The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes, provides that "[w]hen the cause of action arose in another state or . . . maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state." § 95.10 . . .
. . . . § 95.10 (“When the cause of action arose in another state ’or territory of the United States, ... and . . .
. . . The Department’s regulations make clear that: The time limits in §§ 95.7 and 95.10 [prescribing 2-year . . .
. . . Rule 54.1(c)(8) for certain “other items” of costs, including $1,100.00 in expert witness fees/costs, $95.10 . . .
. . . . § 95.10 (2011). The parties dispute whether the cause of action arose in California or Florida. . . .
. . . Ordinances § 72.11 Warsaw, Code of Ordinances § 72.11 Michigan Bingham Farms, Code of Ordinances § 95.10 . . .
. . . The first part of the audit determined that USCO owed the Fund $14,264.67 (plus interest of $95.10 per . . .
. . . . § 95.10, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . . ALTENBERND and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. . § 95.10, Fla. Stat. (1999). . Ellis gave a St. . . .
. . . Stat. (2002); § 95.10, Fla. . . .
. . . . § 95.10. Plaintiff first cites Bates v. . . .
. . . CSX argued that section 95.10, Florida Statutes (2000), requires the Florida court to “borrow” the three-year . . .
. . . To guard against that eventuality, section 95.10, Florida Statutes, provides: When the cause of action . . .
. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (2001), provides that: When the cause of action arose in another state . . . By enactment of section 95.10, our legislature has expressed a public policy of protecting Florida defendants . . . Section 95.10, which requires borrowing of a shorter statute of limitations, is Florida law barring the . . . intended for claims such as this one to be maintainable in this state, it would have repealed section 95.10 . . .
. . . Florida's borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1999), provides that a cause of action . . .
. . . Florida Law Applies Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1997), the borrowing statute, states: “When the . . . Accordingly, the cause of action arose in Florida so that section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1997)(the . . .
. . . See Bishop, 389 So.2d at 1001; § 95.10, Fla. Stat. (1997); see also Merkle v. . . . See § 95.10, Fla. Stat. (1997); Bates, 509 So.2d 1112. . . .
. . . Florida’s “borrowing statute,” section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1997), provides that "When the cause . . .
. . . Section 95.11(2)(a) is, of course, associated with section 95.10, which bars causes of action arising . . .
. . . a certified question and held that the “significant relationship” test for use in applying section 95.10 . . .
. . . Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, section 142 (Supp.1989), and which renders meaningless section 95.10 . . . the issue which was before the Court was the applicability of the borrowing statute, which is section 95.10 . . . Moreover, the majority decision renders section 95.10 meaningless. . . . It is patent that the reason that section 95.10 exists is to alter the long-standing precedent from this . . . See § 95.10, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . COOK, 509 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1987), FOR USE IN APPLYING FLORIDA’S BORROWING STATUTE, SECTION 95.10, FLORIDA . . . COOK, 509 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1987), FOR USE IN APPLYING FLORIDA’S BORROWING STATUTE, SECTION 95.10, FLORIDA . . . The borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1997), provides: "When the cause of action arose . . .
. . . According to Florida Statute, Section 95.10 “when the cause of action arose in another state or territory . . .
. . . Specifically, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1995) bars actions brought in Florida which would have . . . As such, he concludes that Colombian law should govern pursuant to section 95.10. . . . complaint to survive the motion to dismiss on the paternity and child support counts pursuant to section 95.10 . . .
. . . The trial court reluctantly dismissed the action because it concluded that section 95.10, Florida Statutes . . . the above-described facts, and then dismissed the complaint with prejudice on the basis of section 95.10 . . . Section 95.10 was first enacted in 1872 and was last amended in 1974. . . . Meehan, 523 So.2d 141, 143 (Fla.1988), section 95.10 is intended to prevent forum shopping. . . . There is no clear statutory choice-of-law directive in section 95.10, ■ as interpreted in Bates, that . . .
. . . The defendant relied on Florida’s borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1985). . . . Although Bates involved the application of Florida’s borrowing statute, section 95.10, we read the language . . . COOK, 509 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1987), FOR USE IN APPLYING FLORIDA’S BORROWING STATUTE, SECTION 95.10, FLORIDA . . .
. . . . § 95.10. The purpose of the borrowing statute is to prevent forum shopping. Madera v. . . .
. . . brief the question, and the union has not argued that the Florida borrowing statute, Fla.Stat. ch. 95.10 . . .
. . . Cook, Inc., 509 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1987); § 95.10, Fla.Stats. . . .
. . . . § 95.10 (1982) ("When the cause of action arose in another state ... and its laws forbid the maintenance . . .
. . . Instead, Warner and Reith-Riley rely upon Florida’s “borrowing statute,” Fla.Stat.Ann § 95.10 (West 1982 . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 95.10 (West 1982) provides: "When the cause of action arose in another state or territory . . .
. . . .-10-10, 95.10-15, 95.15-5. . . .
. . . 0.00% Block 209 25 0 25 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Block 210 102 5 97 100.00% 4.90% 95.10% . . .
. . . . § 95.10 (West 1982). . . . Stat.Ann. § 95.10 (West 1982). . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 95.10 (West 1982) commonly known as Florida’s borrowing statute is entitled Causes of . . .
. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1989) provides that: When the cause of action arose in another state . . . In view of Bates, the application of section 95.10 is now clearly dependent on whether there are significant . . .
. . . Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation §§ 95.10, 95.24 (1989). . . . .
. . . specified months: January 1989 = $ 93.85 April 1989 = f 69.90 September 1989 = $103.98 December 1989 = $ 95.10 . . .
. . . calculations of amounts distributed annually and the defendant’s total liability of $651,148.93 is $95.10 . . .
. . . most significant relationship with the cause of action and that, through the application of section 95.10 . . . Accordingly, the trial court’s determination that section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), barred Mrs. . . .
. . . We concur with the trial court that the suit is barred by section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1987). . . .
. . . . § 95.10 (1987). . . .
. . . . § 95.10. The Supreme Court of Florida has now answered both questions. Kramer v. . . .
. . . In Bates the question was whether the borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1985), bars . . . Section 95.10 causes of action arising out of the state: When the cause of action arose in another state . . .
. . . . § 95.10 (1986). . . .
. . . the accident occurred in Florida the instant cause of action arose in this state and hence section 95.10 . . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: “When the cause of action arose in another state or . . .
. . . . § 95.10 (West 1982), is the determination whether a cause of action for theft of trade secrets has . . .
. . . These cases involve the application of section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), Florida’s borrowing statute . . . The Florida borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), reads as follows: When the cause . . . In construing section 95.10, the district court reasoned that a cause of action in tort arises in the . . . He reasoned that “to vindicate the very basis of section 95.10 —we must look to the law of the place . . . We find that is not the intent and purpose of section 95.10. . . .
. . . Florida adheres to the doctrine of lex loci delicti and under Florida’s borrowing statute, section 95.10 . . .
. . . . § 95.10 (1975)). . . .
. . . . § 95.10 (West 1982), is the determination whether a cause of action for theft of trade secrets has . . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1985), the so-called borrowing statute, reads as follows: Causes of . . .
. . . As I understand the “borrowing statute” [section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979) ], we would only apply . . .
. . . . § 95.10, the causes of action “arose” in Virginia, where the crash and injuries occurred. . . .
. . . . § 95.10 (West 1982), to determine which state statute of limitations to apply. . . . Florida For the purpose of applying Florida’s limitation of actions “borrowing” statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 95.10 . . .
. . . . § 95.10. . . .
. . . . § 95.10. The District of Columbia has a one-year limitations period for slander actions. . . .
. . . . § 95.10. . . .
. . . The trial court properly applied section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1983), and the relevant leading case . . .
. . . 4th DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 446 So.2d 99 (Fla.1984), insofar as it pertains to section 95.10 . . .
. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), which is commonly referred to as the borrowing statute, provides . . . of action in Florida, then the Florida limitations provision applies; if in Virginia, then section 95.10 . . .
. . . Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (Fla.1980), I believe that — to vindicate the very basis of section 95.10 . . . This language plainly permits the conclusion that a cause of action “arises” under section 95.10 at some . . . But section 95.10 makes the New York, not the Florida, statute of limitations determinative. . . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: When the cause of action arose in another state or . . . Pursuant to the provisions of Section 95.10 of the Florida Statutes this Court applies the appropriate . . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), referred to in the trial court’s judgment, is commonly known . . . 450 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the legislature, in 1975, revised Chapter 95, including Section 95.10 . . . Florida court has specifically rejected the application of the significant relationship test to Section 95.10 . . .
. . . . § 95.10. . . .
. . . Fla.Stat. § 95.10 (1982) (§ 95.10). . . . Having decided that Florida law dictates the application under § 95.10 of lex loci delicti, the Court . . . The phrase lex loci delicti has been variously construed under § 95.10 to require application of the . . . Therefore, for purposes of § 95.10 the cause of action arose in Indiana where the wrong occurred, and . . . the Indiana statute of limitations should be applied under § 95.10. . . .
. . . Atkins 95.10 47.60 App. J 175 Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Eiger P.C. Lawrence H. . . .
. . . provides that “no inmate shall be disciplined for making a complaint against another inmate----” Section 95.10 . . .
. . . Sec. 95.10 Fla.Stat. (1979) Causes of action arising out of the state. — When the cause of action arose . . .
. . . Florida law governing limitations of actions in-eludes Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1981): When the . . . Although Bishop adopts a conflicts rule which governs choice of substantive law, and Section 95.10 is . . . If the cause of action arose in Florida, then Section 95.10 does not apply, and appellant timely asserted . . . The Legislature has not amended Section 95.10 since the Supreme Court opinion in Bishop. . . . The language of Section 95.10 is as clear today as it was in 1968 or in 1872. . . .
. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1975) bars an action which is forbidden by the law of the state in which . . .
. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes, which provides an exception to this general rule, is not applicable. . . .
. . . Relevant items sold to debtor South included one .38 caliber special pistol and shells for $95.10 and . . .
. . . . § 95.10, in deciding to apply the four year statute of limitations of F.S.A. § 95.11. . . .
. . . . § 95.10 provides as follows: Limitation upon causes of actions arising out of the state When the cause . . .
. . . . §95.10). . . .
. . . The chapter contains two possibly applicable provisions, Sections 95.11 and 95.10. . . . Section 95.10, F.S.A., however, there are times when Florida courts will not apply a Florida statute . . . Section 95.10, F.S.A., is not applicable and Petitioner’s cause can be maintained since it was begun . . . Section 95.10, F.S.A., requires Florida courts to conclude the tort claims are barred in this state. . . . Section 95.10, F.S.A., is- not applicable; F.S. Section 95.11, F.S.A., is controlling. . . .
. . . States Coast Guard Rules and Regulations for Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels Subchapter I, 46 CFR §§ 95.10 . . . -10(g), (h) and (j), 1971, which read as follows: “ § 95.10-10(g) Each fire hydrant shall be provided . . . readily seen, the enclosure shall be marked in accordance with Section 97.37-15 of this subchapter.” “ § 95.10 . . . hose may be temporarily removed from the hydrant and stowed in an accessible nearby location.” “ § 95.10 . . . Since § 95.10-10(g) lists only three permissible uses for firehose — none of which is pumping molasses . . .
. . . Criminal Law § 1085, n. 95.10 at p. 98. . . .
. . . . § 95.10, F.S.A. . . .
. . . month_ 1,804. 50 5-1-52 through 12-31-62 at $77.10 per month_ 9, 868. 80 1-1-63 through 6-30-63 at $95.10 . . .
. . . As was the District Court, we are confronted, at the outset, with § 95.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., . . . It is sufficient to point out that Florida Statutes § 95.10 was enacted sixteen years after Perry was . . . him because in that case Texas, the forum state, had no statute like that found in Florida Statutes § 95.10 . . . Again, for the reasons already stated, we must hold that Florida Statutes § 95.10 is decisive. . . .
. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., reads as follows: “Limitation Upon Causes of Action Arising . . .
. . . 723,440 Earnings retained in business $ 6,156,830 $ 2,970,486 Per share of Common Stock Net income $ 95.10 . . .
. . . Curtin, Referee, Costs— i 95.10 “ Clerk, U. S. . . .
. . . . § 95.10. . . . applicable the statute of limitation from the jurisdiction where the cause of action arises — 8 F.S.A. § 95.10 . . .
. . . See Fla.Stat.1963, § 95.10 F.S.A.* Attached to the defense is a copy of a portion of the California Code . . . The Florida “borrowing statute” is section 95.10, Fla. . . . Section 95.10, Fla.Stat.1963, F.S.A., which is our borrowing statute, was applied by the trial judge . . . Therefore, the borrowing statute, Fla.Stat. 1963, § 95.10, F.S.A., is not applicable because the cause . . .
. . . . § 95.10. . . .
. . . relies on the Statute of Limitations of Georgia, Section 3-1004, Code of Georgia, which, by Section 95.10 . . .
. . . one must take the bitter with the sweet and under the borrowing provision of the Florida statute, § 95.10 . . .
. . . See Section 95.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. . . .
. . . Since Sec. 95.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that “when the cause of action has arisen * * * . . . If this is not a cause of action arising in a foreign country, Sec. 95.10 has no application; and the . . . If it never arose then our Sec. 95.10 is inapplicable and the Florida 5 year limitation applies. . . . The California court, construing its statute similar to our Sec. 95.10, held that the cause of action . . . interrupted the running of the foreign statute of limitations and that it is not, by virtue of Sec. 95.10 . . . , invoked under Articles 179 and 185 of the French Commercial Code pursuant to authority of section 95.10 . . .
. . . court’s decision on this point in Randall is stated as follows: “It must be held that by virtue of §95.10 . . .
. . . The Florida Statute reads as follows: “95.10 Limitations upon causes of actions arising out of the state . . . When Section 19 of the New York Civil Practice Act is read in conjunction with Section 95.10, F.S.A. . . .
. . . wk. 4-21-48 to 10-13-48 10.35 per wk. 10.00 per wk. 10-13-48 to 2-9-49 15.00 per wk. 10.00 per wk. 95.10 . . .
. . . Stats., Section 95.10, sub-section 5, Fla. . . .
. . . Sec. 95.10, Fla.Stat.1941, F.S.A. . . . The effect of Sec. 95.10 is that if the action is barred in the state where the cause of action arose . . .
. . . January 9, 1939, and costs incurred in these proceedings in the amount of Ninety-five and 10/100 ($95.10 . . . of eight per cent, per annum from January 9th, 1939, and the further sum of ninety-five and 10/100 ($95.10 . . .
. . . The exact amount of discounts is $367.10, the bill of November 19, 1908, $95.10, added, making a total . . .