Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 14.01 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 14.01 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 14.01 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 14.01

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Chapter 14
GOVERNOR
View Entire Chapter
14.01 Governor; residence; office; authority to protect life, liberty, and property.—The Governor shall reside at the head of government, and the Governor’s office shall be in the capitol. The Governor may have such other offices within the state as he or she may deem necessary. The Governor may employ as many persons as he or she, in his or her discretion, may deem necessary to procure and secure protection to life, liberty, and property of the inhabitants of the state, also to protect the property of the state.
History.—ch. 1660, 1868; RS 68; GS 69; RGS 83; CGL 104; s. 1, ch. 65-54; s. 32, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 14.01 on Google Scholar

F.S. 14.01 on CourtListener

Amendments to 14.01


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 14.01

Total Results: 63  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Bobby Williams v. Larry Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370 (11th Cir. 1982).

Cited 342 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 35 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 251, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24482

.. ” Ala. Code § 14-1-10 (1975). This argument fails, however, because section 14-1-10 was in effect
Copy

Daniel Clark Medberry v. James Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003).

Cited 213 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 24015, 2003 WL 22784246

to testify. Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 73, 81-82 (codified as amended at 28 U.S
Copy

James Dwight Thomas v. James Crosby, 371 F.3d 782 (11th Cir. 2004).

Cited 158 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10367, 2004 WL 1162208

States.... Judiciary Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 73, 81-82. The Supreme Court interpreted
Copy

United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2008).

Cited 120 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2008 WL 2262318

See 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 14.1(a), at 416-18 (2d ed.2003). This appeal concerns
Copy

Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993).

Cited 83 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida

omitted). [7] 3 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 14-1.4 (2d ed. 1980). [8] The defendant should be told
Copy

Us Fire Ins. Co. v. Jsub, Inc., 979 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2007).

Cited 82 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...117, 621 S.E.2d 33, 35-36 (2005). Rather, I caution that CGL coverage claims for those things other than the originally intended tort liability to third parties should be viewed with a cautious and suspect eye. See, e.g., 2 Jeffrey W. Stempel, Stempel on Insurance Contracts, § 14.01[B], at 14-17 (3d ed....
Copy

Gerald Eugene Stano, Cross-Appellee v. Richard L. Dugger, Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., Cross-Appellant, 921 F.2d 1125 (11th Cir. 1991).

Cited 74 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 32, 1991 WL 629

assistance of counsel. Standards for Criminal Justice § 14-1.4 (1982) (emphasis added). The federal courts have
Copy

Citibank, N.A. v. Citibanc Grp., Inc., 724 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir. 1984).

Cited 65 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 222 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 292, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25416

proof of secondary meaning. 1 McCarthy, supra, § 14:1, at 483. Where the historical use of a geographic
Copy

Turquitt v. Jefferson Cnty., 137 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1998).

Cited 54 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5870

to the Alabama Board of Corrections. Ala.Code § 14-1-1.1
Copy

In Re May, 12 B.R. 618 (N.D. Fla. 1980).

Cited 51 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 4287

...While recognizing that the development of the law in the United States strongly indicates that the original and fundamental purpose of bankruptcy is the liquidation of the debtor's estate and not his discharge, in recent years the discharge aspects have become of great importance. 1A Collier § 14.01[6]. As further stated in 1A Collier § 14.01[6] at p....
Copy

21 Emp. Benefits Cas. 1625, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23936c, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 294 Harry L. Hunt v. Hawthorne Assocs., Inc., E. Air Lines Variable Benefit Ret. Plan for Pilots Trust Admin. Comm. of the E. Airlines Variable Benefit Ret. Plan for Pilots, 119 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 1997).

Cited 51 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

be formally amended. The closest provision is § 14.1, which states that Eastern and ALPA must agree
Copy

Rosen v. Trw, Inc., 979 F.2d 191 (11th Cir. 1992).

Cited 50 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 377, 16 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1101, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32315

7 Amended Executive Security Program § 14.1. The ESP also states that the Committee shall
Copy

Maryland Cas. Co. v. Krasnek, 174 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1965).

Cited 42 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida

Section 12 (1932); Restatement, Restitution, Section 14(1); 5 Williston on Contracts, Section 1579 (1937)
Copy

United States v. Vytautas Gecas, 120 F.3d 1419 (11th Cir. 1997).

Cited 33 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 22619, 1997 WL 525431

Kingdom. See Civil Evidence Act, 1968, ch. 64, § 14(1) (Eng.); see also Law Reform Committee, Sixteenth
Copy

Investacorp, Inc. v. Arabian Inv. Banking Corp. (Investcorp) E. C., 931 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1991).

Cited 26 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

MCCARTHY, supra note 6, § 13:2. . Id. . Id. at § 14:1. . American Television, 810 F.2d at 1549, 1 U
Copy

Wallace Cotterall, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Brice Paul, Individually & as Sheriff of Coffee Cnty., Alabama, 755 F.2d 777 (11th Cir. 1985).

Cited 24 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 235, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28392

Board of Corrections), see Alabama Code § 14-1-1.1 (Supp.1984), has extensive responsibility for
Copy

City of Tampa v. Texas Co., 107 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).

Cited 19 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

A. 155, 157; 4 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3 ed.) § 14.1. This *224 is true even where the claimed damage
Copy

United States Fire Ins. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2007).

Cited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 811, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 2394

Jeffrey W. Stempel, Stempel on Insurance Contracts, § 14.01[B], at 14-17 (3d ed. 2007) (“The CGL, like most
Copy

LeNeve v. via South Florida, LLC, 908 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Cited 15 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 1750621

things, a motion to compel arbitration based on section 14.1 of the partnership agreement, which provided
Copy

United States v. Gold, 743 F.2d 800 (11th Cir. 1984).

Cited 14 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 17 Fed. R. Serv. 669, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18022

Black-mar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 14.01, which was at least implicitly approved by this
Copy

Van Dusen v. Se. First Nat. Bank, 478 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Cited 12 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 228 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 19

...ant variety protection and copyright cases." [10] A copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him as a result of the infringement and any profits gained by the infringer that are attributable to the infringement. 3 Nimmer § 14.01[A]; 18 Am.Jur.2d Copyright and Literary Property § 234 (1985)....
Copy

Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State, 116 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Cited 11 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 10846, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 37

on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, § 14.1 (Oct. 2009). Nevertheless, the trial court permitted
Copy

Newman v. Graddick, 740 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1984).

Cited 10 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18787

vested in the Commissioner. CODE OF ALABAMA [1975], § 14-1-1.-1. This Court has in previous Opinions expressed
Copy

City of Coral Gables v. Puiggros, 376 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16025

...On February 14, 1978, two commission members voted for, and three against a resolution to affirm the second zoning board action of December 5, 1977. Despite the majority vote against it, the resolution was deemed adopted because of the provisions of a city ordinance, § 14.01 of the zoning code, which requires a 4/5ths vote of the city commission in order to overrule a decision of the zoning board....
...It was contended (1) that because the plaintiff had been induced to expend funds by the representations of the city's zoning officials that Lot 27 could be separately used for residential purposes, Coral Gables had become equitably estopped subsequently to deny that authority; (2) that the 4/5ths voting requirement of § 14.01 of the zoning code was invalid as in conflict with Sections 13 and 14 of the city charter which provided that a majority vote of the commission was required for the passage of any ordinance or resolution; on this theory, the city had already itself granted Puiggros the authority he requested by a thus-efficacious majority vote of the commission; and *284 (3) that the first, September 12, 1977 resolution of the zoning board had become final, under § 14.01 of the city zoning code, after the passage of 14 days without appeal; thus, it was argued, the zoning board lacked jurisdiction to rescind that resolution and enact the contrary one at its meeting of December 5, 1977....
Copy

In re Senate Jt. Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2012).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 181, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 507, 2012 WL 753122

Mo. Const, art. Ill, § 2; Mont. Const, art. V, § 14(1); Neb. Const, art. Ill, § 5; N.J. Const, art. IV
Copy

Chadrick Calvin Cole v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 712 F.3d 517 (11th Cir. 2013).

Cited 9 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2013 WL 978199, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152

jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases....”); S.C.Code § 14-1-70 ("The following are courts of justice in this
Copy

Rosen v. TRW, Inc., 979 F.2d 191 (11th Cir. 1992).

Cited 9 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1992 WL 345643

of Directors. Amended Executive Security Program § 14.1. The ESP also states that the Committee shall establish
Copy

Paragon Grp., Inc. v. Hoeksema, 475 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

Additionally, we note that Chapter 75-390, section 14(1), Laws of Florida (the Little Elms Act), under
Copy

Jamal Abu Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium, 766 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2014).

Cited 7 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17484, 2014 WL 4441203

Original Writ, Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 82, and appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals
Copy

Hillsborough Cnty. v. Putney, 495 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1960

plan, or element or portion thereof. Ch. 75-390, § 14(1), Laws of Fla.; see § 163.3194(1)(a), Fla. Stat
Copy

Conax Florida Corp. v. Astrium Ltd., 499 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (M.D. Fla. 2007).

Cited 6 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51854, 2007 WL 2083582

evaluate the plaintiffs work (Doc. 4-2, Art. 14, § 14.1(a)).[3] The Subcontract further specified that
Copy

Northcutt v. State Road Dep't, 209 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

general rule is stated in 4 Nichols, Eminent Domain, § 14 [1], "Damage to tract no part of which is taken."
Copy

Demosthenes v. Girard, 955 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1263976

proceeds. See John G. Grimsley, Florida Law of Trusts § 14-1 (4th ed.2006) (stating that a constructive trust
Copy

Jackson v. Smith, 927 F.2d 544 (11th Cir. 1991).

Cited 4 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 13 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1802, 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2965, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 4485

...laiming that the increase issue was not an arbitrable matter under the Plan. The Employer Trustees noted that Section 6.05 expressly declares that any change in benefits, upward or downward, "shall be made through an amendment to this Plan" and that Section 14.01 states that the Plan may be amended "by the vote of seventy-five percent (75%) of all Trustees." The Employer Trustees therefore asserted that the proposal for an increase failed because it did not receive the requisite seventy-five percent vote, not because the vote resulted in a tie....
...The Union Trustees sought, among other things, an order declaring (1) that the benefit increase proposal was subject to arbitration, (2) that the action of the Employer Trustees in withdrawing their consent to arbitration violated the terms of the Plan, 2 and (3) that, because Section 14.01 requires a seventy-five percent affirmative vote to amend the Plan and Section 6.05 requires an amendment in order to increase benefits, any vote of less than seventy-five percent created a deadlock within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C....
...he claims already asserted, an order declaring (1) that the Employer Trustees had breached their fiduciary duty under Section 11.05 of the Plan and 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186 (c)(5)(B) by refusing to submit the proposed increase to arbitration, and (2) that Section 14.01 of the Plan, requiring a seventy-five percent vote to amend the plan to increase benefits, violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C....
...Stratton, 721 F.2d 535, 537 (5th Cir.1983); Hawkins v. Bennett, 704 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir.1983). 11 The Employer Trustees argue that Section 6.05 of the Plan specifically states that any change in benefits, upward or downward, "shall be made though an amendment" to the Plan. They point out that Section 14.01 declares that an amendment requires approval by seventy-five percent of the Trustees....
...13 By contrast, Section 6.01 of the Plan at issue in this litigation establishes a fixed schedule of benefits. Moreover, Section 6.05 expressly outlines the procedure for changing the level of benefits, stating that a change, either upward or downward, "shall be made through an amendment to this Plan." Finally, Section 14.01 of the Plan states that an amendment to the Plan requires approval of seventy-five percent of the Trustees....
...etain an absolute veto over decreases in benefits. The parties stand in equal positions; neither can change benefits without the assistance of the other. Accordingly, we find the Union Trustees' argument that 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186 (c)(5)(B) invalidates Section 14.01 of the Plan to be meritless....
...ect to every section. See Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local 395 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Conquer Cartage Co., 753 F.2d 1512, 1518 (9th Cir.1985). Section 6.05 expressly states that changes in benefits require amendments and Section 14.01 requires amendments to obtain seventy-five percent approval....
...vidence pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b). The Second Amended Complaint asserted three claims in addition to the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint. These included two claims for breach of fiduciary duty and one claim seeking a finding that Section 14.01 of the Plan, which required seventy-five percent approval for amendments, violated the arbitration requirement of Section 186(c)(5)(B)....
Copy

Hunt v. Hawthorne Assocs., Inc., 119 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 1997).

Cited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 21 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1625, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 20761, 1997 WL 437161

may be formally amended. The closest provision is § 14.1, which states that Eastern and ALPA must agree
Copy

Turquitt v. Jefferson Cnty., 137 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1998).

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

successor to the Alabama Board of Corrections. Ala.Code § 14-1-1.1.
Copy

United States v. Proceeds from the Sale of Approximately 15,538 Panulirus Argus Lobster Tails, 834 F. Supp. 385 (S.D. Fla. 1993).

Cited 2 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18764

legal size shall be guilty of an offence.... Id. § 14(1). “Legal size” is defined in § 14(2)(a)(ii) as
Copy

Gulf Power Co. v. Coalsales II, L.L.C., 661 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (N.D. Fla. 2009).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95949, 2009 WL 3190459

...However, Coalsales characterizes these two sources, together, as the "sole" source of coal under the 1994 CSA prior to the amendments made during the market reopener process. As mentioned, after the market reopener process, Coalsales claims the sole source of coal was Source B, the Galatia Mine. [9] Section 14.01 of the CSA defines "Force Majeure" as: Any act, event or condition which has had a material adverse effect on the mining, loading, preparation, transloading or transporting of the coal by Seller or its Contractor(s) or the receiving, ac...
Copy

Parker v. Williams, 855 F.2d 763 (11th Cir. 1988).

Cited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1988 WL 90423

of the duties of his office.... That portion of § 14-1-6 [sic], Code of Alabama 1975, which purports to
Copy

Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1246 (S.D. Fla. 2015).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146772, 2015 WL 6555433

“relating to” the Collaboration. [ECF No. 333-1, § 14.1]. These procedures specify that if the parties
Copy

Tropicana Condo. Assoc. v. Tropical Condo., LLC, 208 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17090

impermissible, and that the Association’s amendment to section 14.1 of the Declaration is invalid. B. The
Copy

Adderly v. Wainwright, 58 F.R.D. 389 (M.D. Fla. 1972).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 845, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11164

jurisdiction. Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 81. Habeas corpus has through its grand history
Copy

Jackson v. Smith, 927 F.2d 544 (11th Cir. 1991).

Cited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1991 WL 28194

...ing that the increase issue was not an arbitrable matter under the Plan. The Employer Trustees noted that Section 6.05 expressly declares that any change in benefits, upward or downward, “shall be made through an amendment to this Plan” and that Section 14.01 states that the Plan may be amended “by the vote of seventy-five percent (75%) of all Trustees.” The Employer Trustees therefore asserted that the proposal for an increase failed because it did not receive the requisite seventy-five percent vote, not because the vote resulted in a tie....
...The Union Trustees sought, among other things, an order declaring (1) that the benefit increase proposal was subject to arbitration, (2) that the action of the Employer Trustees in withdrawing their consent to arbitration violated the terms of *547 the Plan, 2 and (3) that, because Section 14.01 requires a seventy-five percent affirmative vote to amend the Plan and Section 6.05 requires an amendment in order to increase benefits, any vote of less than seventy-five percent created a deadlock within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C....
...the claims already asserted, an order declaring (1) that the Employer Trustees had breached their fiduciary duty under Section 11.05 of the Plan and 29 U.S.C. § 186 (c)(5)(B) by refusing to submit the proposed increase to arbitration, and (2) that Section 14.01 of the Plan, requiring a seventy-five percent vote to amend the plan to increase benefits, violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C....
...Stratton, 721 F.2d 535, 537 (5th Cir.1983); Hawkins v. Bennett, 704 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir.1983). The Employer Trustees argue that Section 6.05 of the Plan specifically states that any change in benefits, upward or downward, “shall be made though an amendment” to the Plan. They point out that Section 14.01 declares that an amendment requires approval by seventy-five percent of the Trustees....
...By contrast, Section 6.01 of the Plan at issue in this litigation establishes a fixed schedule of benefits. Moreover, Section 6.05 expressly outlines the procedure for changing the level of benefits, stating that a change, either upward or downward, “shall be made through an amendment to this Plan.” Finally, Section 14.01 of the Plan states that an amendment to the Plan requires approval of seventy-five percent of the Trustees....
...etain an absolute veto over decreases in benefits. The parties stand in equal positions; neither can change benefits without the assistance of the other. Accordingly, we find the Union Trustees’ argument that 29 U.S.C. § 186 (c)(5)(B) invalidates Section 14.01 of the Plan to be meritless....
...ect to every section. See Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local 395 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Conquer Cartage Co., 753 F.2d 1512, 1518 (9th Cir.1985). Section 6.05 expressly states that changes in benefits require amendments and Section 14.01 requires amendments to obtain seventy-five percent approval....
...vidence pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b). The Second Amended Complaint asserted three claims in addition to the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint. These included two claims for breach of fiduciary duty and one claim seeking a finding that Section 14.01 of the Plan, which required seventy-five percent approval for amendments, violated the arbitration requirement of Section 186(c)(5)(B)....
Copy

Linda Stout v. Gardendale City Bd. of Educ., 882 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 2018).

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

Gardendale City School System." Gardendale, Ala., Code § 14-1 (2014). The ordinance also created a Board of Education
Copy

James Farmer v. State of Florida, 268 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

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

(2018); Wis. Stat. § 756.02 (208); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-1-101 (2018); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-11-101 (2019).
Copy

Angel Colon v. Twitter, Inc. (11th Cir. 2021).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Sanctions Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-172, 110 Stat. 1541, § 14(1)); 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c). In some instances, Congress
Copy

Jamal Abu Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium (11th Cir. 2014).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Original Writ, Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 82, and appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals
Copy

Jamal Abu Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium (11th Cir. 2014).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Original Writ, Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 82, and appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals
Copy

Positano Place at Naples IV Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co. (11th Cir. 2023).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

ages of law. ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 73, 81. Section 14 was codified in the All
Copy

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Rolando Perez, Juan G. Guerra, Esperanza Medina, LaSalle, Bank, N.A., & U.S. Bank, N.A., 165 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 86 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 565, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6716, 2015 WL 2078683

Security Interests in Personal Property § 14.1, at 438 (1965)). *701 Possession
Copy

Aponte v. Brown & Brown of Fla., Inc., 382 F. Supp. 3d 1318 (M.D. Fla. 2019).

Published | District Court, M.D. Florida

7 Matulis testified that it occurred in late January and Beck testified that it occurred on February 2, 2017. (Doc. 70 at 55-57 & 126). 8 On the morning prior to Aponte's termination, B & B terminated Beck's employment. (Doc 70 at 39-40). 9 At trial, B & B argued that Aponte had not established an FMLA interference claim because his FMLA leave was not the proximate cause of his termination. (Doc. 71 at 124-125). However, "a causal nexus is not an element of an interference claim, but that the employer
Copy

Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Rountree Transp. & Rigging, Inc., 286 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2002).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 4956, 2002 WL 459731

indemnify CSX in return for receiving the license. Section 14.1 states: Licensee [KUA], recognizing that
Copy

Brandon Fulton v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners (11th Cir. 2025).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Argued: Dec 12, 2023

Judiciary Act of 1789. Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 73, 81–82. Although this grant of
Copy

S. Owners Ins. Co. v. Cooperativa De Seguros Multiples, 143 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...The CGL, like most insurance policies, has a relatively targeted objective for insuring risks. It is designed to protect commercial operators from litigation and liability arising out of their business operations. 2 Jeffrey W. Stempel, Stempel on Insurance Contracts § 14.01[B] at 14-17 (3d ed. Supp....
Copy

Coach House Restaurant, Inc. v. Coach & Six Restaurants, Inc., 934 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir. 1991).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

213 USPQ 185, 187 (CCPA 1982). . See Lanham Act § 14(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1064(1). . Plastilite Corp. v.
Copy

Dep't of Revenue v. B & L Concepts, Inc., 612 So. 2d 720 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 635, 1993 WL 16415

...ssee) is responsible for transportation charges separate and apart from the rental price, citing Florida Hi-Lift v. Department of Revenue, 571 So.2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See also 1 Fla. State and Local Taxes, Transportation and Similar Charges, § 14.01[3][c][ii] (Fla....
Copy

Louis Matthew Clements v. State of Florida (11th Cir. 2023).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

eral authorities. See Judiciary Act of 1789, § 14, 1 Stat. 81, 81-82; Ex Parte Dorr, 44 U.S
Copy

Germaine Smart v. COII Ronald England (11th Cir. 2024).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Argued: Sep 19, 2023

for behavioral infractions. See Ala. Code § 14- 1-4(a) (providing that the Department shall determine
Copy

Germaine Smart v. COII Ronald England (11th Cir. 2024).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Argued: Sep 19, 2023

for behavioral infractions. See Ala. Code § 14- 1-4(a) (providing that the Department shall determine
Copy

Linda Stout v. Gardendale City Bd. of Educ. (11th Cir. 2018).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Gardendale City School System.” Gardendale, Ala., Code § 14-1 (2014). The ordinance also created a Board of
Copy

Hunt v. Hawthorn Assocs., Inc. (11th Cir. 1997).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

may be formally amended. The closest provision is § 14.1, which states that Eastern and ALPA must agree
Copy

Perry Hodges v. United States (11th Cir. 2023).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Argued: Apr 27, 2023

an operational control tower.” Order JO 7400.2 § 14-1-2(d). Each Class D airspace area “is individually
Copy

Whitaker v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth., 129 So. 2d 188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 3080

compensation as aforesaid. Laws 1941, c. 20930, § 14.”1 It is apparent that the notice of appeal in this

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.