The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 7.49

7.49 Osceola County.—The boundaries of Osceola County are as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of township twenty-five south, range twenty-seven east; thence east on said township line to the northeast corner of township twenty-five south, range thirty-four east; thence south on the range line dividing ranges thirty-four and thirty-five east, to the line dividing townships thirty-two and thirty-three south; thence west on said township line to the west bank of Central and South Florida Flood Control District Canal C-38 (Kissimmee River); thence northerly along said west bank to Lake Kissimmee; thence northerly and westerly along the west shore of Lake Kissimmee to the west bank of Central and South Florida Flood Control District Canal C-37; run thence northerly along said west bank of canal to Lake Hatchineha; thence westerly, northerly and easterly along the west and north shore of Lake Hatchineha to the thread of the stream of Dead River; run thence northerly along the thread of the stream of Dead River, and Reedy Creek to the west shore of Lake Cypress; run thence northerly along said west shore of Lake Cypress to the township line dividing townships twenty-seven and twenty-eight south; thence west on said line to the range line dividing ranges twenty-eight and twenty-nine east; thence north along the range line to the southeast corner of section twelve, township twenty-seven south, range twenty-eight east; thence west along section lines to the southwest corner of section nine, township twenty-seven south, range twenty-eight east; thence north along section lines to the southwest corner of section twenty-one, township twenty-six south, range twenty-eight east; thence northwesterly through respective section and quarter section corners to the southeast corner of township twenty-five south, range twenty-seven east; thence west along township line to the point where the dividing line between ranges twenty-six and twenty-seven east intersects the line dividing townships twenty-five and twenty-six south; run thence north on the range line to the point of beginning. The shorelines of Lakes Kissimmee and Hatchineha shall be as physically present unless and until the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund shall establish bulkhead lines along the said lake shores; in which event, the said shorelines shall be the said bulkhead lines to the extent they are so established.

History.—s. 2, ch. 1201, 1861; s. 2, ch. 1998, 1874; s. 2, ch. 3177, 1879; s. 1, ch. 3768, 1887; RS 49; GS 47; s. 1, ch. 7401, 1917; RGS 52; CGL 54; s. 1, ch. 67-592; ss. 27, 35, ch. 69-106.

F.S. 7.49 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.49 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.49

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.49

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.49.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

AMERICAN FUEL PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS a a v. O KEEFFE Ed F., 903 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2018)

. . . carbon intensity scores for ethanol vary widely under the Oregon program, ranging in January 2016 from 7.49 . . .

BRYANT, v. THORATEC CORP., 343 F. Supp. 3d 594 (S.D. Miss. 2018)

. . . . ¶¶ 7.46, 7.49, and/or 7.53, and that Ms. . . .

INTERIMAGE, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 133 Fed. Cl. 355 (Fed. Cl. 2017)

. . . The Government shall make monthly payments of the fixed fee at the rate of $ 7.49* per direct labor hour . . .

OHIO VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, v. FOLA COAL COMPANY, LLC,, 120 F. Supp. 3d 509 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)

. . . In April 2012, WVDEP reported that the total flow at the mouth of Right Fprk is approximately 7.49 cubic . . .

M. BUSH v. THORATEC CORPORATION,, 13 F. Supp. 3d 554 (E.D. La. 2014)

. . . . § 7.49, which provides guidelines for recall notices; or alternatively that Thoratec violated federal . . . Bush later abandoned all but one theory: that Thoratec violated 21 C.F.R. § 7.49 by failing to include . . .

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE CPR v. SALAZAR, U. S. M. U. S., 877 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (M.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . secondary trail; (3) reopening 15.21 miles of previously closed trails as primary trails; and (4) reopening 7.49 . . . convert 1.58 miles of primary trail to secondary trail, to re-open 15.21 miles of primary trail, and 7.49 . . . re-designated 1.58 miles of primary trails to secondary trails and reopened 15.21 miles of primary trails and 7.49 . . .

In H. McELWEE, Jr. S. H. Jr. S. v., 469 B.R. 566 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . In 2003, the Debtors purchased a 7.49-acre parcel, improved with a brick dwelling, a barn, garage, and . . .

In H. McELWEE, Jr. S. H. Jr. S. v., 449 B.R. 669 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2011)

. . . The subject property is a 7.49 acre tract, improved with a two-story brick dwelling and six other buildings . . . As noted above, the Wayne Road Property contains 7.49 acres. The comparable sales considered by Mr. . . .

COLEMAN, PAGA v. ESTES EXPRESS LINES, INC. a a G. I., 730 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . hourly rate for P & D Drivers as $21.61 and the average number of hours worked per day in each year (7.49 . . . That resulted in the following calculations: 2007: $21.61/hr x 7.49 hrs/day x 57 class members x 30 days . . . The $261,264 is calculated based on the following formulas: 2007: $8.00/hour x 7.49/average hrs. worked . . .

In BAYER CORP. COMBINATION ASPIRIN PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, 701 F. Supp. 2d 356 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . A bottle of 60 tablets of Bayer Calcium costs $7.49, or $0.12 per pill. . . . .

D. SANDY, v. McCLURE, R. MB LCC, a, 676 F. Supp. 2d 866 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . In addition, Sandy has submitted evidence that he actually received interest of 7.49% — and not 8% — . . .

RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL, v. SEBELIUS,, 670 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D.R.I. 2009)

. . . In the alternative, Plaintiff claimed that 7.49 of the disputed FTEs did, in fact, involve caring for . . . The Secretary went on to address Plaintiffs narrower argument: [Plaintiff] has also argued that 7.49 . . .

CLARK, v. ACTAVIS GROUP HF, LLC LLC, US, UDL, 567 F. Supp. 2d 711 (D.N.J. 2008)

. . . . §§ 7.40, 7.42, 7.46, 7.49. . . . See 21 C.F.R. § 7.49(a) (“The format, content, and extent of a recall communication should be commensurate . . . See id. § 7.49(c)(2) (“The recall communication should not contain irrelevant qualifications, promotional . . .

In OMEPRAZOLE PATENT LITIGATION. AB, v. AB, v. Dr. S. A. AB, v. Co. D. D. AB, v. AB, v., 490 F. Supp. 2d 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . omeprazole was 7.07, the mean pH of 33% suspensions was 7.27-7.58, and the mean pH of 50% solutions was 7.49 . . .

Re In HUMAN TISSUE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 488 F. Supp. 2d 430 (D.N.J. 2007)

. . . . § 7.49(a). Finally, the FDA determines when the recall will be terminated. Id. § 7.55(a). . . .

In TIREY,, 350 B.R. 62 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . The contract rate of interest on Debtor’s loan is 7.49%. . . .

In WEST,, 324 B.R. 45 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2005)

. . . Presently, the mortgage carries an interest rate of 7.49% payable at $1153 each month, and has a balance . . .

Q. LUM v. BANK OF AMERICA N. A. Co. N. A. PNC N. A. U. S. Q. S., 361 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2004)

. . . month of 5.49 percentage points above the prime rate for balances greater than or equal to $2,500, or 7.49 . . .

In ROCKEFELLER CENTER PROPERTIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, a C. W. Co. a P. B. Jr. v. Co. LP Co. V WH V WH LP V M. D. M. Jr. a C. W. Co. a P. B. Jr. v. Co. LP Co. V WH V WH LP V M. D. M. C. W. Co. B. P., 311 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2002)

. . . estimated that its final proposal would amount to buying out RCPI’s shareholders at a price between $7.49 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HARRISON,, 296 F.3d 994 (10th Cir. 2002)

. . . Myers, Evidence in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases § 7.49, at 319 (3d ed.1997) [hereafter Myers]. . . .

UNITED STATES v. McLEAN, Jr., 287 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2002)

. . . testimony of Yvel Jean-Baptiste who, after being arrested in April 1998 for receiving a delivery of 7.49 . . . regarding the quantities of drugs involved in McLean’s crimes, except that the Court only attributed 7.49 . . .

A. DUMONT A. v. UNITED STATES, 80 F. Supp. 2d 576 (D.S.C. 2000)

. . . Ex. 7.49. This surgery was within the applicable standard of care. . . .

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, v. ROUSSEL CORP. S. A. S. P. A., 23 F. Supp. 2d 460 (D.N.J. 1998)

. . . . § 7.49(a). . . . . § 7.49(c). . . . See 21 C.F.R. § 7.49(c). . . .

CANTEEN CORPORATION, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,, 103 F.3d 1355 (7th Cir. 1997)

. . . earnings they would sustain if they accepted employment with Canteen: The three were making $6.79 or $7.49 . . .

In III ENTERPRISES, INC. V,, 163 B.R. 453 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1994)

. . . See also, id., § 7.49, at 765 (one consideration may support several promises). See also Miller v. . . .

L. LIGHTSEY, D. J. A. Jr. W. B. v. A. WILLIAMS, Jr., 526 So. 2d 764 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Sections 7.49 and 7.53, Florida Statutes (1987). . Section 47.071, Florida Statutes (1987). . . .

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, v. WALKER RANCH GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,, 496 So. 2d 153 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Both section 7.49, Florida Statutes (1985), which describes Osceola County, and section 7.53, Florida . . . This statute, when read in conjunction with the provisions of sections 7.49 and 7.53, describing the . . . Both sections 7.49 and 7.53 provide: The shorelines of Lakes Kissimmee and Hatchineha shall be as physically . . .

L. J. v., 87 T.C. 349 (T.C. 1986)

. . . Treasury securities 3 years. 7.49% 10 years. 7.99 Corporate bonds AAA. 8.83 BAA ..... 10.61 Medium grade . . .

K. S. OGDEN, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 788 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1986)

. . . 42.75% Fourth Period —0— —0— —0— —0— —0— —0— —0— —0— —0— —0— —0— 1979-1983 .25% .25% .50% .25% .25% .50% 7.49% . . .

K. S. v., 84 T.C. 871 (T.C. 1985)

. . . Toups 5.71% 0 7.49% H. Alva Brumfield 0 0 6.68% Murry A. . . .

TEXACO, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, P. AMERICAN PETROFINA, INCORPORATED, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, P. PENNZOIL COMPANY, v. REAGAN, P., 604 F. Supp. 1493 (D. Del. 1985)

. . . December, 1980, the average price per barrel of the three categories of crude oil was: lower tier, $7.49 . . .

EXXON CORPORATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, P. B. TEXACO, INC. Co. U. S. A. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, P. T., 601 F. Supp. 1395 (D. Del. 1985)

. . . December, 1980, the average price per barrel of the three categories of crude oil was: lower tier, $7.49 . . .

CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, v. A. PECK, Jr. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, As A. Jr. As ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANIES, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, As A. Jr. As, 751 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

. . . Tail Lamp Subcompact 10.34 5.83 44% Compact 8.19 7.31 11% Intermediate 8.64 6.25 28% Full Size 7.49 8.48 . . . 2.5 mph Tail Lamp Subcompact 10.34 8.12 21% Compact 8.19 8.88 -8% Intermediate 8.64 8.29 4% Full Size 7.49 . . .

J. KUHN, v. VORTEX, INC. v. JOSEPH BRENNER ASSOCIATES, INC., 747 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1984)

. . . Kuhn also had a 7.49% ownership interest in the film. Vortex, Inc. owned a 50% interest. . . .

ZOSLAW d b a v. MCA DISTRIBUTING CORP., 594 F. Supp. 1022 (N.D. Cal. 1984)

. . . For example, they have submitted an exhibit which they claim shows that Tower received 7.49% of its net . . . But in calculating that 7.49% figure the plaintiffs have compared the advertising allowance for the entire . . .

KETCHUM, v. M. BYRNE,, 740 F.2d 1398 (7th Cir. 1984)

. . . constitute 60.09% of the total population but only 52.6% of the voting age population, a differential of 7.49% . . .

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. UNITED CONTRACTORS INCORPORATED JMCO, 713 F.2d 1322 (7th Cir. 1983)

. . . 1977, the Company reduced the hourly wages of the aforementioned truckdrivers from $7.80 an hour to $7.49 . . .

UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, B. Jr. TOSCO CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, B. Jr. TOSCO CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, B. Jr. TOSCO CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, B. Jr., 688 F.2d 797 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . By December, 1980, the average prices of lower-tier and upper-tier crude oil were respectively $7.49 . . .

J. NEAL, R. J. F. J. A. Sr. C. C. B. v. CAREY CANADIAN MINES, LTD. Co. Co., 548 F. Supp. 357 (E.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . N.T. 7.49-7.51. However, Dr. . . .

B. K. v., 77 T.C. 1326 (T.C. 1981)

. . . owner’s for purposes of par. 3 of calendar year maintenance contract 1.10 2.12 3.16 4.21 5 .28 6.37 7.49 . . .

HOWARD, Sr. v. SUMMIT COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,, 525 F. Supp. 1084 (N.D. Ohio 1981)

. . . salary in this position was $6.61 per hour with an increase in the second year to $7.14 per hour and to $7.49 . . .

CROWN CORK SEAL COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AFL- CIO- CLC,, 659 F.2d 127 (10th Cir. 1981)

. . . posting on the day of the election of a poster containing the statement “A [Union] Vote Guarantees You $7.49 . . .

J. CORMIER, v. P. P. G. INDUSTRIES, INC., 519 F. Supp. 211 (W.D. La. 1981)

. . . 0.83 2.17 1976 6.35 48 3.05 -1.05 Actual value is within 2 standard deviations of hypothetical 1977 7.49 . . .

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY B., 520 F. Supp. 420 (N.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . As of December 1980, lower tier crude oil was selling to refiners for an average of $7.49 per barrel . . .

T. GOADBY v. PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC, 504 F. Supp. 812 (E.D. Pa. 1980)

. . . My worst situation, where the 500 and 230 line parallel is under code condition, [is] 7.49 .. . . . . Administrative law judge Farber found that an electromagnetic field reaching a strength of 7.49 Kv per . . .

BRITISH AIRWAYS BOARD v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, J. G. R. A. C. III, F. III, L. F., 564 F.2d 1002 (2d Cir. 1977)

. . . subjected to noise levels at or above 100 EPNdB; comparable figures for the B-707 and the B-747 are 7.49 . . .

v. v., 64 T.C. 282 (T.C. 1975)

. . . 11.27 0 10,591.08 132.02 1,267.90 19.500 20,079.64 412.60 1,598.52 28.500 31 117 074 1,365.02 27.49 7.49 . . . 26,773.97 297,929.96 31 117 075 11.27 308,700.00 1,080.50 309,045.00 1,253.54 198,600.00 31 117 074 7.49 . . .

NORTH FLORIDA TELEPHONE CO., 42 Fla. Supp. 167 (Fla. P.S.C. 1975)

. . . rate base and net operating income, the result of which is to increase the actual rate of return to 7.49% . . . simple mathematics indicate the company’s earned intrastate rate of return during the test period was 7.49% . . .

L. SCOTT, v. LIBERTY FINANCE CO., 380 F. Supp. 475 (D. Neb. 1974)

. . . 33.00 17 241.30 33.69 25.66 18 249.41 25.58 19.25 19 256.57 18.42 13.75 20 262.61 12.38 9.17 21 267.50 7.49 . . . 33.69 25.66 8.03 23.8% 18 25.58 19.25 6.33 24.8% 19 18.42 13.75 4.67 25.4% 20 12.38 9.17 3.21 25.9% 21 7.49 . . .

SCHNAPPS SHOP, INC. v. H. W. WRIGHT CO. LTD. SCHNAPPS SHOP, INC. v. UNIVERSAL LIQUORS, INCORPORATED, 377 F. Supp. 570 (D. Md. 1973)

. . . Schnapps had also bought from Wright half-gallon bottles of Hiram Walker’s Imperial for $7.49 per bottle . . . Imperial Whiskey from defendant at $4.05 per bottle, or $8.10 for two quarts, and half-gallon bottles at $7.49 . . .

A. TEICHNER B. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 453 F.2d 944 (2d Cir. 1972)

. . . with the source of the money or to whom or where it flowed (the balance on December 31, 1962 was only $7.49 . . .

P. SHULTZ, v. PACIFIC- FORD, S. A. a, 304 F. Supp. 1176 (D.C.Z. 1969)

. . . Britton $ 7.49 Desiderio Britton 392.18 Delbert Lewis 64.49 Carlos I. . . .

L. A. L. Jr. v., 46 T.C. 805 (T.C. 1966)

. . . 10.83 63.66 65.13 5,841.54 5,132.48 13 11 85 96 Dec. 16,1963-9.18 66.78 4,340.21 12 108 Dec. 10,1964-7.49 . . .

CENTRAL LOUISIANA ELECTRIC COMPANY, v. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, M. L., 236 F. Supp. 271 (W.D. La. 1964)

. . . period CLEGO’s average rate was 6.90 mills per kilowatt-hour as compared to an overall average rate of 7.49 . . .

MONOLITH PORTLAND MIDWEST COMPANY, a v. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, a, 128 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Cal. 1955)

. . . “Reimbursables”) on which $109,322.49 was found due to Monolith plus interest at 2%% Per annum (or $7.49 . . . findings it found that Monolith was entitled to interest on its claim allowed by R.F.C., in the sum of $7.49 . . . III] Since that time R.F.C. has ascertained that this calculation of $7.49 per day was based upon a 365 . . . R.F.C. counterclaim, the use of a 360 day period increases the interest on the Monolith claim from $7.49 . . .

THUET v. RIDDELL,, 104 F. Supp. 521 (S.D. Cal. 1952)

. . . the parties that the life expectancy of trustor herein on January 1, 1950, was, for annuity purposes, 7.49 . . .