Operating Agreement, which authorized
Copy

Util. Contractors Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Amsouth Bank N.A. (In re Joe Morgan, Inc.), 985 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1993).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

court concluded that UCON was an HDC under Ala.Code § 7-3-302 with respect to the checks sent to UCON from
Copy

Loy v. Shepherd, 130 So. 2d 888 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 2782

pertinent to the problem before us, Article V, section 7(3), Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., specifies:
Copy

Morris v. Nat'l Football League Ret. Bd., 833 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (S.D. Fla. 2011).

Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 51 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1161, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69379, 2011 WL 2580782

6.3 governs line-of-duty disability claims. Section 7.3 governs benefit payments upon death. After considering
Copy

Edward A. Crapo, in his capacity as Alachua Cnty. Prop. Appraiser v. Academy for Five Element Acupuncture, Inc., a Florida Non-Profit Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

circuit court litigation. See § 194.036(3), Fla. Stat. 7 (3) Circuit Court Jurisdiction Two important
Copy

Godwin v. Solutia, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (N.D. Fla. 2002).

Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 28 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2449, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16332, 2002 WL 1837851

Participant's Accounts in the manner provided by Section 7.3 commencing as of the first day of the month coinciding
Copy

Garvey v. Garvey, 212 So. 2d 790 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5349

hold that, pursuant to the provisions of Art. V, § 7(3), Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A.,
Copy

Café Erotica of Florida, Inc. v. St. Johns Cnty., 360 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2004).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...not imposed on similarly situated businesses.2 Both district courts permanently enjoined the County from enforcing Ordinance 99-51 and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Each district court declared Sections 7.00.01,3 7.00.08,4 and 7.03.015 of Ordinance 99-51 unconstitutional, and determined that these sections could not be severed from the rest of Article VII of the LDC.6 The district courts confined their analyses to Ordinance 99-51....
...The sign has since been removed. 3 Section 7.00.01 sets forth the time limits in which St. Johns County must approve or deny a sign permit. 4 Section 7.00.08 describes the appeals process and sets time limits for challenging a permit denial. 5 Section 7.03.01 sets forth the requirements for “special use signs,” and specifically limits “political message signs” to thirty-two square feet, or six square feet if located in a residential district. 6 The district court in...
...moot.’”) (quoting Naturist Soc’y, Inc. v. Fillyaw, 958 F.2d 1515, 1520 (11th Cir. 1992)). Thus, we consider only the constitutionality of Ordinance 99-51 in this appeal. Specifically, we consider appellees’ facial challenges to sections 7.00.01, 7.00.08, and 7.03.01 of Ordinance 99-51, taking into account other provisions that may affect the constitutionality of those provisions. Appellees assert two facial challenges....
...r furnished on the property where the sign is erected. See LDC § 12.01.00. 3. POLITICAL MESSAGE SIGNS “Political message signs” are regulated under a third category of signs called “special use signs.” LDC § 7.03.00....
...DC § 12.01.00 (emphasis added). Under this definition, the separate requirements for “political message signs” appear to govern all non-commercial signs. Political message signs are limited by § 10 7.03.01(L) to between six and thirty-two square feet....
...on-premise signs. LDC §§ 7.00.01, 7.02.01. 19 do with what a speaker might say”).13 VI. APPLICABLE FIRST AMENDMENT FRAMEWORK FOR CONTENT BASED ANALYSIS We now consider whether § 7.03.01, which limits “political message signs” to thirty-two square feet, impermissibly favors commercial messages over non- commercial ones....
...opinion or endorsement message and not containing a commercial message,” 19 But note that under Ordinance 99-51, “political message signs” can be no larger than thirty-two square feet, while billboards can be as large as 560 square feet. See LDC §§ 7.03.01(L), 7.01.03(A). 24 which by its terms encapsulates all signs carrying a non-commercial message, and then restricts such signs to sizes far below that allowed for billboards....
...Dec. 4, 2002) (order granting summary judgment). 25 Second, the County’s interpretation, which would allow purely political messages to be displayed on billboards, is inconsistent with LDC § 7.03.01(L). Section 7.03.01(L) states in its entirety, “political message signs [are] limited to thirty-two (32) square feet, except those in residential districts which shall not exceed six (6) square feet.” (emphasis added)....
...Johns County sign Ordinance, codified as Article VII of the St. Johns County LDC. X. CONCLUSION We reverse the district courts’ ruling that § 7.00.0127 and § 7.00.0828 are facially unconstitutional. We affirm the district courts’ ruling that § 7.03.0129 of Ordinance 99-51 is facially unconstitutional and cannot be severed from the rest of Article VII of the LDC....
...On the first point, the plain text of the St. John’s ordinance permits both commercial and political messages on billboards, which can be as large as 560 square feet. Section 7.01.03 regulates the size of billboards and contains no reference to the content. Section 7.03.01, by contrast, regulates special use signs. That section does not apply to billboards and expands the areas where political signs may be placed....
...The most natural reading of the ordinance, however, leads to a different interpretation. Billboards, as large as 560 square feet, may contain political or commercial messages under § 7.01.03. Other signs bearing political messages are allowed in addition to billboards, but are limited to 32 square feet under § 7.03.01. In short, the political message signs provision in § 7.03.01 does not limit the size of political messages on billboards, but simply permits signs other than billboards....
Copy

Florida Env't Servs., Inc. v. Rentoumis, 950 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2396, 2007 WL 517667

Section VII is entitled “Purchase and Sale.” In section 7.03, it defines the purchase price which included
Copy

Bryant v. Small, 258 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7247

matter of the validity of the deed. Cf. Art. V § 7(3) with Art. V § 6(3), 1968 Constitution of the State
Copy

Gen. Am. Life Ins. v. AmSouth Bank, 100 F.3d 893 (11th Cir. 1996).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 31 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 482, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31050, 1996 WL 665612

prove apparent authority. See Ala. Code § 7-3-307(l)(a) (1993). 1 AmSouth failed
Copy

Johnson v. Telesat Cablevision, 162 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 1998).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

merger clause. See E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts § 7.3, at 476 (2d ed. 1990). In this case, a merger clause
Copy

Lizzie Davis v. Oasis Legal Fin. Operating Co., LLC (11th Cir. 2019).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

16-17-1 et seq., Industrial Loan Act, O.C.G.A. § 7-3-1 et seq., and usury laws, O.C.G.A. § 7-4-18. The
Copy

Cmty. State Bank v. James Strong (11th Cir. 2011).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Ga. Code Ann. § 7-3-1 et seq., by failing to be licensed under the statute, id. § 7-3-8,4 and charging
Copy

Loumpos v. Raymond James & Assocs., Inc., Bank One (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ownership, in Basic Estate Planning in Florida, § 7.3(A) (Fla. Bar. CLE 10th ed. 2020)). To satisfy those
Copy

Stockton v. First Union Nat'l Bank of Florida, 700 So. 2d 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 33 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 562, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9473, 1997 WL 528279

Fonseca, The Law of Modern Commercial Practices § 7:3 (1981); White and Summers, Uniform Commercial Code
Copy

Taylor v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., Bd. of Med. Examiners, 493 So. 2d 498 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1825, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9424

pertaining to courts of probate within the meaning of section 7(3), article V, Florida Constitution (1885). Regarding
Copy

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 2005).

Published | Florida Attorney General Reports

69A-60, Fla. Admin. C. 4 And see NFPA 25-19 section 7.3.2. ("Hydrants shall be tested annually to ensure
Copy

Craft v. Est. of Craft, 276 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1973).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4543

allegedly inherently construed Fla.Const., art. V, § 7(3), F.S.A. (repealed January 1, 1973), as to the jurisdiction
Copy

First Nat'l Bank in Fort Lauderdale v. Moon, 234 So. 2d 402 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6522

judge’s court is set forth under the Fla. Const. § 7(3), art. V, F.S.A., with F.S. § 732.01, F.S.A., utilizing
Copy

DuVal v. Kirk, 174 So. 2d 580 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4105

money judgment against appellees. Article V, Section 7(3), Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., vests the
Copy

Cmty. State Bank v. Strong, 485 F.3d 597 (11th Cir. 2007).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9577, 2007 WL 1225343

violations of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act, O.C.G.A. § 7-3-1, et seq.; the Georgia Usury Statute, O.C.G.A.
Copy

City of Miami Beach v. Austin Burke, Inc., 185 So. 2d 720 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5280

price as listed in the inventory required under Section 7.3(e) hereof, or the value thereof, or the quality
Copy

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach, 18 F.3d 1536 (11th Cir. 1994).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

arise....” Highland Beach, Fla., Ordinance No. 338, § 7.3 (emphasis added). Because the Commission’s interpretation'of
Copy

horizon/cms Healthcare v. S. Oaks, 732 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 218410

contracted. The pertinent contracts provided in section 7.3 "Causes of Dissolution": In addition to the causes
Copy

Patricia W. Buce v. Nat'l Serv. Indus., 247 F.3d 1133 (11th Cir. 2001).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 25 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2441, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 6050, 2001 WL 357091

...dissent) continued allegiance to "accidental means," noted that, "as of 1992, 22 jurisdictions, including California, expressly recognized the distinction between 'accidental means' and 'accidental death' (3 Harnett & Lesnick, [The Law of Life and Health Insurance], § 7.03[1], pp....
Copy

Patricia W. Buce v. Nat'l Serv. Indus., 247 F.3d 1133 (11th Cir. 2001).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...accidental means,” noted that, “as of 1992, 22 jurisdictions, including California, expressly recognized the distinction between ‘accidental means’ and ‘accidental death’ (3 Harnett & Lesnick, [The Law of Life and Health Insurance], § 7.03[1], pp....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.