Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 377.33 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 377.33 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 377.33

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXVIII
NATURAL RESOURCES; CONSERVATION, RECLAMATION, AND USE
Chapter 377
ENERGY RESOURCES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 377.33
377.33 Injunctions against division.
(1) Any interested person adversely affected by any statute of this state with respect to conservation of oil or gas, or both, or by provisions of this law may seek relief by a suit for injunction against the division, as defendant, or the members thereof by suit in the chancery court in the county or counties wherein the property involved is situated, or in the chancery court of Leon County. Such suit shall have precedence over all other causes, proceedings, or suits on the docket of a different nature, and the attorney representing the division may have the case set for trial after 10 days’ notice to the plaintiff or his or her attorney. Such trial shall be de novo, and the burden of proof shall be upon the plaintiff. The statute or provision of this law complained of shall be taken as prima facie valid, and such presumption shall not be overcome, in connection with any application for injunctive relief, including temporary restraining order, by verified complaint or affidavit of, or in behalf of, the applicant.
(2) No temporary restraining order or injunction shall be granted against the division or against its attorneys, agents, employees, or representatives restraining the attorneys, agents, employees, or representatives from enforcing any statute of this state relating to conservation of oil or gas, or any of the provisions of this law, except after due notice, served upon the executive director of the department, and after a hearing at which it shall be shown to the court by legal evidence that the act done or threatened is without sanction of law or that the provisions of this law are invalid or unreasonable and, if enforced against the complaining party, will cause an irreparable injury. If the division shall so request at such hearing, it shall be entitled to a trial on the merits within 10 days after the granting of any temporary order, and, if the plaintiff is not ready for trial at such time, the court shall be authorized to dissolve the temporary restraining order.
(3) No temporary injunction of any kind against the division, or against its attorneys, agents, employees, or representatives, shall become effective until the plaintiff shall execute a bond in the amount and upon the conditions the court directs. The bond shall be made payable to the Governor and his or her successors in office, shall be approved by the court or clerk, and shall be for the use and benefit of all persons who may be injured by the acts done under the protection of the injunction.
History.ss. 27-29, ch. 22819, 1945; s. 10, ch. 26484, 1951; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; ss. 25, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 27, ch. 74-382; s. 23, ch. 78-95; s. 88, ch. 79-164; s. 626, ch. 95-148.

F.S. 377.33 on Google Scholar

F.S. 377.33 on Casetext

Amendments to 377.33


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 377.33
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 377.33.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

J. VENERABLE, Mi Sr. III, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO,, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (E.D. Cal. 2002)

. . . P.Code §§ 372(a), 377.33. . . .

B. v., 103 T.C. 700 (T.C. 1994)

. . . . $ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Sec. 377.33. . . . Code secs. 377.10, 377.11, 377.30, 377.33 (West Supp. 1994).] Cal. Civ. Proc. . . . Code section 377.33, which gives this Court, in very broad terms, the authority to make an appropriate . . . The California Law Revision Commission Comment states: Section 377.33 is new. . . . Code sec. 377.33, we will make an order appointing Armijo as a special administrator of decedent’s estate . . .

THOMAS v. CAUDILL,, 150 F.R.D. 147 (N.D. Ind. 1993)

. . . Caudill is entitled to costs in the total amount of $377.33. . . . The Clerk is ORDERED to tax costs in favor of the defendant, Steve Caudill, in the amount of $377.33. . . .

FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. W. MURCHISON, III W. Jr. III W. Jr. W. Jr. W. III W. Jr. Co., 937 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1991)

. . . claims against the Marina Bay bonds for $106,939.12, and claims against the Mulholland bonds for $66,-377.33 . . .