Cases from cite.case.law:

CBS OUTDOOR INC. SLG LLC, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 124 So. 3d 383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . While Florida law in § 479.24(1), Florida Statutes, has provided that the owner of a nonconforming sign . . . 479.01(17), is entitled to just compensation “upon [FDOT’s] removal of a lawful nonconforming sign” (§ 479.24 . . .

v., 134 T.C. 190 (T.C. 2010)

. . . Pursuant to 27 C.F.R. sections 479.24 and 479.25 (2009), a taxpayer requests such a determination from . . .

MAVERICK MEDIA GROUP, INC. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 791 So. 2d 491 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 479.24(1), Fla. . . .

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, v. HEATHROW LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,, 579 So. 2d 183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . The trial court held that Allen was predicated on language in section 479.24, Florida Statutes, as it . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. K- MART CORPORATION,, 47 Fla. Supp. 2d 107 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . After reviewing §§ 421.55, 479.24, Fla. . . . does control in state Eminent Domain proceedings because DOT v Allen, supra, was predicated upon § 479.24 . . .

T L MANAGEMENT, INC. M. d b a T L v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 497 So. 2d 685 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Sections 479.15(2) and 479.24(1) provide for just compensation for the removal of a “lawful nonconforming . . .

FOOD N FUN, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 493 So. 2d 23 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Section 479.24, Florida Statutes, makes clear provision for the appropriate actions to be taken in the . . .

M. WAINWRIGHT, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 488 So. 2d 563 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . argued below that if his signs were removed, he should receive compensation therefor under Section 479.24 . . . Section 479.24(1) provides that “Q]ust compensation shall be paid upon the removal of a lawful nonconforming . . . However, Section 479.24 goes on to provide that it does not apply to a sign “which is illegal at the . . . Wainwright’s signs are lawful and nonconforming and he is entitled to compensation pursuant to Section 479.24 . . . Section 479.24(3)(a). . . .

LAMAR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES OF EAST FLORIDA, LIMITED, v. CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH,, 450 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Section 479.24(1), Florida Statutes, provides that: Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all . . . removed, any advertisement or advertising structure without paying compensation in accordance with s. 479.24 . . . the signs there were located on a federal aid primary highway and hence under sections 479.15(2) and 479.24 . . .

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, v. L. ALLEN,, 447 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . In the instant case, the applicable statute is section 479.24, Florida Statutes (1981), which provides . . .

EMPIRE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 438 So. 2d 851 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Section 479.24 requires that compensation be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence . . . Although there is no explicit provision in § 479.24 that no compensation shall be paid for an illegal . . . Under the interpretation of § 479.24 urged by Empire, the DOT would be required to pay compensation upon . . . This absurd result is foreclosed by the DOT’s interpretation of § 479.24. . . .

NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 418 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Florida Statutes, Section 479.24, is susceptible of a construction that compensation be paid for signs . . . definition in Section 479.01(1), bare poles do not constitute a “sign” within the meaning of Section 479.24 . . .

LAMAR- ORLANDO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, a v. CITY OF ORMOND BEACH, a, 415 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 479.24(1) provides: Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence . . . removed, any advertisement or advertising structure without paying compensation in accordance with s. 479.24 . . .

LaPOINTE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 398 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1981)

. . . The question presented for our review is whether section 479.24(1) requires that the state compensate . . . DOT denied compensation for the sign, contending that because section 479.24(1) provided “Compensation . . . The court found the controlling portion of section 479.24 to be the “lawfully in existence” language . . . We fully agree with the Fourth District Court’s conclusion and find that section 479.24 is not ambiguous . . . Our decision is totally consistent with the legislative intent behind section 479.24. . . .

CITY OF LAKE WALES, v. LAMAR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF LAKELAND, a d b a, 399 So. 2d 981 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Section 479.24(2) provides for payment of compensation pursuant to Florida’s eminent domain procedures . . .

HENDERSON SIGN SERVICE, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ARROWHEAD CAMPSITES, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 390 So. 2d 159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . In Brazil, we construed Section 479.24(1) as allowing compensation for the materials in a sign illegally . . . There we stated that the first sentence of Section 479.24(1) provides compensation only for signs lawfully . . . Finding in Section 479.24(1) an ambiguity, we resolved it in favor of compensating the signowner for . . . Instead, it is my view that Section 479.24(1) allows payment for the removal of nonconforming signs only . . . The House adopted this amendment and C.S. for H.B. 7-D was passed containing Section 479.24(1). . . . nevertheless be paid for the actual replacement value of the materials in those signs pursuant to Section 479.24 . . . Construing Section 479.24(1), this court in Brazil v. . . . The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, placed a different interpretation of Section 479.24(1) . . . stated, then, we decline to consider appellants’ claims for compensation based on Brazil and Section 479.24 . . .

LA POINTE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 382 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Regarding compensation, Section 479.24(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: (1) Compensation shall . . . law essentially condones the initial unlawful act and totally ignores the first sentence of Section 479.24 . . .

CITY OF ORMOND BEACH v. LAMAR- ORLANDO,, 1 Fla. Supp. 2d 163 (Volusia Cty. Cir. Ct. 1979)

. . . such off-premise advertising structures (billboards), violates the provisions of: F.S. 479.15(2); F.S. 479.24 . . . (1); F.S. 479.24(2); Chapters 73 and 74, Florida Statutes; Article 10, Section 6, of the Florida Constitution . . .

CITY OF ORMOND BEACH v. LAMAR- ORLANDO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,, 49 Fla. Supp. 196 (Volusia Cty. Cir. Ct. 1979)

. . . S. 479.24(1); F. . . . S. 479.24(2); Chapters 73 and 74, Florida Statutes; Article 10, Section 6, of the Florida Constitution . . .

WAYFARA, INC. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 370 So. 2d 858 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . controlling date for certain compensation provisions relating to removal of the signs under Section 479.24 . . .

JOHNSON JOHNSON, INC. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 371 So. 2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . the lights have been added to the signs since they were grandfathered in under Sections 479.23 and 479.24 . . .

WALKER, III, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 366 So. 2d 96 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . . § 479.24(1); Brazil v. . . . sign, to compensation based on the actual value of the materials in the sign, under Florida Statute § 479.24 . . . Sections 479.11, 479.24, Florida Statutes (1977); Sections 14-10.19 et seq., Fla.Admin.Code. . . . Section 479.24, Florida Statutes (1977), provides in part: Compensation for removal of signs; eminent . . .

WHITE ADVERTISING INTERNATIONAL, a v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 364 So. 2d 104 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . within 660 feet of a portion of the interstate system, the sign was grandfathered in under §§ 479.23 and 479.24 . . .

P. BRAZIL, B B v. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 347 So. 2d 755 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . correct in ordering the removal of the sign at B & B’s expense, and quotes the first sentence of Section 479.24 . . . Because of the legislative intent in Section 479.24(1) that compensation be paid and because of the ambiguous . . .

WOMETCO ENTERPRISES, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH STEWART PONTIAC CO. v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, 44 Fla. Supp. 72 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. 1976)

. . . removed, aiiy advertisement or advertising structure without paying compensation in áccordance with §479.24 . . . The rule requiring compensation in accordance with §479.24(1) is clear, but the language in §479.16(12 . . . , the court finds that section §479.15(2) does not require compensation in accordance with section §479.24 . . . In fact, §479.24 provides thát cost (“replacement value”) shall be the standard compensation when signs . . . Florida Statutes §479.24(1) —“Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence . . .