Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 162.23 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 162.23 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 162.23

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XI
COUNTY ORGANIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Chapter 162
COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 162.23
162.23 Notice to appear.
(1) Notwithstanding s. 34.07, a code enforcement officer, designated pursuant to s. 162.21(1) and (2), may issue a notice to appear at any hearing conducted by a county court if the officer, based upon personal investigation, has reasonable cause to believe that the person has violated a code or ordinance. A notice to appear means a written order issued by a code enforcement officer in lieu of physical arrest requiring a person accused of violating the law to appear in a designated court or governmental office at a specified date and time. If a person issued a notice to appear under this section refuses to sign such notice, the code enforcement officer has no authority to arrest such person.
(2) Prior to issuing a notice to appear, a code enforcement officer shall provide written notice to the person that the person has committed a violation of a code or ordinance and shall establish a reasonable time period within which the person must correct the violation. Such time period shall be no fewer than 5 days and no more than 30 days. If, upon personal investigation, a code enforcement officer finds that the person has not corrected the violation within the prescribed time period, a code enforcement officer may issue a notice to appear to the person who has committed the violation. A code enforcement officer is not required to provide the person with a reasonable time period to correct the violation prior to issuing a notice to appear and may immediately issue a notice to appear if a repeat violation is found, or if the code enforcement officer has reason to believe that the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare or that the violator is engaged in violations of an itinerant or transient nature, as defined by local code or ordinance within the jurisdiction, or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible.
History.s. 1, ch. 96-385; s. 7, ch. 99-360.

F.S. 162.23 on Google Scholar

F.S. 162.23 on Casetext

Amendments to 162.23


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 162.23
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 162.23.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

CAPITAL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. v. NCR CORPORATION,, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2017)

. . . .; [162.23] (“Bajaj Report”) ¶¶ 2056-61). . . .

CASTELLANO, v. YOUNG RUBICAM, INC., 257 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2001)

. . . recapitalization, advising that in such a recapitalization, Y & R shares could be worth $101.32 to $162.23 . . .

CDCOM U. S. A. INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 963 F. Supp. 1214 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)

. . . . § 162.23(b))”. Ex. F to Supplemental Submittal. . . .

CDCOM U. S. A. v., 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 435 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)

. . . . § 162.23(b))”. Ex. F to Supplemental Submittal. . . .

In DUNCAN, DUNCAN, v. FIRST HERITAGE BANK OF LOUDON COUNTY,, 10 B.R. 13 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1980)

. . . loan was made, at which time the account had a balance of $78.49, resulting in an insufficiency of $162.23 . . . under § 522(d), and the setoff was not a voluntary transfer, the debtor may recover the amount of $162.23 . . . The trustee, however, under § 553(b) was entitled to recover the sum of $162.23. . . . Hence, the plaintiff may recover the sum of $162.23. . . . The amount owed, $240.72, less the deposit of $78.49, leaves an insufficiency of $162.23. . . .

J. AIELLO, v. CITY OF WILMINGTON, DELAWARE C. J. P. X. F. F., 623 F.2d 845 (3d Cir. 1980)

. . . The two charges were violation of Rules 169.16 and 162.23, which proscribe “conduct unbecoming a fireman . . .

DELTA ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 436 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1971)

. . . Plaintiffs were entitled by the terms of such contract and damaged Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,-162.23 . . .