The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 215
FINANCIAL MATTERS: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 215.12

215.12 Defaulting officers; duty of clerk.—The clerk of the circuit court to whom any such statement shall be forwarded, shall file the same in his or her office, and within 10 days thereafter shall furnish each of the sureties of such delinquent officer with an abstract of such statement, showing the amount of indebtedness of such delinquent officer to the state, and shall at the same time furnish the sureties with a statement showing his or her indebtedness to the county, if there be any.

History.—s. 2, ch. 3854, 1889; RS 418; GS 607; RGS 1042; CGL 1353; s. 1144, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 215.12 on Google Scholar

F.S. 215.12 on Casetext

Amendments to 215.12

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 215.12

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 215.12.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL CONSERVATION LEAGUE, v. E. PRUITT, R. D., 318 F. Supp. 3d 959 (D.S.C. 2018)

. . . . §§ 215.12(f) and 215.4(a), is compelled by the text of the Administrative Procedure Act..."). . . .

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, v. B. SESSIONS III, 293 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (C.D. Cal. 2018)

. . . . §§ 215.12(f) and 215.4(a), is compelled by the text of the Administrative Procedure Act..."); Zayn . . .

SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER, v. TIDWELL,, 847 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . . §§ 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) (2003). . . . Plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service has violated the ARA § 322(a) and (c) by issuing Sections 215.12 . . . Only Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) applied in the context of that project. . . . Because the record had been developed factually for Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f), review of those . . . Instant Action The complaint asserts a facial challenge to Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) pursuant to . . .

SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER, v. TIDWELL,, 847 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . . §§ 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) (2003). . . . For the following reasons, this Court finds that Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) are manifestly contrary . . . Accordingly, Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) fail the first step of the Chevron analysis. . . . Accordingly, this Court finds Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) are invalid. . . . ENJOINS the Forest Service from implementing Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f); and 4. . . .

SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER, v. TIDWELL,, 847 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . . §§ 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) (2003). . . . In opposition, Plaintiffs assert that this is facial challenge of Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f). . . . Plaintiffs’ Allegations The complaint asserts a facial challenge to Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) pursuant . . . Plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service has violated the ARA § 322(a) and (c) by issuing Sections 215.12 . . . This facial challenge presents one common question of law — whether Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) are . . .

WILDERNESS SOCIETY, INC. v. REY, 622 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . Eastern District of California granted nationwide injunctive relief with respect to §§ 215.20(b) and 215.12 . . . The district court granted TWS’s motion for summary judgment and declared §§ 215.20(b) and 215.12(f) . . . Earth Island lacked standing to challenge §§ 215.4(a) and 215.12(f), because it failed to identify an . . . Recognizing the hurdle posed by Summers, TWS now argues that it has standing with respect to § 215.12 . . . It was not relevant to § 215.12(f) at the time the complaint was filed and it did not represent a future . . .

FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,, 689 F. Supp. 2d 891 (W.D. Ky. 2010)

. . . that result from the initial project decision that was subject to appeal” are not appealable. 36 CFR § 215.12 . . .

CITIZENS FOR BETTER FORESTRY, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 632 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . . § 215.12(f). . . . Earth Island Institute sued, challenging 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.4(a) and 215.12(f). . . . The court’s discussion of standing referred only to § 215.12(f), which had the effect of eliminating . . . The Ninth Circuit went on to affirm the district court’s invalidation of §§ 215.4(a) and 215.12(f). . . . Having concluded that Earth Island Institute lacked standing to challenge §§ 215.4(a) and 215.12(f), . . .

SUMMERS v. EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE, 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009)

. . . environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA). 36 CFR §§ 215.4(a) (notice and comment), 215.12 . . . ) of its regulations implementing the Appeals Reform Act (requiring prior notice and comment), and §215.12 . . . It invalidated five of the regulations (including §§ 215.4(a) and 215.12(f)), id., at 1011, and entered . . . It affirmed, however, the District Court’s determination that §§ 215.4(a) and 215.12(f), which were applicable . . . things, salvage-timber sales on burned forest lands of less than 250 acres in size. 36 CFR §§ 215.4(a), 215.12 . . .

NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS COUNCIL v. KIMBELL, U. S. a, 304 F. App'x 537 (9th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 215.12(b). To the extent there is any other claim of procedural error, the error was harmless. . . .

FOREST GUARDIANS, a a a a a a v. FORSGREN, U. S. a M. a a a H., 478 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 215.12 (recognizing a LRMP may include a “project decision”); compare Norton, 542 U.S. at 69, 124 . . .

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE a a v. RUTHENBECK a D. C. No. a v. M., 490 F.3d 687 (9th Cir. 2006)

. . . . §§ 215.12(f) and 215.4(a) and inapplicability of the opinion to 36 C.F.R. § 215.18(b)(1) is GRANTED . . . But because only two aspects of the regulations, 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.12(f) and 215.4(a) have actually been . . . The Validity of 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.12(f) and 215.4(a) The relevant statute provides: SEC. 322. . . . Accordingly, 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.12(f) and 215.4(a) conflict with the plain language of the statute. . . . Therefore, 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.12(f) and 36 C.F.R. 215.4(a) are invalid. VI. . . .

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE a a v. RUTHENBECK M. a a v. M., 459 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2006)

. . . The decision memo applied the categorical exclusion provisions of 36 C.F.R. § 215.12(f). . . . The Validity of 36 C.F.R. § 215.12(f) The relevant statute provides: SEC. 322. . . . Accordingly, 36 C.F.R. § 215.12(f) conflicts with the plain language of the statute. . . . Therefore, 36 C.F.R. § 215.12(f) is invalid. VI. . . . . § 215.12(f) and the nationwide injunction against its enforcement. . . .

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

. . . . §§ 213.113; 213.115; 213.119(a)-(c); 213.121(a)-(c), (f); 215.123; 215.12; (3) negligent training claims . . .

FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, v., 408 F. Supp. 2d 916 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

. . . Service to delegate the determination that an emergency situation exists to the Regional Foresters), 215.12 . . .

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE, a a a a v. PENGILLY, U. S. U. S., 376 F. Supp. 2d 994 (E.D. Cal. 2005)

. . . . §§ 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) violate the ARA by exempting certain projects from appeal. . . . The Forest Service rules codified at 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) are “manifestly contrary” to . . . projects and activities that are categorically excluded from documentation in an EIS or EA); 36 C.F.R. § 215.12 . . .

NOLAN, v. GOLDEN RULE INSURANCE COMPANY, 171 F.3d 990 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . Wynn argued that Louisiana Revised Statutes § 22:215.12, which prevents insurance companies from denying . . . In Wynn, this court considered § 22:215.12, which prevents insurance companies from excluding or denying . . . Wynn argued that Washington National could impermissibly circumvent the purview of § 22:215.12 if we . . .

UNITED STATES v. PRIBBLE,, 127 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 215.12. . . .

WYNN v. WASHINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 122 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 22:215.12, which, for hospital, health, or medical expense insurance policies issued after 1992, . . . that, if the surgery was the result of such a condition, the earlier-referenced La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 22:215.12 . . . Consequently, the endorsement was not governed by (and did not run afoul of) § 22:215.12 and instead . . . Section 22:215.12 states in part: Any hospital, health, or medical expense insurance policy .:. which . . . It maintains that the exception endorsement does not violate § 22:215.12 because coverage was not denied . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF CHICAGO,, 621 F. Supp. 1296 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . . § 215.12(a) (allowing for waiver of certain regulations where those regulations would prevent effective . . .

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,, 698 F.2d 1029 (9th Cir. 1983)

. . . The standard agreement prescribed by regulation, 31 C.F.R. 215.12(a) (1978) contains the same provision . . .

THE CHICKASAW NATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 22 Ct. Cl. 222 (Ct. Cl. 1887)

. . . showing assignments to Saffarrans and Lewis of funds held for the incompetents to the amount of $M,215.12 . . .