The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 79
HABEAS CORPUS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 79.04

79.04 Return to writ.—

(1) The person on whom the writ is served shall bring the body of the prisoner, or cause it to be brought, before the court, justice or judge before whom the writ is made returnable without delay and at the same time certify to the cause of the detention.

(2) When the writ is issued, the court shall set an early return date, at which time the formal return of the defendant shall be made. In the absence of a motion to quash or a motion for discharge notwithstanding the return, issue is joined when the return is filed and the action shall be ready for final disposition.

History.—s. 2, Sept. 16, 1822; s. 2, ch. 3129, 1879; RS 1773; GS 2250; RGS 3573; CGL 5437; s. 29, ch. 67-254.

F.S. 79.04 on Google Scholar

F.S. 79.04 on Casetext

Amendments to 79.04

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 79.04

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 79.04.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, FOR FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION v. NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC. RBS f k a P. N., 873 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2017)

. . . additional warning regarding originator ResMAE: The Depositor is aware that the originators of approximately 79.04% . . .

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, v. NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC., 104 F. Supp. 3d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . before the issuance of the Supplement: The Depositor is aware that the originators of approximately 79.04% . . .

A. QUARLES, v. STATE, 56 So. 3d 857 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . order requiring the Department to “certify to the cause of the detention,” as described by section 79.04 . . .

L. L. C. AJF- L. L. C. v., 131 T.C. 275 (T.C. 2008)

. . . After joining New Millennium, AJF-1 had a partnership interest of 79.04 percent, while Shakti, Fidelux . . .

BARD, v. A. WOLSON,, 687 So. 2d 254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Although Rule 1.630 does not provide for the petitioner to reply to the response, section 79.04(2) recognizes . . .

WILLIAMS v. CITY OF DALLAS,, 734 F. Supp. 1317 (N.D. Tex. 1990)

. . . would have been 73.78% black (80.24% total minority) — and District 8 would have been 61.82% black (79.04% . . .

GEORGE HYMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,, 621 F. Supp. 898 (D.D.C. 1985)

. . . is entitled to extended home office overhead for an additional 270 days at the agreed daily rule of $79.04 . . .

GINGRAS, v. LLOYD,, 585 F. Supp. 684 (D. Conn. 1983)

. . . combination of hours logged by plaintiffs’ two attorneys), a reasonable hourly rate at $75, costs at $79.04 . . . Costs shall also be awarded in the amount of $79.04. Judgment shall enter accordingly. . . .

A. M. SEAMON v. UPHAM,, 536 F. Supp. 931 (E.D. Tex. 1982)

. . . .-01, 76.02, 76.03, 76.04, 77, 78.01, 78.04, 78.05, 78.06, 78.07, 78.08, 78.09, 79.02, 79.03, 79.04, . . .

GOLDMAN, a v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO,, 392 F. Supp. 214 (N.D. Ill. 1975)

. . . The plaintiff’s February 8, 1971, bill carried new purchases of $79.04. . . .

WHITE v. UNITED STATES CRAWLEY v. SAME, 77 F. Supp. 316 (D.N.J. 1948)

. . . This plaintiff was paid the sum of $79.04 in compensation benefits as well as. the sum of $147.50 in . . .