Call outside Criminal Attorney Mark S. Barnett
F.S. 349.01 on Google Scholar

F.S. 349.01 on Casetext

Amendments to 349.01

The 2022 Florida Statutes

Title XXVI
Chapter 349
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 349.01 Florida Statutes and Case Law
349.01 Title of law.This law shall be known and may be cited as the “Jacksonville Transportation Authority Law.”
History.s. 1, ch. 29996, 1955; s. 2, ch. 71-101.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: August 29, 2022
F.S. 349.01 on Google Scholar

F.S. 349.01 on Casetext

Amendments to 349.01

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 349.01
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 349.01.

Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S349.01
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 349.01.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. Section 349 establishes a general rule that dismissal of a case is without prejudice, but it also expressly grants a bankruptcy court the authority to "dismiss the case with prejudice thereby preventing the debtor from obtaining a discharge with regard to the debts existing at the time of the dismissed case, at least for some period of time." 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY § 349.01, at 349-2-3 (15th ed. 1997). A dismissal with prejudice is a complete adjudication of the issues presented by the pleadings and a bar to further action between the parties. In re Tomlin, 105 F.3d 933, 936-37 (4th Cir. 1997).
    PAGE 939
  2. In re Williams

    390 B.R. 780 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008)   Cited 6 times
    The language of Section 362(c)(3) is not ambiguous. Cf. In re Holcomb, 380 B.R. 813, 816 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2008) citing Park `N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 194 (1985) ("Statutory construction must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose.") Code Section 362(c)(3) explicitly refers to cases filed under chapter 7, 11 or 13 that were "pending within the preceding 1-year period but" were dismissed. "Dismissal of a title 11 case is provided for under each of the different operative chapters of the Code[.]" Alan N. Resnick and Henry J. Sommer, COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 349.01[ 3] (15th ed. 2008). For example, Code Section 349 (Effect of dismissal) "sets forth the effect of the dismissal of a case under title 11." Id. at ¶ 349.01[ 3][1]. And, Code Section 707 (Dismissal of a [liquidation] case) "specifies that the court may dismiss a liquidation case only after notice and a hearing and only for cause[.]" Id. at ¶ 349.01[ 3][a]. In contrast, discharge is governed under Code Section 727 which "provides that the court must grant a…
    PAGE 4
  3. Matter of Smith, (Bankr.N.D.Ind. 1991)

    133 B.R. 467 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1991)   Cited 13 times
    The statute thus establishes a general rule that the dismissal of any bankruptcy case is usually without prejudice to the debtor's right to file a subsequent petition and to receive a discharge. It does, however, give the court discretion to deny the debtor the benefit of this general rule, if there is a reason to do so. See 2 Collier on Bankruptcy, para. 349.01 at 349-2 (Matthew Bender, 15th ed. 1991). Judge Riegle took advantage of this opportunity and, in the exercise of her discretion, found "cause" to dismiss the debtors' prior case "with prejudice."
    PAGE 469
  4. In re Sexton

    397 B.R. 375 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2008)   Cited 14 times

    case was filed. In re Davis, 2004 WL 3310531 at * 2 (citing Lawrence P. King, Collier on Bankruptcy¶ 349.01[2], at 349-3 (15th ed. Rev. 2003)). The chapter 13 trustee cites numerous cases holding that § 1326

  5. Crump v. Titlemax (In re Crump)

    467 B.R. 532 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2010)   Cited 6 times
    Section 349 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth the effects of dismissal of a case. “The objective of [11 USC § 349(b) ] is to undo the title 11 case, insofar as practicable, and to restore all property rights to the position they occupied at the beginning of such case.” 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 349.01[2] (16th ed. 2010).
    PAGE 535
  6. In re Hanson

    CASE NO. 15-01442-5-SWH (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2016)

    1st Sess. 338 (1977); S. Rep. No. 95-989, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. 49 (1978)); Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 349.01[2] (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed.) (same). The court finds that the circumstances

  7. HSBC Bank USA v. Blendheim

    803 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2015)   Cited 113 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Many debtors, however, fail to complete a Chapter 13 plan successfully, often because they cannot make payments on time. Recognizing this, the Bankruptcy Code permits debtors who fail to complete their plans to convert their Chapter 13 case to a case under a different chapter, or dismiss their case entirely. Id. § 1307(a)-(b). But importantly, upon dismissal or conversion of a case, a debtor loses any benefits promised in exchange for the successful completion of the plan—whether in personam, such as discharge, or in rem, such as lien voidance. The Code treats any lien voided under a Chapter 13 plan as reinstated upon dismissal or conversion, restoring to creditors their state law rights of foreclosure on the debtor's property. See id. §§ 348(f)(1)(C)(i); 349(b)(1)(C). Section 348 of the Bankruptcy Code governs conversion of a Chapter 13 case to a case under a different chapter. It provides that a creditor holding a security interest “as of the date of the filing of the [Chapter 13] petition” shall “continue to be secured,” meaning that a creditor's lien will be restored to him upon conversion. Id. § 348(f)(1)(C)(i). Dismissal of a Chapter 13 case has a similar effect—§ 349…
    PAGE 487

    06-CV-6595-CJS (W.D.N.Y. Jul. 17, 2009)   Cited 6 times
    11 U.S.C. § 521(i)(1) (2005). "The automatic dismissal provision in Section 521(i) is intended to ensure that debtors comply with the statutory requirement to assist a Chapter 7 trustee with the production of documents necessary for the administration of the estate." In re Tay-Kwamya, 367 B.R. 422, 424 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007). Section 521(i) "intends to remedy . . . those instances where business debtors would operate as debtors in possession for many months without filing schedules and financial affairs, relying on multiple extensions of time from the court." William L. Norton, Jr., Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice, § 55:4 (3d ed. 2009). The problem is that § "521(i) does not provide a procedure for dismissal. Although § 521(i)(1) states that dismissal is automatic there is no indication how this occurs." 1-349 Alan N. Resnick Henry J. Sommer, Collier Bankruptcy Manual, P 349.01 (3d ed. 2009).
  9. Perkins v. Stockert

    343 N.E.2d 340 (Ohio Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 2 times
    The amended Complaint asks the court to declare unconstitutional all or certain parts of the New Community Organization Act, consisting of R. C. 349.01 through R. C. 349.16, enacted by the legislature in 1972.
  10. Valencia v. Rodriguez

    87 Cal.App.4th 1222 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 8 times
    The court in Raczynski concluded that the dismissal of the bankruptcy "`(3) revests the property of the estate in the entity in which such property was vested immediately before the commencement of the case under this title.' (§ 349(b), tit. 11 U.S.C.) The objective of this provision `is to undo the title 11 case, in so far as is practicable, and to restore all property rights to the position they occupied at the beginning of such case.' (2 Collier, Bankruptcy (15th ed. 1986) [¶] 349.01, p. 349-2; fn. omitted.) `Undo' means `to make of no effect or as if not done.' (Webster's New Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1981) p. 2492.) Thus, while the order striking defendant's answer and entering his default was made on April 23, 1985, the subsequent dismissal of the bankruptcy petition served to validate that order. It follows that the default judgment, which was entered after dismissal of the petition and termination of the stay, is valid despite the fact it is based on an order made in this lawsuit while the stay was in effect." ( Raczynski v. Judge, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at p. 512.)
    PAGE 1227