The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IX
ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS

Chapter 105
NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 105.10

105.10 Applicability of election code.—If any provision of this chapter is in conflict with any other provision of this code, the provision of this chapter shall prevail.

History.—s. 10, ch. 71-49; s. 38, ch. 77-175.

F.S. 105.10 on Google Scholar

F.S. 105.10 on Casetext

Amendments to 105.10

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 105.10

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 105.10.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

JACKSON, v. COMMISSIONER OF NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION,, 265 F. Supp. 3d 243 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . Penal Law § 105.10. Id. at ¶ 5. . . .

GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. WALTER E. CAMPBELL COMPANY, INC., 241 F. Supp. 3d 578 (D. Md. 2017)

. . . The May 26, 2015, Order, however, is also subject to the dictates of Local Rule 105.10 which provides . . . While acknowledging that Local Rule 105.10 mandates that motions for reconsideration be filed within . . . reconsideration that was> granted was filed only 15 days beyond the time permitted under Local Rule 105.10 . . .

RANDOLPH, v. POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION, INC., 309 F.R.D. 349 (D. Md. 2015)

. . . R. 105.10, a motion to reconsider shall be filed within fourteen days after entry of the order the party . . . R. 105.10. . . .

BEY, v. SHAPIRO BROWN ALT, LLP,, 997 F. Supp. 2d 310 (D. Md. 2014)

. . . Neither Rule 59(e), nor Local Rule 105.10 (providing the deadline for a motion for reconsideration), . . .

ASHER SIMONS, P. A. v. GLOBAL CANADA, INC., 977 F. Supp. 2d 544 (D. Md. 2013)

. . . Local Rule 105.10 further provides that “any motion to reconsider any order issued by the Court shall . . .

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)

. . . 30 80.70 Midwest; Dry Mill; Dry DGS, NG_68.40 30 98.40 Midwest; Wet Mill, 60% NG, 40% coal 75.10 30 105.10 . . .

CHEN, v. MAYOR CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,, 292 F.R.D. 288 (D. Md. 2013)

. . . Chen argues that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is untimely because, pursuant to Local Rule 105.10 (D.Md . . . Rule 105.10 states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, 52, 59, or 60, any motion . . .

UNITED STATES v. PICA, Jr., 692 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2012)

. . . the two men’s agreement to rob Gulinello within the meaning of New York Penal Law §§ 160.10(1) and 105.10 . . . Conspiracy to commit robbery under Sections 160.10(1) and 105.10 requires proof that, inter alia, a defendant . . . Penal Law § 160.10(1); id. § 105.10. . . . 1) a conspiracy to extort money from Gulinello, in violation of New York Penal Law §§ 155.40(2) and 105.10 . . . , or to rob Gulinello, in violation of New York Penal Law §§ 160.10(1) and 105.10, and (2) illegal gambling . . . Penal Law § 105.10(1). . . . the two men’s agreement to rob Gulinello within the meaning of New York Penal Law §§ 160.10(1) and 105.10 . . .

CARDONA, v. S. GOORD,, 811 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . . § 105.10-01; (2) second degree kidnapping, N.Y. . . .

GROUND ZERO MUSEUM WORKSHOP, v. WILSON, 813 F. Supp. 2d 678 (D. Md. 2011)

. . . Pursuant to Local Rule 105.10, “[e]xeept as otherwise provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, 52, 59, or 60, any . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. In No. In No. In No. In No. s In No. In No. In No. In No., 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010)

. . . See Note 6 following instruction 105.10. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON,, 596 F. Supp. 2d 661 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . Penal Law §§ 150.10 and 105.10; and arson in violation of N.Y. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BRADSHAW,, 303 F. App'x 967 (2d Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 105.10. . . .

UNITED STATES v. McNEILL, v., 484 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2007)

. . . beyond the 10 days allowed for filing motions for reconsideration under District of Maryland Local Rule 105.10 . . . L.R. 105.10 (made applicable to criminal cases under L.R. 207) (emphasis added). . . .

UNITED STATES v. McNEILL, 420 F. Supp. 2d 448 (D. Md. 2006)

. . . L.R. 105.10 (made applicable to criminal cases under L.R. 207) (emphasis added). . . .

HALLMARK DEVELOPERS, INC. v. FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA,, 386 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (N.D. Ga. 2005)

. . . These census tracts are: 103.01, 103.04, 104, 105.07, 105.08, 105.09, 105.10, 105.11, 105.12, 105.13, . . .

UNITED STATES v. WAGNER,, 103 F. App'x 422 (2d Cir. 2004)

. . . any one of the predicate acts here chargeable under New York law, see New York Penal Law §§ 160.15, 105.10 . . .

E. STEIGERWALD, III LLC v. W. BRADLEY,, 229 F. Supp. 2d 445 (D. Md. 2002)

. . . On February 7, 2002, plaintiffs moved this court pursuant to Local Rule 105.10 to reconsider that segment . . .

In THE WALLACE GALE CO. v. Co., 284 B.R. 553 (D. Md. 2002)

. . . Liberty Mutual responds based on considerations set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) as well as Local Rule 105.10 . . . Among other things, Liberty Mutual argues that Intervenors’ motion comes too late (Local Rule 105.10) . . .

SANCHEZ, v. DUNCAN,, 282 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2002)

. . . Penal Law § 105.10[1]; two counts of first degree sexual abuse, in violation of N.Y. . . .

D. HEMPHILL, v. MCNEIL- PPC, INC., 25 F. App'x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

. . . Hemphill then filed a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to District of Maryland Local Rule 105.10 and . . .

In AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. DEALERSHIPS RELATIONS LITIGATION S R v., 162 F. Supp. 2d 387 (D. Md. 2001)

. . . The time provided by this court’s Local Rule 105.10 for filing a motion to reconsider has long since . . .

UNITED STATES v. DESENA, R. D, B. C. F. A. O A. J. M. A., 260 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2001)

. . . and motor vehicles, and to cause serious bodily injury, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections 105.10 . . .

POTTER, v. POTTER,, 199 F.R.D. 550 (D. Md. 2001)

. . . L.R. 105.10. . . .

UNITED STATES v. GALASSO, III a k a a k a a k a a k a, 118 F. Supp. 2d 322 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . 282 Brookville Road, Old Brookville, New York, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections 150.10 and 105.10 . . .

BRIGGS v. DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, 174 F.R.D. 369 (D. Md. 1997)

. . . this Memorandum and Order, they may, of course, file a motion to reconsider as permitted by Local Rule 105.10 . . .

SCHEINER, v. WALLACE, s J. M., 955 F. Supp. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . County of New York on three counts: (1) conspiracy in the Fourth Degree, in violation of Penal Law § 105.10 . . .

MALDONADO- CORONEL v. McELROY,, 943 F. Supp. 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . Plaintiffs point to INS Operations Instruction (“01”) 105.10(c) which provides, in part, that “[w]hen . . . For example, OI 105.10(c) states that, when an expeditious background clearance is needed from the FBI . . . This Court finds that OI 105.10(c) simply cannot be construed to direct the INS expeditiously to process . . .

UNITED STATES v. WONG, I. T. Ng,, 40 F.3d 1347 (2d Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 105.10, one to four years; third degree bribery (bribery of a public official), a class D felony, . . .

SCHEINER, v. WALLACE, s J. M., 860 F. Supp. 991 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . County of New York on three counts: (1) Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree, in violation of Penal Law § 105.10 . . .

J. DIAMOND v. T. ROWE PRICE ASSOCIATES, INC., 852 F. Supp. 372 (D. Md. 1994)

. . . Pursuant to Local Rule 105.10, the Court declines Diamond's invitation and shall deny her motion for . . .

SCHEINER, v. WALLACE, s J. M., 832 F. Supp. 687 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)

. . . of New York on three counts: (1) Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree, in violation of Penal Law Section 105.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. PRIVATE SANITATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF NASSAU SUFFOLK, INC. A- AA M B D d b a C C Co. Co. d b a s Co. s M P MCM d b a Co. SSC TWA II U- A- s V J Jr. J. Jr. Jr., 793 F. Supp. 1114 (E.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . were chargeable under New York Penal Law Sections 20.00 (criminal liability for conduct of another), 105.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. FEOLA,, 651 F. Supp. 1068 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . convictions of Cercena and co-defendant Feola for conspiracy in the fourth degree under New York Penal Law § 105.10 . . .

STATE WISCONSIN, DEPARTMENT HEALTH SOCIAL SERVICES, v. R. BOWEN,, 797 F.2d 391 (7th Cir. 1986)

. . . Id. at 105.106, 105.10, 105.-11. . . . Id. at 105.10(18)(h)(i)(SNF), 105.11(5)(i)(l)(ICF). . . . Id. at 105.10(18)(i)(l)(SNF), 105.11(5)(j)(l)(ICF). . . . Id. at 105.10(18)(K)(2)(1)(3)(SNF), 105.11(5)(m)(3)(ICF). . . . Id. at 105.10(1)(K)4(SNF), 105.11(5)(M)4(ICF). . . .

In SINDONA, J. a k a, 584 F. Supp. 1437 (E.D.N.Y. 1984)

. . . . §§ 2, 371, 641, 875, 1952, 1961, 1962; New York Penal Law §§ 105.10, 110.00 et seq.; 125.00 et seq; . . .

UNITED STATES v. LILLA, a k a C. a k a a k a UNITED STATES v. LILLA, UNITED STATES v. BENSON, 534 F. Supp. 1247 (N.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . eavesdropping warrant to investigate violations by Michael Lilla, and others, of New York Penal Law §§ 105.10 . . .

M. CATTERSON, v. G. CASO, J. L., 472 F. Supp. 833 (E.D.N.Y. 1979)

. . . . § 105.10 Conspiracy in the second degree. . . .

In YORK INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, INC. YORK INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, INC. Dr. v. M. CHANEY, YORK INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, INC. Dr. v. M. CHANEY,, 527 F.2d 1061 (9th Cir. 1975)

. . . Burgess made the following hourly claims for his own services: (1) 234 hours at $50.00 per hour. (2) 105.10 . . . The claims he presented were on the basis of “(1) 234 hours at $50.00 per hour, (2) 105.10 hours at $60.00 . . .

B. SCHLEY, Jr. J. R. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 375 F.2d 747 (2d Cir. 1967)

. . . For the first year he offset laboratory income of $105.10 against laboratory expenses of $19,354.92, . . .

COMPTROLLER OF TREASURY OF STATE OF MARYLAND, M. BURKE, M. v. G. MILLER, Md. J. Md. Co. a, 194 F. Supp. 912 (D. Md. 1961)

. . . confusing complaint, and the exhibits filed with it, show that Burke has not paid court costs, totaling $105.10 . . . filed a petition in and addressed to that Court, in which he moved for a judgment against Burke for $105.10 . . . judgment be entered against Burke in favor of the Clerk, for the use of the State, for the sum of $105.10 . . .

WEBER v. KAVANAGH,, 52 F. Supp. 619 (E.D. Mich. 1943)

. . . 4,070.48 Paid for supplies to estimating crew in 1928 529.03 Paid for photostats and blueprints in 1928 105.10 . . .