Cases from cite.case.law:

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, v. MULLIGAN,, 934 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2006)

. . . Stat. (2005) (concerning seizure and forfeiture of marine vessels for various violations); §§ 329.10, . . .

ATLANTA SCHOOL OF KAYAKING, INC. v. DOUGLASVILLE- DOUGLAS COUNTY WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY,, 981 F. Supp. 1469 (N.D. Ga. 1997)

. . . . § 329.10. . . .

FIRST COAST RESTAURANTS, INC. v. L. VOGEL, Jr., 592 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . been dissolved for failure to file its annual report, can be seized and forfeited pursuant to section 329.10 . . . Section 329.10, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part that: (2) Any aircraft in or operated . . . First Coast contends that section 329.10 only permits seizure if the corporation is dissolved at the . . . The plain language of section 329.10 permits a law enforcement agency to seize an airplane found registered . . . Specifically, we do not address First Coast’s contention that section 329.10, as applied, violated its . . .

In FORFEITURE OF ONE CESSNA T A, SERIAL NUMBER, 587 So. 2d 553 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . appeal from the forfeiture of a 1980 Cessna T-207 aircraft that had been seized pursuant to sections 329.10 . . . Both sections 329.10 and 329.11 require a “knowing” violation of the registration requirement. . . . Section 329.10(6)(b) provides the following: Any violation of this section shall constitute the aircraft . . . The amended complaint made reference to sections 329.10 and 329.11, Florida Statutes (1987), but failed . . . Section 329.10(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: It is unlawful for any person in this state to . . .

IN RE FORFEITURE OF ONE CESSNA G AIRCRAFT, 39 Fla. Supp. 2d 121 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . commission of, or in the aiding or abetting in the commission Of any felony, in violation of Sections 329.10 . . . aircraft was provided to the Federal Aviation Administration, a government agency, in violation of Section 329.10 . . . Department for felony aircraft registration and identification violations, in violation of Sections 329.10 . . . commission of, or in the aiding or abetting in the commission of, any felony, contrary to Sections 329.10 . . .

B. ELLIOTT, v. AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING, INC. S. E. a H. E., 532 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . seized by the Polk County Sheriff’s Department on October 14,1986, as being in violation of section 329.10 . . .

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG BEACH, v. JEWELL,, 489 So. 2d 78 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Possession of an improperly registered aircraft under the circumstances and conditions set forth in section 329.10 . . .

In FORFEITURE OF MERCEDES, DOOR, VIN TAG WHJ In, 484 So. 2d 642 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Possession of an improperly registered aircraft under the circumstances and conditions set forth in section 329.10 . . .

In FORFEITURE OF ONE CESSNA AIRCRAFT. CITY OF POMPANO BEACH, a III, v. ENROUTE LTD. INC. a, 475 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . The premise of both complaints is that the possession or use of an aircraft in violation of section 329.10 . . . Both trial courts rejected this premise and found that section 329.10 — which provides (in part) that . . . The two courts struck section 329.10 on the grounds that (A) the statute runs afoul of the Supremacy . . . Alluding to an aircraft used in violation of section 329.10, the court said: The aircraft, however, is . . . Section 329.10, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), provides, in part, as follows: (1) It is unlawful for any . . .

CITY OF INDIAN HARBOUR BEACH, a v. E. DAMRON d b a G, 465 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . The City seized the plane, claiming Damron’s possession of the unregistered aircraft violated section 329.10 . . . Possession of an improperly registered aircraft under the circumstances and conditions set forth in section 329.10 . . . The parties conceded that section 329.10 had been violated, so we do not address that issue. . . .

V. DAVIDSON, v. CICUTO, SIMONS, Jr. v. CICUTO, MILLER, a V. V. v. CICUTO,, 203 F. Supp. 833 (W.D. Pa. 1962)

. . . Lutton 159.00 (g) Butler County Memoiúal Hospital 329.10 39. . . .

HENDY v. SOULE, 11 F. Cas. 1097 (C.C.D. Cal. 1868)

. . . The object of the action is to recover from the defendant the sum of $329.10, paid to him for a manufacturer . . .