The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXVI
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Chapter 335
STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 335.18

335.18 Short title.—Sections 335.18-335.188 may be cited as the “State Highway System Access Management Act.”

History.—s. 1, ch. 75-157; s. 59, ch. 84-309; s. 3, ch. 88-224; s. 98, ch. 92-152.

F.S. 335.18 on Google Scholar

F.S. 335.18 on Casetext

Amendments to 335.18

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 335.18

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 335.18.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

A. KAY, Jr. d b a s a v. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a, 504 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2007)

. . . Stat. 5/3-103 (35 days); Ind.Code § 36-7-4-1003 (30 days); Iowa Code § 335.18 (30 days); Kan. Stat. . . .

IOWA COAL MINING CO. INC. v. MONROE COUNTY, IOWA L. W. E. H., 257 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . state-court action against the County for certiorari review and declaratory judgment, under Iowa Code § 335.18 . . . Finally, Iowa Code §§ 335.18-25 allow a party aggrieved by a decision of the board of adjustment to seek . . . Count IV was a claim under Iowa Code § 335.18 for certiorari review of the board’s decision denying the . . . decision is an integral part of the administrative remedy itself, and is provided for by Iowa Code § 335.18 . . .

DIXIE OIL COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 657 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . failed to comply with the provisions of the “State Highway System Access Management Act”, sections 335.18 . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, G. VII, v. CALUSA TRACE DEVELOPMENT, CORP. a, 571 So. 2d 543 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Defendants failed to timely approve or deny the Application as required by Sections 335.18 and 120.60 . . .

PARADYNE CORPORATION, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION H., 528 So. 2d 921 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . . § 335.18(1) and (3), Fla.Stat. (1985). . . . the proceedings below that the highway connection constructed by Paradyne was in violation of section 335.18 . . . the connection and intersection, in order for the highway connection to meet the standards of section 335.18 . . . in accordance with the 1981 permit, that DOT has the right to revoke Paradyne’s permit under section 335.18 . . . which will accommodate the current traffic conditions in a safe and efficient manner under section 335.18 . . .

In MILLERBURG, Jr. SS XXX- XX- XXXX, 61 B.R. 125 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1986)

. . . plus interest at the rate of 14.50% per annum over a period of 5 years in 60 monthly installments of $335.18 . . .

PARADYNE CORPORATION, a v. H. MILLER, 455 So. 2d 432 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . circuit court have jurisdiction to decide a controversy which, according to Florida Statute, section 335.18 . . . pursuant to section 120.69(l)(d), or be joined as an indispensable party based on its duties under section 335.18 . . . possible that DOT will find that the intersection, as designed, does not meet the standards in section 335.18 . . . In this event, DOT should be allowed to redesign the connector road to meet the standards of section 335.18 . . . parties access to the intersection as contemplated by DOT’s permit, DOT has authority under section 335.18 . . .

ALBERT FARWELL BEMIS, TRUSTEE OF THE BEMIS TRUST, v. THE UNITED STATES, 64 Ct. Cl. 467 (Ct. Cl. 1928)

. . . the corporation accumulated surplus and undivided profits sufficient to pay to plaintiff the sum of $335.18 . . .