The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 75
BOND VALIDATION

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 75.10

75.10 Recording of judgment in other counties.—If any judgment extends into more than one county it shall be recorded in each county in which the plaintiff municipality or district extends.

History.—s. 4, ch. 10036, 1925; CGL 5116; s. 25, ch. 67-254.

F.S. 75.10 on Google Scholar

F.S. 75.10 on Casetext

Amendments to 75.10

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 75.10

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 75.10.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE SERVI OS DE PETR LEO CONSTELLATION S. A., 600 B.R. 237 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . sentence goes on to explain: As of the RJ Petition Date, LuxCo owned 74.14% of the total capital stock and 75.10% . . .

J. KINDLE v. DEJANA, LLC, F. Jr. LLC, 308 F. Supp. 3d 698 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . $100.00 5.2 $520.00 Jeffrey Lais Paralegal $100.00 137.60 $13,760.00 Elizabeth Keenley Paralegal $100.00 75.10 . . .

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION FKA v. W. COREY, D. D R. H. G. O. G. Jr. D. FKA v. W. D. D R. H. G. O. G. Jr. D., 730 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . NG_50.70 30 80.70 Midwest; Dry Mill; Dry DGS, NG_68.40 30 98.40 Midwest; Wet Mill, 60% NG, 40% coal 75.10 . . .

WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO d b a, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D. Colo. 2012)

. . . . § 75.10(d), include periods of calibration, quality assurance, preventative maintenance, repair, backups . . . This is consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 75.10(d). . . . The Court will not interpret the permit in a manner that would be inconsistent with 40 C.F.R. § 75.10 . . .

GRANT, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE, 727 F. Supp. 2d 677 (M.D. Tenn. 2010)

. . . 26.00% 54.00% 7-13 74.00% 45.90% 2002 2-6 23.60% 48.60% 7-13 76.50% 51.50% 2003 2-6 25.00% 41.30% 7-13 75.10% . . .

HAMILTON, CHAPTER TRUSTEE v. LANNING, 560 U.S. 505 (10th Cir. 2010)

. . . Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 75.10, p. 64 (1991) (“It has been held that the court should focus . . .

HAMILTON, v. LANNING, 130 S. Ct. 2464 (U.S. 2010)

. . . Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 75.10, p. 64 (1991) (“It has been held that the court should focus . . .

JAN HAMILTON, CHAPTER TRUSTEE, v. STEPHANIE KAY LANNING, 177 L. Ed. 2d 23 (U.S. 2010)

. . . Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 75.10, p. 64 (1991) (“It has been held that the court should focus . . .

JEFFERSON- PILOT INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SHORT M., 346 F. Supp. 2d 825 (M.D.N.C. 2004)

. . . judgment against such defendant, require proof of service of the summons in the manner required by G.S. 1-75.10 . . .

R. MOORE v. COX, 341 F. Supp. 2d 570 (M.D.N.C. 2004)

. . . . § 1-75.10(4). Id. . . . Gen.Stat. § 1-75.10(4) (2003). . . . . § 1-75.10(4) raises a rebuttable presumption of valid service consistent with North Carolina Rule of . . .

In AUTO INTERNATIONAL REFRIGERATION, H. v., 275 B.R. 789 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2002)

. . . 4,781.65 PHONE — W/E 3/12/98 Rsrve Charge 03/31 - 12.75 4,768.90 PHONE W/E 3/27/98 Rsrve Chai’ge 04/03 - 75.10 . . .

TRIAD MOTORSPORTS, LLC, v. PHARBCO MARKETING GROUP, INC., 104 F. Supp. 2d 590 (M.D.N.C. 2000)

. . . Plaintiffs counsel filed an affidavit of service pursuant to North Carolina General Statute Section 1-75.10 . . .

In COLON VAZQUEZ, 111 B.R. 19 (Bankr. D.P.R. 1990)

. . . But see, 3 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice, Section 75.10. . . .

In RHEIN,, 73 B.R. 285 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1987)

. . . of the allowed amount of the objecting claimholder’s claim. 3 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice, § 75.10 . . .

PHILLIPS FACTORS CORPORATION, v. HARBOR LANE OF PENSACOLA, INC. d b a T. J. R., 648 F. Supp. 1580 (M.D.N.C. 1986)

. . . return receipt, plaintiff has complied with N.C.R.Civ.P. 4(j)(1)(c) and 4(j2)(2) and N.C.Gen.Stat. 1-75.10 . . .

PETERS, v. NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY OF MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY v. SPEEFLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,, 764 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1985)

. . . Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 75.10 (1983). . . .

In AGENT ORANGE PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION. F. RYAN, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, J. SCHLEGEL, v. J. DEAN,, 611 F. Supp. 1452 (E.D.N.Y. 1985)

. . . 1,340,437.50 331,346.75 -1,009,090.75 225.00 55.62 MUSSLEWHITE 304.657.50 152,535.04 -152,122.46 100.00 75.10 . . .

NEELY, Jr. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 90 F.R.D. 627 (N.D. Ga. 1981)

. . . Holmes 75.10 Drs. Haber and Davis 339.20 Dr. Moore 102.53 Dr. Eisenband 75.10 Dr. . . .

UNITED STATES SERO v. PREISER, 506 F.2d 1115 (2d Cir. 1974)

. . . Laws, c. 40, §§ 75.00, 75.10 (McKinney 1967). . . . Penal Law § 75.10 (McKinney 1967). . . . Penal Law §§ 75.00, 75.10, was unconstitutional. . . . As the Practice Commentary to Section 75.10 — written by the present Commissioner of Corrections, Peter . . . proceedings brought by these three presented an identical challenge to the constitutionality of §§ 75.00 and 75.10 . . .

UNITED STATES SERO v. PREISER,, 372 F. Supp. 663 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)

. . . .-00 and 75.10 of the New York Penal Law, they have been sentenced to indefinite reformatory terms of . . . York courts have held, as to §§ 2185 and 2195 of the old Penal Law, the predecessors of §§ 75.00 and 75.10 . . . example, plaintiffs allege that “There are numerous young people, who were sentenced under Penal Law § 75.10 . . .

UNITED STATES SERO v. PREISER,, 372 F. Supp. 660 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)

. . . The class has been defined as follows: “The class challenging Sections 75.00 and 75.10, subd. 1 of the . . .

SERO v. G. OSWALD,, 355 F. Supp. 1231 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)

. . . to convene a three-judge court to consider the constitutionality on their face of Sections 75.00 and 75.10 . . . order are modified to provide that plaintiffs’ challenge to New York Penal Law, Sections 75.00 and 75.10 . . .

SERO v. G. OSWALD,, 351 F. Supp. 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)

. . . or less, plaintiffs are serving reformatory terms of up to four years pursuant to Sections 75.00 and 75.10 . . . I New York Penal Law §§ 75.00 and 75.10, subd. 1. . . . Section 75.10, subd. 1 provides that a reformatory sentence terminates upon discharge of the inmate by . . . The practice commentary to Section 75.10, subd. 1 states that “the purpose of a reformatory sentence . . . the interests of male inmates or inmates at other institutions who are sentenced under §§ 75.-00 and 75.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GARCIA- SARQUIZ,, 282 F. Supp. 593 (E.D.N.Y. 1968)

. . . counts: the first asserts that he knowingly concealed and facilitated the concealment of approximately 75.10 . . .

S. DICKERSON, v. ORANGE STATE OIL COMPANY, a, 123 So. 2d 562 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)

. . . question with which we are concerned is discussed in Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, sec. 75.10 . . .

ATLANTIC STEAMER SUPPLY COMPANY, a v. THE SS TRADEWIND,, 153 F. Supp. 354 (D. Md. 1957)

. . . the vessel delivered on board and available for passengers’ use (paragraph 3 of the stipulation) __ 75.10 . . .

ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORP. v. GREISINGER, 103 F. Supp. 705 (W.D. Pa. 1952)

. . . amount of $1,349.42 payable in seventeen monthly installments of $74.96 ‘and one monthly installment of $75.10 . . .

PELTASON, TENENBAUM HARRIS, v. REFUNDING BOARD OF ARKANSAS, 16 F. Supp. 179 (W.D. Ark. 1935)

. . . It was further determined that series A bonds at 75.10 are equivalent to series B bonds at 46.88; and . . .