Cases from cite.case.law:

CUENCA, v. STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION,, 259 So. 3d 253 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . order entered by the State Board of Administration ("State Board"), concluding that pursuant to section 112.3173 . . . AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 7, 2017, the State Board notified Cuenca that pursuant to section 112.3173 . . . As such, the requirements of Section 112.3173(2)(e) 6., Florida Statutes, are satisfied, and [Cuenca's . . . To implement this provision, the Florida Legislature enacted section 112.3173, which provides, in part . . . Section 112.3173(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), provides as follows: (2) DEFINITIONS. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CLARKE,, 822 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . See, e.g., § 112.3173, Fla. Stat. . . .

RIVERA, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CITY OF TAMPA S GENERAL EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT FUND,, 189 So. 3d 207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . order terminating and forfeiting all of his accrued retirement benefits in accordance with section 112.3173 . . . Rivera had committed specified offenses as described in section 112.3173(2)(e)(7). • Mr. . . . Rivera had pleaded guilty to and had been convicted of specified offenses as defined in section 112.3173 . . . Section 112.3173(3) implements the constitutional provision as follows: Forfeiture. — Any public officer . . . We have jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(C), section 112.3173(5)(b) . . .

CLARKE, v. UNITED STATES, 184 So. 3d 1107 (Fla. 2016)

. . . See, e.g., § 112.3173, Fla. Stat. . . .

G. BOLLONE, v. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT,, 100 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . public employee convicted of a specified offense committed prior to retirement pursuant to section 112.3173 . . . See § 112.3173(2)(e)1.-5., 7. . . . The ALJ properly determined that the specified offenses proscribed in sections 112.3173(2)(e)1.-5. do . . . In order to constitute a “specified offense” under section 112.3173(2)(e)6., the criminal acts must be . . . Section 112.3173(2)(e)6. does not provide that only economic gain can be considered personal gain. . . .

BROCK, v. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES,, 98 So. 3d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . The former employee appeals the Department’s final order concluding that, pursuant to section 112.3173 . . . The former employee argues that section 112.3173, by defining “convicted” to include a no contest plea . . . Thus, six years later, the legislature enacted section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984). . . . II of the State Constitution.” § 112.3173(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1984). . . . . § 112.3173(3), Fla. Stat. (1984) (emphasis added). . . .

GARAY, v. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES,, 46 So. 3d 1227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Garay was employed in the public trust and that the crimes constituted specified offenses under section 112.3173 . . . The forfeiture provision is further codified in section 112.3173(3), Florida Statutes (2001), which states . . . Under section 112.3173(3), it is clear that the time the offense is committed controls forfeiture, not . . . contemplated post-retirement forfeiture of benefits is the repayment provision set forth in section 112.3173 . . . Garay pled guilty to offenses specified in section 112.3173(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2001), involving . . .

C. JENNE, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT,, 36 So. 3d 738 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . federal conviction for conspiracy to commit mail fraud qualifies as a “specified offense” under section 112.3173 . . . Section 112.3173(3) states that “[ajny public officer or employee who is convicted of a specified offense . . . This crime is not identified by name in section 112.3173(2)(e), but it could serve as the basis for a . . . Our conclusion that section 112.3173(2)(e)6. defines the term “specified offense” by the conduct of the . . . Jenne also argues that this court should interpret section 112.3173(2)(e)6. in light of the Ethics in . . .

SIMCOX, v. CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM,, 988 So. 2d 731 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . substantial competent evidence establishes that Simcox committed a “specified offense” under section 112.3173 . . . Section 112.3173(3) implements that portion of the Florida Constitution and provides: Forfeiture. — Any . . . First, section 112.3173(2)(e)(4) provides this meaning: “[a]ny felony specified in chapter 838, except . . . On the other hand, section 112.3173 employs the common meaning of the word “retirement.” . . . He therefore was not retired for purposes of section 112.3173. . . .

W. D. CHILDERS, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT,, 989 So. 2d 716 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . On appeal, the employee argues that section 112.3173 of the Florida Statutes is unconstitutional because . . . To effectuate these constitutional provisions, the Florida Legislature enacted section 112.3173, which . . . In Busbee, the First District Court of Appeal upheld section 112.3173 against similar constitutional . . . Unlike a criminal forfeiture statute, section 112.3173(3) merely relieves the State of its duty to pay . . . See § 112.3173(1). . . .

HAMES, v. CITY OF MIAMI FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS TRUST,, 980 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . contributions if the officer “is convicted of a specified offense committed prior to retirement.” § 112.3173 . . . Subsection 112.3173(5) outlines the procedures used to determine whether the retired officer was “convicted . . . required to be forfeited, the official or board shall order such rights and privileges forfeited. § 112.3173 . . . Hames’ Acts Qualify as Specifíed Offenses Under Section 112.3173 Hames’ retirement benefits were not . . . (2)(e)6, and subsection 112.3173(3), Florida Statutes (2006). . . .

HAMES, v. CITY OF MIAMI,, 479 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . To implement this constitutional mandate, the Florida Legislature enacted § 112.3173(3), Fla. . . . required to be forfeited, the official or board shall order such rights and privileges forfeited. § 112.3173 . . . felony offense he pled guilty to is not an offense that justifies forfeiture within the meaning of § 112.3173 . . . See § 112.3173(3) (“Any public officer or employee who is convicted of a specified offense committed . . .

H. WARSHAW, v. CITY OF MIAMI FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT TRUST, S., 885 So. 2d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . This federal conviction led to the Board’s application of section 112.3173(3), Florida Statutes (2001 . . . “Specified offense” is defined in section 112.3173(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2001) to include the embezzlement . . . Pursuant to section 112.3173(5), the Board held a hearing for the purpose of determining whether Warshaw . . . The Board concluded that Warshaw had been convicted of a specified offense as provided in section 112.3173 . . . For discussions of section 112.3173(2)(e)(6), see DeSoto v. . . . s pension may be forfeited if the public employee is convicted of an offense specified in paragraph 112.3173 . . . pension, the conviction must be a “specified offense” within the terms of the forfeiture statute, section 112.3173 . . . The committing, aiding, or abetting of an embezzlement of public funds[.]” § 112.3173(2)(e)l., Fla. . . . forfeiture of the pension if — and only if — the employee committed “an embezzlement of public funds.” § 112.3173 . . . Id. § 112.3173(2)(e)6. This provision is likewise unavailable. . . .

DESOTO, v. HIALEAH POLICE PENSION FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES,, 870 So. 2d 844 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Board of Trustees which ordered the forfeiture of the pension benefits of Orestes DeSoto under section 112.3173 . . . Fund Board of Trustees commenced proceedings to forfeit DeSoto’s retirement benefits under section 112.3173 . . . contends that the board erred in determining that his benefits were subject to forfeiture under section 112.3173 . . . Section 112.3173(2)(e)(6), Florida Statutes (2001), states: “The committing of any felony by a public . . .

JACOBO, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MIAMI POLICE,, 788 So. 2d 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . The Board determined that because Jacobo was convicted of a specified offense under section 112.3173( . . . Jacobo first argues that his pension benefits cannot be forfeited under section 112.3173(2)(e)6 because . . . Because section 112.3173(2)(e)6 is neither vague nor ambiguous, it does not require statutory construction . . . Jacobo’s actions constituted a breach of the public trust forbidden by the plain wording of section 112.3173 . . . Specified offense” is defined in section 112.3173(2)(e) as follows: 1. . . .

NEWMANS, v. STATE DIVISION OF RETIREMENT,, 701 So. 2d 573 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . appellant of its intent to terminate his retirement benefits pursuant to sections 121.091(5)(f), and 112.3173 . . . forfeited his right to a retirement benefit under the Florida Retirement System pursuant to section 112.3173 . . . Section 112.3173(2)(e)6., however, provides that “specified offense” includes: (6) The committing of . . . The hearing officer concluded that appellant committed a “specified offense” as defined in section 112.3173 . . . power, rights, privileges, debts, or position of his ... political office or employment position.” § 112.3173 . . .

D. BUSBEE, v. STATE DIVISION OF RETIREMENT,, 685 So. 2d 914 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . with his employment, under the authority of Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, and sections 112.3173 . . . base the forfeiture upon Florida Constitution Article II, section 8 (adopted in 1976), and section 112.3173 . . . In Pilkay, the appellant argued that section 112.3173(3) could not be applied to him because it was enacted . . .

WAITE, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE,, 681 So. 2d 901 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . See §§ 112.3173(2)(a), 327.36(1), 775.087(3)(a), 784.07(2), 784.08(3), 790.165(3), 893.135(3), 893.20 . . .

J. PILKAY, Jr. v. CITY OF TAMPA, GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION FUND, BOARD OF TRUSTEES,, 505 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . The Board based its denial of pension benefits to Pilkay on section 112.3173(3), Florida Statutes (1985 . . . Pilkay contends that section 112.3173(3) as applied to him violates the ex post facto provisions of the . . . Pilkay further contends that, since section 112.3173(3) was not in effect when he enrolled in the retirement . . . In his argument Pilkay chooses to ignore the fact that section 112.3173(3) is based on a provision of . . . Section 112.3173(3), passed by the legislature in 1985, was the implementing act of this 1976 constitutional . . .

DYKES, v. A. J. HOSEMANN, Jr. A. Sr. Jr. W., 776 F.2d 942 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 112.3173 (Supp.1984). . See Herskowitz v. . . .