Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 95.22 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 95.22 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 95.22

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VIII
LIMITATIONS
Chapter 95
LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS; ADVERSE POSSESSION
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 95.22
95.22 Limitation upon claims by remaining heirs, when deed made by one or more.
(1) When any person owning real property or any interest in it dies and a conveyance is made by one or more of the person’s heirs or devisees, purporting to convey, either singly or in the aggregate, the entire interest of the decedent in the property or any part of it, then no person shall claim or recover the property conveyed after 7 years from the date of recording the conveyance in the county where the property is located.
(2) This section shall not apply to persons whose names appear of record as devisees under the will or as the heirs in proceedings brought to determine their identity in the office of the judge administering the estate of decedent.
History.s. 1, ch. 10168, 1925; CGL 4659; s. 14, ch. 20954, 1941; s. 15, ch. 73-334; s. 16, ch. 74-382; s. 526, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 95.22 on Google Scholar

F.S. 95.22 on Casetext

Amendments to 95.22


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 95.22
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 95.22.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HUMAN SERVICES,, 79 F. Supp. 3d 269 (D.D.C. 2015)

. . . . § 95.22. 3. . . .

UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION G. I. D L. P. A. D. D. De v. J., 487 F. Supp. 2d 220 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . least the same proportion as passers, Hispanics achieved a nominal passing score at between 82.77% and 95.22% . . .

NATIONAL CANDLE ASSOCIATION, v. UNITED STATES, Co. TIJID, d b a DIJIT,, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)

. . . In the Preliminary Results, Commerce expressed its intention to apply a dumping margin of 95.22 percent . . . The 95.22 percent rate was calculated by taking the weighted-average margin of the only two products . . . Commerce Properly Rejected the 95.22 Percent Weighted-Average Margin. . . . National Candle argues that Commerce’s preliminary determination to apply a margin of 95.22 percent as . . . According to National Candle, in light of this subsequent determination by Commerce, the 95.22 percent . . .

v. Co. d b a, 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 365 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)

. . . In the Preliminary Results, Commerce expressed its intention to apply a dumping margin of 95.22 percent . . . The 95.22 percent rate was calculated by taking the weighted-average margin of the only two products . . . Commerce Properly Rejected the 95.22 Percent Weighted-Average Margin. . . . National Candle argues that Commerce’s preliminary determination to apply a margin of 95.22 percent as . . . According to National Candle, in light of this subsequent determination by Commerce, the 95.22 percent . . .

GLAXO WELLCOME, INC. v. PHARMADYNE CORPORATION,, 32 F. Supp. 2d 265 (D. Md. 1998)

. . . 5.5 and pH 7.0 pH 5.5 pH 7.0 Day of Test 70°C 80°C 70°C 80°C 0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 98.53 95.22 . . .

In WALTERS. WALTERS v. SHERWOOD MUNICIPAL COURT III,, 219 B.R. 520 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1998)

. . . clerk in order for Michelle Walters to be released from jail; • $12.00 finance charge on the loan; • $95.22 . . .

CZESTOCHOWA Oy S. A. S. A. U. S. a USX AG SA. v. UNITED STATES, U. S. a USX GTS Co. S. A. AG ILVA, S. P. A. USA,, 890 F. Supp. 1053 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1995)

. . . Usinor owns 70% of Dillinger’s parent, German holding company Dillinger Hyutte Saarstahl AG, which has a 95.22% . . .

Oy, S. A. S. A. U. S. a USX Co. AG S. A. v. U. S. a USX Co. GTS, Co. S. A. AG S. p. A. ILVA USA,, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 758 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1995)

. . . Usinor owns 70% of Dillinger’s parent, German holding company Dillinger Hyutte Saarstahl AG, which has a 95.22% . . .

PURVIS, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, 643 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . contributed independently to the final disability.” 4 Arthur Larson, Law of Workmens’ Compensation § 95.22 . . .

EGGER, L. M. E. C. v. I. EGGER,, 506 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's finding which quieted title to Lots 5 and 6 in Mary pursuant to section 95.22 . . . Plaintiffs argue, and we agree, that section 95.22 is not applicable to the instant case. . . . third party, who was joined as a defendant at the trial court level, is not a party to this appeal. . 95.22 . . .

AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, v. MORGAN, CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. a v. MORGAN,, 426 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . father’s death; and we further held that the action was not defeated or barred by Sections 95.21 or 95.22 . . .

O. RAY, O. v. J. ROTELLA,, 425 So. 2d 94 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Such deeds of distribution may also benefit the record title as the basis for limitations (see §§ 95.22 . . .

W. ROWE v. T. CUYLER,, 534 F. Supp. 297 (E.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . .-32(2) but § 95.22(b)(2), which provides: “(b) Evaluation, referral, and records. . . . Section 95.22, however, ostensibly governs participation in community treatment programs, rather than . . . Nevertheless, since § 95.22(b)(2) is substantially identical to § 95.32(2), the Court has treated plaintiff . . .

In JEBBIA, f d b a, 9 B.R. 542 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 1980)

. . . purchased certain household goods and furnishings for a cash price of $1,587.00 plus sales tax of $95.22 . . .

MORGAN v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, 357 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Appellee next contends that this action is barred by § 95.22, Florida Statutes (1975). . . . Referring to subsection (2) of § 95.22 above, it is readily seen that § 95.22 specifically does not apply . . .

BUTKIN PRECISION MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 211 Ct. Cl. 110 (Ct. Cl. 1976)

. . . 288,673 52.34 (21,877) * 1962_ 442, 746 60. 09 36, 373 * 1963_ 495, 940 86. 19 22, 305 1964_ 563,228 95.22 . . .

O. CREARY, v. In ESTATE CREARY,, 338 So. 2d 26 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . The trial judge held appellant’s claim to have been barred by F.S. 95.22, F.S.1969 and F.S. 95.23, F.S . . . F.S. 95.22, F.S.1969, provides: “When any person owning land, or any interest in lands in Florida, shall . . .

RACE v. A. B. MOSELEY,, 308 So. 2d 137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . The defendant’s argument that her title is perfected by reason of either § 95.22 or § 95.23 is untenable . . .

BROWN, v. FLOYD,, 202 So. 2d 215 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . . § 95.22 as a bar to the appellee plaintiffs action: F.S. § 95.22, F.S.A. reads as follows: “95.22 Limitation . . . Laws of Florida, Section 4659, would be applicable to the instant case instead of the present F.S. § 95.22 . . . We therefore hold that neither F.S. § 95.22, F.S.A., nor its predecessor Section 4659, Compiled General . . . Sections 95.22 and 95.23, F.S.A. . . . . § 95.22, F.S.A. [4659 C.G.L. 1927] and the Supreme Court, as to F.S. § 95.23, F.S.A. [4660 and 4661 . . .

LaCOSTE v. J. RAY McDERMOTT CO., 193 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1967)

. . . See 2 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, Section 95.22, p. 474 and annotation entitled “Limitations—Contracting . . .

TRANS- ALASKA TELEPHONE COMPANY, E. F. v. FLIGHTCRAFT, INC. a, 353 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1965)

. . . Trans-Alaska forwarded to Beech Acceptance Corporation, Inc., the sum of $5,000.00 together with “a check for $95.22 . . . paid on termination, in the amount of $5,000.00, was paid by Trans-Alaska, together with payment of $95.22 . . .

VAUGHN, A. L. v. VAUGHN, 119 So. 2d 391 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)

. . . . § 95.22], operate as bar to the recovery by the complainants.” . . .

MORRISON v. BYRD, 72 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1954)

. . . . § 95.22 [F.S.A.] which contains a provision to the effect that the seven year statute of limitations . . .

a v. M. S. A. N., 102 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1931)

. . . defendant was acting contrary to the probabilities of the case and to good business sense in paying $95.22 . . .

Co. v., 5 B.T.A. 1221 (B.T.A. 1927)

. . . the redetermination of deficiencies in income and profits taxes for 1920 and 1921, in the amounts of $95.22 . . .

MANNING v. AMY, 140 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1891)

. . . plaintiff, and against the defendant, for the sum of $29,335.37 damages, and for costs of suit, taxed at $95.22 . . .