The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 213
STATE REVENUE LAWS: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 213.37

213.37 Authority to require sworn statements.—

(1) The Department of Revenue may require verification of exemption applications, refund applications, and tax returns relevant to administration of the revenue laws of this state.

(2) Verification shall be accomplished as provided in s. 92.525(1)(b) and subject to the provisions of s. 92.525(3).

History.—s. 40, ch. 91-112.

F.S. 213.37 on Google Scholar

F.S. 213.37 on Casetext

Amendments to 213.37

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 213.37

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 213.37.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

A. LOFGREN, v. BNSF RAILROAD COMPANY, a, 235 F. Supp. 3d 1095 (D.N.D. 2017)

. . . . § 213.37 as a matter of law. . . . McBride, 564 U.S. 685, 702-04, 131 S.Ct. 2630, 180 L.Ed.2d 637 (2011)). . 49 C.F.R. § 213.37. . 49 C.F.R . . . . § 213.37(c) and (e). . . . .

SWOOPE, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 666 F. App'x 820 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 213.37 (“vegetation regulation”) but was denied by the district court. . . . [ijnterfere with railroad employees performing normal trackside duties.” 49 C.F.R. § 213.37. . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 213.37. . . .

J. PRATT, J. v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION d b a E. C., 197 F. Supp. 3d 645 (D. Vt. 2016)

. . . . § 213.37 requires railroads to control vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent . . . Section 213.37(d) requires railways to similarly control vegetation so that it does not hinder the functioning . . . Section 213.37(b) and (d) obviously contemplate that overgrown vegetation could be hazardous to motorists . . .

STONEBARGER, Jr. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,, 76 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (D. Kan. 2015)

. . . . § 213.37, which requires a railroad to control vegetation on its property "on or immediately adjacent . . . failing to comply with state law requiring railroads to cut vegetation is not preempted by 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ST. MARY S RAILWAY WEST, LLC, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (S.D. Ga. 2013)

. . . . §§ 213.33 and 213.37 support a determination that the ICCTA’s scope is comprehensive and displaces . . .

MD MALL ASSOCIATES, LLC L. P. v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 715 F.3d 479 (3d Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 213.37(b), serves to “preempt[ ] any state-law claim regarding vegetative growth that blocks a sign . . .

SAPP, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 478 F. App'x 961 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 213.37(c), and in violation of its duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace. . . . Negligence Per Se Claim Sapp argues that CSX had a statutory duty under 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 to remove . . . The district court held that, while Sapp was undisputedly injured on industry track, 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 . . . Under the pertinent provision of § 213.37, “Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately . . . [interfere with railroad employees performing normal trackside duties.” 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c). . . .

SKROVIG, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a, 855 F. Supp. 2d 933 (D.S.D. 2012)

. . . . § 213.37 provides: Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed shall . . . “Section 213.37(b) and (d) obviously contemplate that overgrown vegetation could be hazardous to motorists . . .

McCAIN, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 708 F. Supp. 2d 494 (E.D. Pa. 2010)

. . . The only FRSA provision regulating walkways is § 213.37(c), which provides that vegetation must be controlled . . .

R. NICKELS, v. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD, INC. C. v. CSX, 560 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . Sections 213.33 and 213.37 then address roadbed drainage and trackside vegetation. . . . The only provision that hints at concern with walkways is § 213.37(c), which requires that vegetation . . .

L. VAN BUREN Sr. v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a, 544 F. Supp. 2d 867 (D. Neb. 2008)

. . . . § 213.37 “preempts state regulation of vegetation on or immediately adjacent to the tracks”) (citing . . .

H. HAYES, v. CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC. a k a, 249 F. App'x 709 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . . §§ 213.1 and 213.37, he asked the central regional director of the United States Geological Survey . . . Section 213.37 provides, in pertinent part: Failure of the lessee to comply with any provisions of the . . .

BRADFORD, Jr. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,, 491 F. Supp. 2d 831 (W.D. Ark. 2007)

. . . . § 213.37(b))); Clark v. Illinois Central R.R. . . .

GILLENWATER, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CO., 481 F. Supp. 2d 998 (E.D. Mo. 2007)

. . . . § 213.37; Easterwood v. . . .

KUNTZ J. v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY a k a, 469 F. Supp. 2d 586 (S.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . . § 213.37 simply extinguishes those claims, without furnishing any federal remedy for them. . . . or immediately adjacent to the tracks that obstructed sight distance is preempted under 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 . . .

PETRE, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,, 458 F. Supp. 2d 518 (N.D. Ohio 2006)

. . . . § 213.37(b) also requires railroads to control vegetation upon their rights-of-way so that it does . . .

PETERS, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,, 455 F. Supp. 2d 998 (W.D. Mo. 2006)

. . . . § 213.37. . . . . § 213.37 preempts state regulation of vegetation on or immediately adjacent to the tracks. . . . [r]ight-of-way property can and often does extend several yards from the [tracks]” and that section 213.37 . . .

J. SCHMITZ, v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a, 454 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 213.37(c), and the district court should have so instructed the jury. . . . First, Schmitz sought a negligence instruction incorporating 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c), which provides in . . . A. 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 Schmitz first argues that the district court erred when it refused to instruct . . . the jury that 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c) requires the railroad to control trackside vegetation so that it . . . Schmitz’s failure to plead a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c) was not the only reason the district . . .

MEHL, v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, LIMITED d b a, 417 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (D.N.D. 2006)

. . . . § 213.37(b))); Clark v. Illinois Central R.R. . . .

ANDERSON v. WISCONSIN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,, 327 F. Supp. 2d 969 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

. . . . § 213.37 and § 213.9(a). . . . Section 213.37 requires a railroad to control vegetation on its property “on or immediately adjacent . . . Thus, § 213.37 does not preempt plaintiffs claim. Defendant also argues that based on Gleason v. . . . The full text of § 213.37 is as follows: Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent . . .

SHANKLIN, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., 369 F.3d 978 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 213.37 states: “Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed shall . . . (b) [ojbstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals ...” 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(b). . . . Comm’n, 833 F.2d 570, 577 (5th Cir.1987)(rejecting. ruling that § 213.37(b) controlled a railroad’s right . . . The comparison of 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 and the adequate warning regulation persuasively shows that 23 C.F.R . . .

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, v. ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, D. E. R., 312 F. Supp. 2d 833 (S.D.W. Va. 2004)

. . . Specifically, § 213.37 requires railroads to “control[ ]” vegetation that is upon railroad property. . . . regulation means that federal common law should apply to a dispute, the court considers whether 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 . . . Section 213.37 provides that “Vegetation on rail property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 213.37. . . .

STROZYK, Co- Co- v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORP., 358 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 213.37. . . .

SECURITY FIRST BANK, R. A v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN Fe A Fe v. A. C. Fe v. A, 213 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (D. Neb. 2002)

. . . . § 213.37. .The claim may be further preempted by state statute. . . .

MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, f k a Co. v. CITY OF KENDALLVILLE, INDIANA,, 251 F.3d 1152 (7th Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 213.37 provides: Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed must . . . The argument is that because the federal vegetation regulation, § 213.37, applies only to the area “immediately . . . We think the existence of a vegetation control regulation— that is, § 213.37 — is solid evidence that . . . Were we considering a state law regarding vegetation control, in light of § 213.37, we would need to . . .

GRIMES, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, A., 116 F. Supp. 2d 995 (N.D. Ind. 2000)

. . . . § 213.37 Vegetation. . . .

WABASH WESTERN RAILWAY CO. d b a a v. CITY OF KENDALLVILLE, INDIANA, a, 29 F. Supp. 2d 948 (N.D. Ind. 1998)

. . . . § 213.37 (1998) (emphasis added); see also 49 C.F.R. § 213.33 (“[§ 213.37] prescribes minimum requirements . . . The Fifth Circuit was the first to address the preemptive reach of § 213.37, and it simply relied upon . . . The Court simply cannot rule as a matter of law on the scope of § 213.37’s pre-emptive force when the . . . This conclusion is bolstered by the FRA's explanation of its recent amendment to 49 C.F.R. § 213.37, . . . Based on this statement, it would appear that § 213.37 in general is not intended to cover or pre-empt . . .

O BANNON O O v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY d b a, 960 F. Supp. 1411 (W.D. Mo. 1997)

. . . . § 213.37, promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation under the FRSA, addresses vegetation. . . . Section 213.37(b) requires railroads to control vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately . . . Section 213.37(b) and (d) obviously contemplate that overgrown vegetation could be hazardous to motorists . . . Accordingly, the Court finds that 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.37(b) and 213.9(a) “cover” the same subject matter . . . Consequently, the Court holds that 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(b) and (d) and 49 C.F.R. § 213.9(a), through the . . .

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, AMTRAK v. H P, INCORPORATED,, 949 F. Supp. 1556 (M.D. Ala. 1996)

. . . . § 213.37, railroad track owners must keep vegetation on or immediately adjacent to the tracks under . . . to the railbed, states are free to regulate vegetation beyond the area contemplated by 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 . . .

CARTWRIGHT Co- v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY,, 908 F. Supp. 662 (E.D. Ark. 1995)

. . . . § 213.37 (1994)). See Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. . . .

BORDEN, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 843 F. Supp. 1410 (M.D. Ala. 1993)

. . . . § 213.37 (1992), railroad track owners must keep vegetation on, or immediately adjacent to, the tracks . . . to the railbed, states are free to regulate vegetation beyond the area contemplated by 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 . . .

L. BOWMAN, W. v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,, 832 F. Supp. 1014 (D.S.C. 1993)

. . . . § 213.37 (1992), railroad track owners must keep vegetation on, or immediately adjacent to, the tracks . . . railbed, states are free to regulate vegetation located beyond the area contemplated by 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 . . .

BIGGERS, On KEY, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,, 820 F. Supp. 1409 (N.D. Ga. 1993)

. . . . § 213.37 (1991). . . .

SMITH v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. a, 805 F. Supp. 37 (M.D. Fla. 1992)

. . . courts have preempted the regulation of vegetation immediately adjacent to roadbed pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 213.37 . . .

EASTERWOOD, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 933 F.2d 1548 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 213.37 (1990), track owners must keep vegetation on or immediately adjacent to the tracks under control . . . Railroad Comm. of Tex., 833 F.2d 570 (5th Cir.1987) (holding that 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 pre-empts all state . . .

J. SCOTT, v. SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD, INC., 578 So. 2d 499 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . . § 213.37(c); and, (2) the trial court erred in failing to give the proper Rogers instruction. . . . Scott claims that he was injured as a result of Seaboard’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c), which . . . Prior to trial, Scott filed a Notice to Rely Upon Federal Regulation 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c), for the purpose . . . Later, the court refused to instruct the jury on Seaboard's duty to control the vegetation. 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 . . . Proof that Seaboard’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 213.37(c) contributed to Scott’s injury was a necessary . . .

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS,, 833 F.2d 570 (5th Cir. 1987)

. . . railroad employees from visually inspecting moving equipment from their normal duty stations. 49 C.F.R. 213.37 . . . distance at grade crossings, nor does enforcement of 5.620(b) impair or interfere with FRA regulation 213.37 . . .

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS E., 653 F. Supp. 617 (W.D. Tex. 1987)

. . . Federal vegetation control regulations are established at 49 C.F.R. 213.37 which states: Vegetation on . . .

SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA,, 647 F. Supp. 1220 (N.D. Cal. 1986)

. . . . § 213.37. . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 (1985). . . .

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

. . . N 62°15'35" E 213.37 feet; 117. N 68°45'32// E 55.26 feet; 118. N 67°29'40" E 76.60 feet; 119. . . . N 62°15'35" E 213.37 feet; 117. N 68°45'32" E 55.26 feet; 118. N 67°29,40" E 76.60 feet; 119. . . .