Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 604.50 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 604.50 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 604.50

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXV
AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, AND ANIMAL INDUSTRY
Chapter 604
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL LAWS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 604.50
604.50 Nonresidential farm buildings; farm fences; farm signs.
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any nonresidential farm building, farm fence, or farm sign that is located on lands used for bona fide agricultural purposes, not including those lands used for urban agriculture, is exempt from the Florida Building Code and any county or municipal code or fee, except for code provisions implementing local, state, or federal floodplain management regulations. A farm sign located on a public road may not be erected, used, operated, or maintained in a manner that violates any of the standards provided in s. 479.11(4), (5)(a), and (6)-(8).
(2) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Bona fide agricultural purposes” has the same meaning as provided in s. 193.461(3)(b).
(b) “Farm” has the same meaning as provided in s. 823.14.
(c) “Farm sign” means a sign erected, used, or maintained on a farm by the owner or lessee of the farm which relates solely to farm produce, merchandise, or services sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished on the farm.
(d) “Nonresidential farm building” means any temporary or permanent building or support structure that is classified as a nonresidential farm building on a farm under s. 553.73(10)(c) or that is used primarily for agricultural purposes, is located on land that is an integral part of a farm operation or is classified as agricultural land under s. 193.461, and is not intended to be used as a residential dwelling. The term may include, but is not limited to, a barn, greenhouse, shade house, farm office, storage building, or poultry house.
(e) “Urban agriculture” has the same meaning as in s. 604.73(3).
History.s. 13, ch. 98-396; s. 19, ch. 2002-293; s. 51, ch. 2002-295; ss. 6, 9, ch. 2011-7; HJR 7103, 2011 Regular Session; s. 75, ch. 2012-5; s. 12, ch. 2012-83; s. 2, ch. 2013-239; s. 2, ch. 2021-115.

F.S. 604.50 on Google Scholar

F.S. 604.50 on Casetext

Amendments to 604.50


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 604.50
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 604.50.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

BT LLC, A v. VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA, A, 240 So. 3d 1 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . two barns, the storage building, and the manure bin, are exempt under the plain language of section 604.50 . . . part, and quash the circuit court's affirmance because it contravenes the plain language of section 604.50 . . . Section 604.50(1) provides: Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any nonresidential . . . The opinion addresses whether the Town of Loxahatchee Groves would be violating section 604.50(1) if . . . However, these opinions were both issued before the legislature amended section 604.50 in 2011. . . .

F. BENCIVENGA, v. OSCEOLA COUNTY,, 140 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . that the structures were constructed without building permits, but maintained that pursuant to section 604.50 . . . TORPY, C.J. and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . § 604.50 Nonresidential farm buildings.— Notwithstanding any other . . .

WILSON, LLC, LLC, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY,, 62 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . (The Right to Farm Act); § 604.50, Fla. Stat. . . .

AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION, v. M. ROGOFF,, 649 F.3d 734 (D.C. Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 604.50(a). . . .

AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. M. ROGOFF, U. S. v. M. U. S., 717 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 2010)

. . . . §§ 604.1-604.50, sets forth the comprehensive protections given to private charter operators. . . . Id. § 604.50(a). II. . . . .1999) (“[t]he FTA Act does not create a private right of action,” but prior version of 49 C.F.R. § 604.50 . . . See 49 C.F.R. §§ 604.13-604.50. . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 604.50 (emphasis added). . . .

UNITED MOTORCOACH ASSOCIATION, INC. v. J. WELBES,, 614 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009)

. . . . § 604.50; see also 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. II. . . .

BARWARI, v. B. MUKASEY,, 282 F. App'x 896 (2d Cir. 2008)

. . . Combined with the $604.50 in paralegal fees and the $450 filing fee, we reach a total award of $6,632.19 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. CONAGRA POULTRY COMPANY, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL,, 113 F. App'x 725 (8th Cir. 2004)

. . . hours deducted for attending mediation; 1.7 hours deducted for “discovery”); Paralegal Cheryl Welch: $ 604.50 . . .

MORALES FELICIANO, v. HERNANDEZ COLON,, 697 F. Supp. 51 (D.P.R. 1988)

. . . AA\ KJJ KfJ vJ I — 1 ( — 1 WOH O ^ 00 03 O O I $156.00 91 $9,150.00 03 1982 ($135) . 1984 ($130) $ 604.50 . . .

In L. NORTH, 842 F.2d 340 (D.C. Cir. 1988)

. . . Applicants request $159,-604.50 in attorneys’ fees and $3,717.10 for expenses incurred. . . .

REA EXPRESS, INC. v. INTERWAY CORPORATION, 410 F. Supp. 192 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)

. . . The financial statements reflect an accrual for equalization in the amount of $123,-604.50. . . .

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CENTRAL PENN NATIONAL BANK, 372 F. Supp. 1027 (E.D. Pa. 1974)

. . . 2,885.00 (k) Attendance at priorities portion of trial 260.00 (l) Preparation of claim for attorney’s fees 604.50 . . .

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF LOUISIANA, 249 F. Supp. 423 (E.D. La. 1966)

. . . LeBlanc, in the amount of $604.50; and Louis Levy Grocer Co., Ltd. in the amount of $192.-20.. 10. . . .

GOMEZ, v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, a, 186 F. Supp. 321 (S.D. Ala. 1960)

. . . His medical expenses for the period in question, including hospitalization, totaled $604.50. . . . It follows from the foregoing that the libelant is entitled to judgment in the amount of $604.50 for . . .

HERSHEY CHOCOLATE CORPORATION A. C. Co. v. THE MARS, Co. A S A S J., 172 F. Supp. 321 (E.D. Pa. 1959)

. . . Mowinckels Rederi, trading as Southern Cross Line, her owners, for loss due to slackage in the sum of $604.50 . . . damages as follows: Hershey claim — Slackage: $1,864.46 Spoilage: $6,783.91 Israel claim: Slackage: $ 604.50 . . .

v., 30 T.C. 84 (T.C. 1958)

. . . The petitioner, after conceding that $604.50 of the relocation expenses should be capitalized, claims . . .