Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 270.25 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 270.25 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 270.25

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XVIII
PUBLIC LANDS AND PROPERTY
Chapter 270
PUBLIC LANDS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 270.25
270.25 Special assessments or levies shall remain liens subject to payment.Special assessments or special levies heretofore imposed by legislative authority, which are now a lien upon the lands, title to which is in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, shall continue as a lien subject to payment as provided for in s. 270.24; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not operate to extinguish or impair any obligation heretofore imposed upon said lands to pay special assessments or special taxes heretofore levied.
History.s. 4, ch. 17272, 1935; CGL 1936 Supp. 1771(15); s. 2, ch. 61-119; ss. 27, 35, ch. 69-106.

F.S. 270.25 on Google Scholar

F.S. 270.25 on Casetext

Amendments to 270.25


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 270.25
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 270.25.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

PARNELL, v. LAPE,, 791 F. Supp. 2d 319 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . peremptory challenges in state criminal cases arises solely from New York Criminal Procedure Law § 270.25 . . .

PARKER, v. PHILLIPS,, 717 F. Supp. 2d 310 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . . § 270.25(2)(a) allows for twenty peremptory challenges for regular jurors and two peremptories for . . . LAW § 270.25(2)(a) (“Each party must be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges: (a) Twenty . . .

UNITED STATES v. ROSEBORO,, 551 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009)

. . . Penal Law § 270.25 ("A person is guilty of unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the . . .

ROSARIO, v. ERCOLE,, 582 F. Supp. 2d 541 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . . § 270.25(a). . . .

BROWN, v. B. ALEXANDER,, 543 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 270.25(2)(b). . Counsel was mistaken. . . .

In MERRILL LYNCH CO. RESEARCH REPORTS SECURITIES LITIGATION. To v. Co., 568 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . The day after the issuance of the initial report, CMGI’s share price rose to $270.25, a gain of approximately . . .

JONES, v. WEST,, 473 F. Supp. 2d 390 (W.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Law § 270.25(2)(b) (McKinney 1993) entitled him to fifteen challenges. In United States v. . . . Law § 270.25(2)(b). .In Alvarado I, the Second Circuit found that the prosecutor had six (6) total peremptories . . .

TRUESDALE, v. SABOURIN,, 427 F. Supp. 2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . Law § 270.25(2)(b). The trial court employed a “jury box” system for selecting jurors. . . .

ANDERSON, v. SUPERINTENDENT, ELMIRA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 360 F. Supp. 2d 477 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Law § 270.25(2)(b). . . .

HARRISON, v. RICKS,, 326 F. Supp. 2d 372 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . New York CPL § 270.25. In the first round, four of sixteen potential jurors were excused for cause. . . .

OVERTON, v. NEWTON,, 295 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2002)

. . . Law § 270.25(2)(b), as were the defendants, collectively. . . .

T. SANGLAP, v. LASALLE BANK, FSB,, 194 F. Supp. 2d 798 (N.D. Ill. 2002)

. . . Defendant seeks $270.25 for the deposition transcript, including delivery, of Fadia Sihwail. . . .

OVERTON, v. NEWTON,, 146 F. Supp. 2d 267 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . See N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 270.25[2][b], [3]; Tr. at 59. . . . .

A. PITTMAN, W. v. UNITED STATES, 878 F. Supp. 833 (E.D.N.C. 1994)

. . . the total of the deficiency assessment of $67,415, interest of $21,665.70, additional interest of $270.25 . . .

Co. v., 14 Ct. Int'l Trade 458 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990)

. . . Not over 0.020 inch in thickness * * * Other” and finds the correct classification to be TSUS item 270.25 . . . the publications, with the exception of Landscapes, as “Books not specially provided for,” TSUS item 270.25 . . . requires classification under TSUS item 274.60 because it is more specific than the basket provision 270.25 . . . New item 270.25 was created for “Books not specially provided for” admitted duty-free. 80 Stat. at 897 . . . Plaintiff notes that item 270.25 does not include the restriction “consisting essentially of textual . . .

OUTLET BOOK CO. INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 743 F. Supp. 881 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990)

. . . Other” and finds the correct classification to be TSUS item 270.25 (1984) “Books not specially provided . . . the publications, with the exception of Landscapes, as “Books not specially provided for,” TSUS item 270.25 . . . requires classification under TSUS item 274.60 because it is more specific than the basket provision 270.25 . . . New item 270.25 was created for “Books not specially provided for” admitted duty-free. 80 Stat. at 897 . . . Plaintiff notes that item 270.25 does not include the restriction “consisting essentially of textual . . .

GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, v. ALABAMA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION,, 678 F. Supp. 854 (M.D. Ala. 1987)

. . . 17.50 2,800.00 Boynton, F.G. 135 .20 27.00 Maycock, W.W. 105 9.50 997.50 effective 8-1-86 115 2.35 270.25 . . .

Co. v., 11 Ct. Int'l Trade 598 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987)

. . . classification arguing that the merchandise qualifies as "[b]ooks not specially provided for” pursuant to Item 270.25 . . . By stipulation of both parties, the Government consented to reclassify pursuant to Item 270.25, TSUS, . . .

ROMAN, v. ABRAMS, SCHREIBER, v. R. SALAMACK,, 822 F.2d 214 (2d Cir. 1987)

. . . See N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law §§ 270.15, 270.25 (McKinney 1971). . . .

RBW INC. C. J. v. UNITED STATES,, 806 F.2d 249 (Fed. Cir. 1986)

. . . the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), or as “books not specially provided for” under item 270.25 . . . The trial court held that “books of printed word puzzles are properly classified under item 270.25, TSUS . . .

RBW, INC. C. J. v. UNITED STATES,, 632 F. Supp. 13 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)

. . . Plaintiff claims, however, that the merchandise is properly classified under item 270.25 as ‘. . . . description of books for tariff classification purposes, and that books are provided for under item 270.25 . . . is entitled “The Super Activity, Puzzle, and Game Book,” is properly classified as a book under item 270.25 . . . Conclusion The articles in controversy are clearly books within the meaning of item 270.25. . . . The Customs Service is directed to reclassify the subject merchandise under item 270.25 and make refunds . . .

RBW, C. J. v., 10 Ct. Int'l Trade 21 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)

. . . Plaintiff claims, however, that the merchandise is properly classified under item 270.25 as "books not . . . description of books for tariff classification purposes, and that books are provided for under item 270.25 . . . is entitled "The Super Activity, Puzzle and Game Book,” is properly classified as a book under item 270.25 . . . parties further support the classification of plaintiff’s imported merchandise as books under item 270.25 . . . Conclusion The articles in controversy are clearly books within the meaning of item 270.25. . . .

v., 10 Ct. Int'l Trade 5 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)

. . . the United States (TSUS), under item 737.95, TSUS, as toys, not specifically provided for, under item 270.25 . . .

ROMAN, v. ABRAMS,, 608 F. Supp. 629 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)

. . . Proc.Law § 270.25. . . .

DRAYTON, v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 423 F. Supp. 786 (E.D.N.Y. 1976)

. . . CPL § 270.25(2); and the length of time allowed the prosecution to move the case to trial, N.Y. . . .

A. C. G. v., 66 Cust. Ct. 128 (Cust. Ct. 1971)

. . . Stat. 897, among other things, (1) struck out items 270.15 to 270.40 and inserted in lieu thereof item 270.25 . . .

W. COHN, v. UNITED STATES R. KENT, v. UNITED STATES C. KENT, v. UNITED STATES, 259 F.2d 371 (6th Cir. 1958)

. . . , $39,028.96 by the Pine Bluff School for 1943, $23,748.48 by the Helena Aero School for 1943, $15,-270.25 . . .

UNITED STATES v. PRINCE LINE, LTD., 189 F.2d 386 (2d Cir. 1951)

. . . deported through the port of San Francisco, California, in March 1947, at a cost to the United States of $270.25 . . .