Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 318.12 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 318.12 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 318.12

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES
Chapter 318
DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 318.12
318.12 Purpose.It is the legislative intent in the adoption of this chapter to decriminalize certain violations of chapter 316, the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law; chapter 320, Motor Vehicle Licenses; chapter 322, Driver Licenses; chapter 338, Limited Access and Toll Facilities; and chapter 1006, Support of Learning, thereby facilitating the implementation of a more uniform and expeditious system for the disposition of traffic infractions.
History.s. 1, ch. 74-377; s. 1, ch. 79-27; s. 21, ch. 83-215; s. 13, ch. 84-359; s. 247, ch. 99-248; s. 962, ch. 2002-387; s. 86, ch. 2012-174.

F.S. 318.12 on Google Scholar

F.S. 318.12 on Casetext

Amendments to 318.12


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 318.12
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 318.12.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

MASONE, v. CITY OF AVENTURA, v., 147 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 2014)

. . . .” § 318.12, Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF TRAFFIC COURT, 105 So. 3d 1267 (Fla. 2012)

. . . See § 318.12, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

E. MADDOX, v. STATE, 923 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2006)

. . . See, e.g., § 318.12, Fla. . . .

BISCHOFF, v. FLORIDA, C., 242 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 318.12 (Florida Uniform Disposition of Traffic Infractions Act). . . . Stat. § 318.12. . . .

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. WISE a k a Jr., 818 So. 2d 524 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 318.12, Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .

F. HOLODAK v. E. LOCKWOOD, As, 726 So. 2d 815 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . . § 318.12 (1997); Nettleton v. Doughtie, 373 So.2d 667 (Fla.1979). . . .

RUSIN v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 49 Fla. Supp. 2d 33 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . F.S. 318.12; F.S. 318.14. . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. RAHN, 5 Fla. Supp. 2d 11 (Lee Cty. Ct. 1983)

. . . Section 318.12 F.S. states: “It is the legislative intent in the adoption of this Chapter to decriminalize . . .

R. BUTZ, v. BANCOHIO NATIONAL BANK, In MANNS,, 31 B.R. 893 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1983)

. . . ) 10-26-82 1,000.00 (238.81) 10-27-82 931.80 (1,170.61) 11-3-82 II.37 (1,181.98) 11-4-82 1,500.00 + 318.12 . . .

STATE v. DuPONT,, 399 So. 2d 438 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . . § 318.12, Fla.Stat. (1979) and Fla.R.Traf.Ct. 6.040. . Lee v. . . .

STATE v. CARR, 373 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1979)

. . . . § 318.12, Fla.Stat. (1977). . . .

STATE v. CHAMPE, 373 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1978)

. . . . § 318.12, Fla.Stat. (1977). . §§ 318.13(3) and 318.14, Fla.Stat. (1977). . See, e.g., Heredia v. . . .

GOULD INC. v. UNITED STATES, 579 F.2d 571 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . portion of the fixed fee; $10,'200 for two additional engines and a portion of the fixed fee; and $318.12 . . .

GOULD INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 217 Ct. Cl. 167 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . a portion of the fixed fee; $10,200 for two additional engines and a portion of the fixed fee; and $318.12 . . .

STATE v. INMAN,, 347 So. 2d 791 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . In Section 318.12 thereof it was stated that the legislative intent in adopting the chapter was to decriminalize . . .

STATE v. T. JOHNSON,, 345 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1977)

. . . Section 318.12, Florida Statutes. . . . See Section 318.12, Florida Statutes. . . .

LEVITZ, v. STATE, 339 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1976)

. . . See Section 318.12, Florida Statutes. . . .

MEDDIN BROS. PACKING CO. v. UNITED STATES, 417 F.2d 17 (5th Cir. 1969)

. . . . § 318.12 (1959). . . . Regulation 318.12(c) provides as follows: “Dog food or other animal food prepared in whole or in part . . .

C. H. v., 37 B.T.A. 511 (B.T.A. 1938)

. . . On the basis of the book value of the petitioner’s investments, petitioner showed a surplus of only $318.12 . . . From this we believe that the amount of $318.12 which petitioner contends was its true surplus, was not . . . The surplus of $318.12 for 1932 is a result of bookkeeping and creates nothing. . . . The books of the corporation at the close of 1932 showed a surplus of $318.12. . . . accumulation of surplus which the petitioner actually had for use in the business amounted to only $318.12 . . .