The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 83
LANDLORD AND TENANT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 83.02

83.02 Certain written leases tenancies at will; duration.—Where any tenancy has been created by an instrument in writing from year to year, or quarter to quarter, or month to month, or week to week, to be determined by the periods at which the rent is payable, and the term of which tenancy is unlimited, the tenancy shall be a tenancy at will. If the rent is payable weekly, then the tenancy shall be from week to week; if payable monthly, then the tenancy shall be from month to month; if payable quarterly, then from quarter to quarter; if payable yearly, then from year to year.

History.—s. 2, ch. 5441, 1905; RGS 3568; CGL 5432; s. 2, ch. 15057, 1931; s. 34, ch. 67-254.

F.S. 83.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 83.02 on Casetext

Amendments to 83.02

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 83.02

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 83.02.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

ALEXANDER, v. INGRAM BARGE COMPANY,, 876 F.3d 269 (7th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 83.02; Rule 5, the Lookout rule, 33 C.F.R. § 83.05; and Rule 7, the Risk of Collision rule, 33 C.F.R . . . involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.' ■’ 33 C.F.R. § 83.02 . . .

THE CONTAINER STORE, v. UNITED STATES,, 864 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

. . . Explanatory Notes, Explanatory Note 83.02. . . . Explanatory Note 83.02 states: . . . . A review of the products listed in Explanatory Note 83.02 reinforces our conclusion that heading 8302 . . . Explanatory Note 83.02 states that items “such as” swivel devices for revolving chairs and frames for . . . According. to the government, the language of Explanatory Note 83.02 which excludes “goods forming an . . .

In MATTER OF COMPLAINT OF INGRAM BARGE COMPANY M V A. In LLC, M V, 219 F. Supp. 3d 749 (N.D. Ill. 2016)

. . . . § 83.02(a) (“Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof . . . See Folkstone, 64 F.3d at 1046; see also 33 C.F.R. § 83.02(a) (“Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate . . .

STERLING EQUIPMENT, INC. v. M T GREAT EASTERN FB IV, 52 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D. Mass. 2014)

. . . . § 83.02. . . .

PLAINS PIPELINE, L. P. LLC v. GREAT LAKES DREDGE DOCK COMPANY, LLC LLC, In In, 54 F. Supp. 3d 586 (E.D. La. 2014)

. . . . §§ 83.02, 83.06. . . .

MIKE HOOKS DREDGING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, v. MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION GULF- INLAND, L. L. C. L. L. C. AEP L. L. C. AEP L. L. C. v. s C J, 716 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . .; see also 33 C.F.R. 83.02(b) (Rule 2) (“In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall . . .

M. DANIELS, Jr. v. E. WILSON,, 507 F. App'x 158 (3d Cir. 2012)

. . . R. 83.02). . . .

In STEINLE, Jr. a, 835 F. Supp. 2d 437 (N.D. Ohio 2011)

. . . . § 83.02; see also Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 816-17, 817 n. 13, 104 S.Ct. 2755 (internal citations . . .

PRIESTLEY, v. J. ASTRUE, v. J. v., 651 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 2011)

. . . Civil Rule 83.1.D.1-WDNC; Local Civil Rule 83.1.D.1-EDVA; Local Civil Rule 6.D-WDVA; Local Civil Rule 83.02 . . .

R. JONES, v. C. A. PRICE,, 696 F. Supp. 2d 618 (N.D.W. Va. 2010)

. . . PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Pursuant to Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation 83.02 and Local Standing Order No . . .

RIDDLE, v. KEMNA,, 523 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2008)

. . . R. 83.02, 83.03. Transfers without a written application are the distinct minority. . . . R. 83.02. . . .

L. PIERSON, v. DORMIRE,, 484 F.3d 486 (8th Cir. 2007)

. . . P. 83.02. . . . P. 83.02. . . . P. 83.02. . . . Also, if the Missouri Court of Appeals has denied a party's Rule 83.02 motion for transfer to the Missouri . . .

TYLER, v. PURKETT, FCC W., 413 F.3d 696 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . Missouri Supreme Court Rule 83.02 states that a ease may be transferred to the Supreme Court of Missouri . . .

In TIGER PETROLEUM COMPANY, W. v. Jr., 319 B.R. 225 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 2004)

. . . Woon Soon and Ai Ja Lee $ 170,000.00 $141,758.63 (83.39%) Patricia Veraldo $ 205,000.00 $170,197.10 (83.02% . . .

Co. v., 28 Ct. Int'l Trade 1185 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . The Swedish value is 8.5 times higher than the average import value of 83.02 Rs/Kg. See Pls.’ . . .

PLX, INC. v. PROSYSTEMS, INC. L., 220 F.R.D. 291 (N.D.W. Va. 2004)

. . . P. 83.02 requires visiting attorneys to have a local attorney be responsible for their actions in accordance . . .

GEORGIA, v. ASHCROFT,, 195 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . House District 148 voted for Michael Thurmond in the 1998 Democratic Party primary runoff election, and 83.02% . . .

M. DIXON, v. DORMIRE, J. L. v. C. v., 263 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . Pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rules 83.02 and 83.04 (2001), a defendant may apply to transfer his . . . R. 83.02; a dissenting judge of the court of appeals may transfer a case, Mo. Sup.Ct. . . . R. 83.02. We disagree. . . . R. 83.02. . . . R. 83.02. . . .

GLAXO WELLCOME, INC. v. PHARMADYNE CORPORATION,, 32 F. Supp. 2d 265 (D. Md. 1998)

. . . 7.0 Day of Test 70°C 80°C 70°C 80°C 0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 98.53 95.22 99.76 96.63 4 93.03 83.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. TERRY,, 11 F.3d 110 (9th Cir. 1993)

. . . Lucas, supra, ¶ 83.02 at 83-5. . . .

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, AFL- CIO- CLC, v. UNITED STATES, 959 F.2d 297 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

. . . See J.A. 143, 198 (Blue Cross High Option premium $83.02 for airport employees but $174.77 for federal . . .

EVANS, v. DOWD,, 932 F.2d 739 (8th Cir. 1991)

. . . See Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02, 83.03. . . . Rule 83.02 provides that a case may be transferred by order of the court of appeals because of the general . . . an application for transfer, the supreme court may grant a transfer for the reasons stated in Rule 83.02 . . .

M. BAYLSON, J. D. v. DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 764 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Pa. 1991)

. . . Lucas, supra, II 83.02, at 83-5. . . . ÍI 83.02, at 83-6. . . .

BROWN, v. ARMONTROUT,, 898 F.2d 84 (8th Cir. 1990)

. . . Brown then filed a Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02 application to transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court, alleging . . . Rule 83.02 provides that an appellate court may transfer a case to the Missouri Supreme Court "because . . . 83.03 provides that the supreme court may transfer a case for any of the reasons set forth in Rule 83.02 . . .

Ed FLETCHER, v. ARMONTROUT,, 725 F. Supp. 1075 (W.D. Mo. 1989)

. . . regard to the alleged lack of "general interest or importance” was an obvious reference to Missouri Rule 83.02 . . .

RUSSO v. MANFREDO, 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 23 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . . §§ 83.02; 83.03(3) (1987). . . .

BROWN, v. ARMONTROUT,, 853 F.2d 624 (8th Cir. 1988)

. . . After the Missouri Court of Appeals denied him relief, Brown filed a Rule 83.02 motion in that court . . .

BYRD, v. ARMONTROUT,, 686 F. Supp. 743 (E.D. Mo. 1988)

. . . (Id. at pp. 89-101; see Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02). . . .

E. FISHER, v. TRICKEY,, 656 F. Supp. 797 (W.D. Mo. 1987)

. . . transfer out of time”, Response at 3, and that petitioner’s failure to do so in this case after a Rule 83.02 . . . Missouri Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Missouri under either Missouri Supreme Court Rule 83.02 . . . petitioner had failed to file a motion for transfer under either [emphasis in original] Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02 . . . reflect that in all ten of those cases, the Supreme Court of Missouri simultaneously denied the Rule 83.02 . . . R.Civ.P. 83.02. . . . .

G. WYATT v. UNITED STATES, 783 F.2d 45 (6th Cir. 1986)

. . . Conason, Damages in Tort Actions §§ 82.20, 83.02 (1982); Krause, The Benefits of Structured Settlements . . .

MOORE, v. W. WYRICK,, 766 F.2d 1253 (8th Cir. 1985)

. . . Y, § 10 (emphasis added); see to the same effect Mo.R.Crim.P. 30.27 and Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02. . . .

GODWIN v. SCHRAMM, W. BEHREND, 731 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1984)

. . . Conason, Damages in Tort Actions §§ 82.20, 83.02 (1982); Krause, The Benefits of Structured Settlements . . .

In D. H. OVERMYER TELECASTING CO. INC. HADAR LEASING INTERNATIONAL CO. INC. v. D. H. OVERMYER TELECASTING CO. INC., 23 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1982)

. . . Kisco Road the following courses and distances, S. 62° 20' 30" W. 83.02 feet, S. 66° 15' 30" W. 20.01 . . .

JONES, v. Dr. K. RITTERBUSCH,, 548 F. Supp. 89 (W.D. Mo. 1982)

. . . Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02. . . .

THOMAS, v. W. WYRICK, 687 F.2d 235 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . 1982, the Missouri Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 83.02 . . . Petitioner’s 83.02 motion for rehearing or transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court has been denied. . . . requires that such an application be made within fifteen days after the court of appeals denies the 83.02 . . . 8th Cir. 1982), in which petitioner had failed to file a motion for transfer under either Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02 . . . court, the Missouri Court of Appeals rendered its decision on the merits and then denied petitioner’s 83.02 . . .

ADAIL, v. WYRICK,, 671 F.2d 1218 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . appeal or the rule 27.26 appeal, seek transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court under either Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02 . . . Civ.P. 83.02 or 83.03 and had not sought to file an out-of-time motion under 84.08. . . . He reasoned that since, in either case, Adail had not filed a motion to transfer under Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02 . . .

POWELL, v. W. WYRICK,, 657 F.2d 222 (8th Cir. 1981)

. . . Powell then requested, pursuant to Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02, that the court of appeals transfer the ease to . . . 83.03 which requires such application be made within 15 days after the court of appeals denies the 83.02 . . .

L. RODGERS, Jr. v. WYRICK,, 621 F.2d 921 (8th Cir. 1980)

. . . Additionally, appellee suggests that in the event Rodgers is unsuccessful under Rule 83.02, he should . . . Rule 83.02 specifies that either of two grounds warrant transfer by the Missouri Court of Appeals: (1 . . . Rule 83.02 specifies a procedure whereby a defined legal controversy properly before the Missouri Court . . . Under the facts of this case, therefore, a successful transfer under 83.02 would only enable review of . . . In this sense, Rule 83.02 simply could not secure Missouri Supreme Court review of those issues relevant . . .

CONLEY, v. WHITE,, 470 F. Supp. 1 (W.D. Mo. 1979)

. . . Petitioner then filed motions under Missouri Rules 83.02 and 83.03, without success, but he did not file . . . Motions under Rules 83.02 and 83.03 were denied. State v. McReynolds, 574 S.W.2d 450 (Mo.App.1978). . . .

BERRY v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CITY OF BENTON HARBOR, 442 F. Supp. 1280 (W.D. Mich. 1977)

. . . For this same period 83.02 percent (3,781 of 4,554) of Black elementary students attended schools 90- . . .

GREEN, Jr. v. W. WYRICK,, 432 F. Supp. 965 (W.D. Mo. 1977)

. . . claim, in this instance by means of a motion to transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court under Rules 83.02 . . .

TRIPLETT, v. WYRICK,, 549 F.2d 57 (8th Cir. 1977)

. . . His request, pursuant to Mo.Sup.Ct.R. 83.02, that the court of appeals transfer the case to the Missouri . . .

PITTS, v. CATES v. D. BUSBEE,, 536 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . , 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 77.01, 78.01, 79, 80, 82.01, 82.02, 83.01, 83.02 . . .

DRAKE, v. WYRICK,, 415 F. Supp. 814 (W.D. Mo. 1976)

. . . petitioner does, in fact, still have an available state court remedy under the transfer provisions of Rule 83.02 . . . Admittedly, Rule 83.02 requires that a motion for transfer from the Court of Appeals to the Missouri . . . Louis District, pursuant to Rule 83.02. . . . procedure in this case is for the appellant to file a motion for rehearing or transfer pursuant to Rule 83.02 . . .

JX MARTIN, v. WYRICK,, 411 F. Supp. 1069 (W.D. Mo. 1975)

. . . a timely application to transfer in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District, under Rule 83.02 . . . as petitioner alleges, abandon the petitioner and failed to advise him of his rights to have a Rule 83.02 . . . that the Missouri Court of Appeals would exercise its power to modify the time requirement of Rule 83.02 . . . It has now been established in this case that the petitioner did not file a Missouri Rule 83.02 motion . . . has been established that petitioner likely was unaware of the necessity of filing a Missouri Rule 83.02 . . .

HOLIDAY PLAZA INVESTMENT CORP. a v. CLARK,, 306 So. 2d 161 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . will or from month to month of a mobile home lot was also subject to termination under Sections 83.01, 83.02 . . .

LEE, v. W. WYRICK,, 383 F. Supp. 623 (W.D. Mo. 1974)

. . . Although Rule 83.02, V.A.M.R., and Rule 83.03, V. . . . Rule 83.02, V.A.M.R. provides: Transfer on Order of Court of Appeals A ease in which an opinion has been . . . Court of Appeals In any case in which a motion for rehearing and an application for transfer under Rule 83.02 . . . transferred by order of this Court on application of a party for any of the reasons specified in Rule 83.02 . . . ascertained that it was probable that a substantial number of transfers would be granted, under either Rule 83.02 . . .

BARBER v. RADER, 350 F. Supp. 183 (S.D. Fla. 1972)

. . . See Florida Statutes §§ 83.01 and 83.02, F.S.A., and 20 Fla.Jur., Landlord and Tenant §§ 18-20. . . .

v., 67 Cust. Ct. 258 (Cust. Ct. 1971)

. . . covered by the superior heading, but that the heading appeared to have been derived in part from item 83.02 . . . of the Brussels Nomenclature, which provides: 83.02 — Base Metal Fittings AND Mountings op a Kind Suitable . . .

RODIN, v. LERMAN,, 237 So. 2d 278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . Town of Groveland, Fla. 1955, 79 So.2d 765, §§ 83.02, 83.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . . .

GRIZZARD, v. HESS OIL COMPANY, 33 Fla. Supp. 128 (Lake Cty. Cir. Ct. 1970)

. . . . §§83.01 and 83.02. . . .

G. SCHWARZ, v. UNITED STATES,, 417 F.2d 1391 (C.C.P.A. 1969)

. . . That superior heading appears to have been derived, at least in part, from item 83.02 of the Nomenclature . . . Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs, generally known as the Brussels Nomenclature, which provides: 83.02 . . .

G. v., 57 C.C.P.A. 19 (C.C.P.A. 1969)

J. C. Co. v., 63 Cust. Ct. 82 (Cust. Ct. 1969)

. . . covered by the superior heading, but that the heading appeared to have been derived in part from item 83.02 . . . The explanatory notes state that said item 83.02 does include: (G) Curtain, blind and portiere fittings . . .

Co. A. v., 62 Cust. Ct. 550 (Cust. Ct. 1969)

. . . encompassed within the term “vehicle coachwork” referred to in TSTJS item 647.01, or to “coachwork” in item 83.02 . . .

G. SCHWARZ, v. UNITED STATES, 284 F. Supp. 792 (Cust. Ct. 1968)

. . . The superior heading appears to have been derived in part from item 83.02 of the Nomenclature for the . . . Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs, generally known as the Brussels Nomenclature, which provides: 83.02 . . .

G. v., 60 Cust. Ct. 522 (Cust. Ct. 1968)

JUNEAU SPRUCE CORPORATION, a v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN S AND WAREHOUSEMEN S UNION, s s s s s s ILWU a C., 131 F. Supp. 866 (D. Haw. 1955)

. . . Procedure — Forms (1952 Ed.), § 83.02, p.563. . . . .

J. P. a v. St. a, 57 Fla. 237 (Fla. 1909)

. . . fourth counts are similar to the first and second, except that in each 81 bales of hay of the value of $83.02 . . .