The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 35
DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 35.05

35.05 Headquarters.—

(1) The headquarters of the First Appellate District shall be in the Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Leon County; of the Second Appellate District in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County; of the Third Appellate District in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County; of the Fourth Appellate District in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; of the Fifth Appellate District in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Volusia County; and of the Sixth Appellate District in the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Lakeland, Polk County. Although each district must have a headquarters as set forth in this subsection, the Legislature intends for policies and practices to be implemented to encourage top applicants for judicial vacancies from throughout each entire district and to provide opportunities for remote workplaces for judges and staff who may not live near the headquarters of the district. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that the district courts operate as efficiently as possible through the use of leading technologies and by adopting policies and practices that encourage innovation and workforce flexibility.

(2) A district court of appeal may designate other locations within its district as branch headquarters for the conduct of the business of the court and as the official headquarters of its officers or employees pursuant to s. 112.061.

History.—s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 1, ch. 65-294; ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, ch. 67-29; s. 8, ch. 71-355; s. 3, ch. 79-413; s. 1, ch. 80-123; s. 22, ch. 2000-237; s. 11, ch. 2008-4; s. 7, ch. 2013-25; s. 9, ch. 2022-163.

F.S. 35.05 on Google Scholar

F.S. 35.05 on Casetext

Amendments to 35.05

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 35.05

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 35.05.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. LTD. NAC v. UNITED STATES,, 932 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . which again had been selected by Commerce as a mandatory respondent, an antidumping duty margin of 35.05% . . .

RAMEY, v. DAVIS,, 314 F. Supp. 3d 785 (S.D. Tex. 2018)

. . . PRO. art. 35.05. . . .

JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. LTD, NAC v. UNITED STATES,, 322 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2018)

. . . For POR 10, Kangtai was assessed a weighted average dumping margin of 35.05%. . . .

AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 850 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2017)

. . . cannot itself be the antitrust violation without invoking Noerr.” 2 Ho-venkamp et al., IP & Antitrust § 35.05 . . . Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297, 314 (3d Cir. 2007); 2 Hovenkamp et al., IP & Antitrust § 35.05[B] (3d ed . . .

DIOP, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, A., 50 F. Supp. 3d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . Penal Law § 35.05(2). . . .

NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,, 756 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2014)

. . . Penal Law § 35.05(1); LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 10.2(b), at 135 n. 15; see also Robinson, Criminal . . .

CRUZ, v. INTERNATIONAL COLLECTION CORPORATION, a D., 673 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . Cruz a sixth letter stating that Cruz owed $500.00 in principal, $1,500.00 in treble damages, and $35.05 . . .

PRESTON, v. CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, 642 F.3d 646 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . See § 35.05. . . .

QWEST CORPORATION, v. C. BOYLE, L. E. Jr., 589 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . in the following monthly leasing rates for individual loops in each zone: Zone 1, $15.14; Zone 2, $35.05 . . .

GIBBS, v. DONNELLY,, 673 F. Supp. 2d 121 (W.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . Penal Law § 35.05. . . .

THOMPSON, v. QUARTERMAN,, 629 F. Supp. 2d 665 (S.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . Not only did counsel agree to excuse the juror as allowed by Article 35.05, [Thompson] agreed to excuse . . . Article 35.05 states: "One summoned upon a special venire may by consent of both parties be excused from . . .

JOCKS, v. TAVERNIER A., 316 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003)

. . . Penal Law §§ 35.05, 35.15 (McKinney 1997). . . . Penal Law § 35.05 provides, in part, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable . . .

E. PLAISTED L. D. v. GEISINGER MEDICAL CENTER, 210 F.R.D. 539 (M.D. Pa. 2002)

. . . Moore Et Al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 35.05[1] (citing Great West Life Assurance Co. v. . . . Moore Et Al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 35.05[1] (footnotes and citations omitted). (Rec. Doc. . . .

MILLER, v. KENWORTH OF DOTHAN, INC., 117 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (M.D. Ala. 2000)

. . . additional attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,245 for fees incurred after November 12, 1999, plus $35.05 . . . Further, in his Supplemental Motion, Plaintiff asks for an additional $35.05 for costs incurred for computerized . . . mileage expenses for travel totaling $242.20; (3) postage expenses in the amount of $105.92; and (4) $35.05 . . . Thus, Plaintiffs request for costs in the amount of $35.05 for Westlaw legal research is denied. 5. . . .

McCOLLY, v. BRUNELLE,, 980 F. Supp. 691 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . . § 35.05(2)(use of physical force justified where necessary as emergency measure to avoid imminent public . . .

UNITED STATES v. LYNCH, 952 F. Supp. 167 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . that the defendants could present and argue New York’s justification statute, New York Penal Law § 35.05 . . . 161 Misc.2d 588, 614 N.Y.S.2d 871, 873 (1994) (finding the defense of justification under Penal Law § 35.05 . . .

v., 104 T.C. 256 (T.C. 1995)

. . . 40.10 H 39.30 2d 38.70 39.30-39.50 (N 35.75 3d 35.60 35.65-35.80 H 36.75 4th 36.55 36.65-36.80 H 1982 35.05 . . . receipts (a) (b) (a)x(b) (c) (d) ('a)x(d) (e) (b)-(d) (f) (a)x(f) or (c)-(e) (8) 1982 Q1 8,706,721 35.05 . . . Qtr. 3 35.75 35.60 .15 35.40 .35 35.57 .18 Qtr. 4 36.75 36.55 .20 36.81 C.06) 36.84 (.09) 1982 Qtr. 1 35.05 . . .

D. RICHARDS, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 884 F. Supp. 256 (N.D. Ohio 1995)

. . . Keegan 35.05 $85/hr 9.75 2979.00 William H. . . . Keegan’s hours, the Court finds 33.85 of the 35.05 hours billed to be reasonable. . . .

BIG CHIEF DRILLING COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 26 Cl. Ct. 1276 (Cl. Ct. 1992)

. . . calculated as follows: $1,087.06 + $1,086.06 = $2,173.12 $2,173.12 divided by 62 operating days = $35.05 . . . RIG INSURANCE 35.05 15. SITE OVERHEAD 405.30 16. OKLAHOMA CITY OFFICE OVERHEAD - 0 - 17. . . .

WESTERN AUTO v. MOORE,, 567 So. 2d 972 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . $420.60 (earnings) divided by 70.10 (hours) = $6.00 per hour. 70.10 (hours) divided by 2 (weeks) = 35.05 . . .

RINALDI, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 756 F. Supp. 111 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . Penal Law § 35.05 (unlawful conduct justified where necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent . . .

MOORE, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 674 F. Supp. 901 (D.D.C. 1987)

. . . Fees Costs TOTAL AWARD RATE $115.00 $115.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 25.00 HOURS 31.50 76.40 31.90 35.05 . . .

BUCHANAN v. KENTUCKY, 483 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1987)

. . . Milward, Kentucky Criminal Practice §§ 35.01-35.05 (1983). . . .

D. BAILEY, v. METRO FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF LAKE CHARLES,, 642 F. Supp. 616 (W.D. La. 1986)

. . . of Sunset Drive 333.34 feet; thence North 0° 58' 53" East 79.16 feet; thence South 89° 10' 06" West 35.05 . . . Sulphur Farms Subdivision; thence go South 0° 36' 20" East, 549.10 feet; thence North 89° 10' 06" East 35.05 . . .

W. v., 87 T.C. 225 (T.C. 1986)

. . . estate interest in the nonvoting common stock and petitioner Barbara Cox Anthony transferred a total of 35.05 . . .

RAMIREZ, v. E. W. JONES,, 530 F. Supp. 345 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . Under New York Penal Law § 35.05, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable . . .

CALIFORNIA v. ARIZONA, 452 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1981)

. . . S 75°21'26// E 35.05 feet; 458. S 06053'21" W 31.35 feet; 459. S 38°50'29" E 73.95 feet; 460. . . .

UNITED STATES v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,, 90 F.R.D. 377 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . See Fed.R.Evid. 804(a); 4A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 35.05[2], at 32-32.1 (2d ed. 1981). . . .

UNITED STATES TSIRIZOTAKIS, a k a v. LEFEVRE, J., 534 F. Supp. 40 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . The revised Penal Law, in Section 35.05, subdivision 2, expressly provides that when conduct which would . . .

BOROUGH OF ELLWOOD CITY, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 583 F.2d 642 (3rd Cir. 1978)

. . . . § 35.05 referred only to filing cancellations and did not specifically require filing where a contract . . .

QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL CHILDREN, INC. v. SCHOOL BOARD OF SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WINNEBAGO COUNTY, ILLINOIS,, 385 F. Supp. 803 (N.D. Ill. 1974)

. . . 27.27 41.31 36.95 35.76 32.01 Muldoon 29.21 29.61 40.11 28.92 31.39 29.47 Rock River 32.30 36.19 41.69 35.05 . . .

ATLANTIC DISCOUNT COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 473 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1973)

. . . Johnson, Federal Income, Gift and Estate Taxation § 35.05 (1972). . . .

BRINEGAR, v. SAN ORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a S. O. G., 302 F. Supp. 630 (E.D. Ark. 1969)

. . . specified that the operator must be a licensed master or pilot at least twenty-one years of age. 46 C.F.R. 35.05 . . . Pursuant to the statute, the Commandant promulgated the following regulation which appears in C.F.R. § 35.05 . . .

WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, v. A. CHURCH, N. Y., 247 F. Supp. 808 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)

. . . Kuhl, supra; Mertens, 6 Law of Federal Income Taxation § 35.05. . . .

ESTATE M. SMITH, E. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 313 F.2d 724 (8th Cir. 1963)

. . . Commissioner, 4 Cir., 297 F.2d 169, 172; 6 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 35.05. . . .

W. H. NEIL W. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 269 F.2d 563 (5th Cir. 1959)

. . . United States, 4 Cir., 144 F.2d 23; See also Mertens’ Law of Federal Income Taxation, Vol. 6, Sec. 35.05 . . .

NEPTUNE TRANSPORTATION CORP. v. THE BARTOW, Co., 158 F. Supp. 45 (S.D.N.Y. 1956)

. . . a Tankerman may be berthed on board this barge to provide Watchman service as prescribed in Section 35.05 . . .

HALEY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 203 F.2d 815 (5th Cir. 1953)

. . . United States, 4 Cir., 144 F.2d 23; See also Mertens’ Law of Federal Income Taxation, Vol. 6, Sec. 35.05 . . .

DE NOBILI CIGAR CO. v. UNITED STATES, 146 F.2d 556 (2d Cir. 1945)

. . . average selling price during the “tax period”, that is, from October 1, 1933, to March 1, 1935, was $35.05 . . . If the base period price of $34.79 be compared with the tax period price of $35.05 it shows an increase . . .