Cases from cite.case.law:

SARASOTA ALLIANCE FOR FAIR ELECTIONS, INC. v. S. BROWNING,, 28 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 2010)

. . . . §§ 102.071, 102.112, 102.151, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . seventh day after a primary election and by 5 p.m. on the eleventh day following a general election. § 102.112 . . . Id. § 102.112(8). . . .

S. BROWNING, v. SARASOTA ALLIANCE FOR FAIR ELECTIONS, INC. a L., 968 So. 2d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See §§ 102.112(2), .141(6). . . . See § 102.112(2); see also Division of Elections Advisory Opinion, DE 06-11, Aug. 25, 2006, http://election.dos.state.fl.us . . . amendments to the Election Code changed this time frame to twelve days after a general election. § 102.112 . . .

AWREY BAKERIES, INCORPORATED S UFCW, AFL- CIO- CLC v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 59 F. App'x 690 (6th Cir. 2003)

. . . . §§ 102.111 and 102.112. The Union argues the exceptions were mailed the day before the deadline. . . .

BUSH v. GORE, 531 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2000)

. . . . § 102.112(1).. . . . Ann. §102.112 (Supp. 2001). . . . . §102.111 (Supp. 2001) or the word “may” in § 102.112 governs the scope of the Secretary of State’s . . . . §§102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. . . .

PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, v. HARRIS, v. v., 772 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 2000)

. . . First, the deadline for submitting county returns to the Department under sections 102.111 and 102.112 . . . Second, the language in sections 102.111 and 102.112, authorizing the Secretary to ignore amended or . . . The recount provision thus conflicts with sections 102.111 and 102.112, which state that the Boards “ . . . Section 102.112, on the other hand, directly addresses in its title and text both the “deadline” for . . . Based on the precision of the title and text, section 102.112 constitutes a specific penalty statute . . .

GORE, Jr. I. v. HARRIS,, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000)

. . . Only to state a few of the incongruities, the time limits of sections 102.112, 102.166, and 102.168 and . . . , the Court is asked to ... (5) substitute the certification process of Section 102.111 and Section 102.112 . . .

C. TOUCHSTON, v. McDERMOTT, a a, 234 F.3d 1133 (11th Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 102.112. . . .

L. SIEGEL, v. LEPORE, E., 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000)

. . . . §§ 102.111 and 102.112, until November 26, 2000, which is 19 days after the election. . . .

BUSH v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, 531 U.S. 70 (U.S. 2000)

. . . . §102.166 (2000) and the timeframe for submitting county returns under §§102.111 and 102.112, and (b . . . between § 102.111, which provides that the Secretary “shall. . . ignor[e]” late election returns, and § 102.112 . . . the “shall. . . ignorfe]” provision of § 102.111 conflicts with the “may ... ignor[e]” provision of § 102.112 . . .

PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, v. HARRIS, v. v., 772 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2000)

. . . Second, the mandatory language in section 102.111 conflicts with the permissive language in 102.112. . . . Whereas section 102.111 is mandatory, section 102.112 is permissive. . . . Section 102.112, on the other hand, directly addresses in its title and text both the “deadline” for . . . Based on the precision of the title and text, section 102.112 constitutes a specific penalty statute . . . In the present case, section 102.112 contains a detailed provision authorizing the assessment of fines . . .

SIEGEL, S. D. W. v. LEPORE, E. Jr., 120 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (S.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . . § 102.112. . . .

FATHER SONS LUMBER AND BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC. T. T. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,, 931 F.2d 1093 (6th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 102.112. . . .

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. IMPERIAL HOUSE CONDOMINIUM, INC., 831 F.2d 999 (11th Cir. 1987)

. . . existence of regulations providing that a "Return Receipt” is proof of service, see 29 C.F.R. sec. 102.112 . . . The Condominium’s reliance on Section 102.112 is mistaken. . . . .

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. AUTOTRONICS, INC., 596 F.2d 322 (8th Cir. 1979)

. . . . § 102.112 for failure to comply with the requirements of service by either rejecting the memorandum . . .