Cases from cite.case.law:

KUMAR, v. C. PATEL,, 227 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2017)

. . . For example, sections 772.14 and 775.089(8), Florida Statutes, expressly restrict the doctrine of mutuality . . .

PROFESSIONAL ROOFING AND SALES, INC. v. FLEMMINGS,, 138 So. 3d 524 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . For example, sections 772.14 and 775.089 of the Florida Statutes aid crime victims in obtaining a civil . . . from challenging in a civil action matters that were already adjudicated in a criminal proceeding: 772.14 . . . Co. of N.Y., 750 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (recognizing that sections 772.14 and 775.089(8) . . . Cohen, 659 So.2d 1064, 1067 (Fla.1995) (“Section 772.14 abrogates the requirement of mutuality of parties . . . Fui'thermore, as noted by the Florida Supreme Court, sections 775.089(8) and 772.14 did not abolish the . . .

CITY OF ORLANDO, v. PINEIRO,, 66 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . . § 772.14, Fla. Stat. (2010); Boshnack v. . . .

STAFFORD, v. DON REID FORD, INC., 920 So. 2d 791 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . As it did below, Appellee relies on sections 772.14 and 775.089(8), Florida Statutes, as support for . . . Those sections provide: 772.14 Estoppel of defendant. — A final judgment or decree rendered in favor . . . the amount of such restitution shall be set off against any subsequent independent civil recovery. §§ 772.14 . . . judgment or decree would be an estoppel as if the plaintiff had been a party in the criminal action.” § 772.14 . . .

E. COOK, v. STATE, 921 So. 2d 631 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See, e.g., § 772.14, Fla. Stat. (2004); Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. . . .

J. PALAMARA, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,, 855 So. 2d 706 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . McQueen, 656 So.2d 917, 920 (Fla.1995) (holding that sections 772.14 and 775.089(8) do not mandate total . . .

A. V. v., 119 T.C. 157 (T.C. 2002)

. . . NMG also issued a warrant which gave Arbeit the right to purchase 772.14 shares of NMG class A common . . . to purchase NMG class A common stock in the following amounts: Warrantholder No. of shares Arbeit. 772.14 . . . Zamora 177.00 4.22 Arbeit 772.14 18.40 Sieben 18.36 0.44 Berkeley 115.41 2.75 BG Services 230.82 5.50 . . . The rights to purchase 772.14 shares of NMG class A common stock were allocated as follows: (1) University . . . November 9, 1993, Arbeit executed an assignment of rights under the Arbeit NMG Warrant for the purchase of 772.14 . . .

In H. GREENWASSER, v. H., 269 B.R. 918 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . The Debtor further argues that Florida Statutes § 772.14 does not operate as to bar his denial of the . . . Florida Statute § 772.14 Does Not Estop the Debtor from Denying Intoxication at the Time of the Accident . . . Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue that under Florida Statutes § 772.14, the Debtor is estopped in a . . . As set forth in Chapter 772, Florida Statutes § 772.14 reads as follows: 772.14 Estoppel of defendant . . . Stat. § 772.14 (1999)(emphasis added). The meaning of section 772.14 is clear. . . .

RIGAL, Jr. v. LEVINE, BUSCH, SCHNEPPER STEIN,, 796 So. 2d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Sections 772.14 and 775.089, Florida Statutes (1993 and Supp.1994) “estop a defendant from denying the . . .

FAR OUT PRODUCTIONS, INC. a v. OSKAR d b a v., 247 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . .1995) (recognizing that Romano was superseded as to criminal judgments by Florida Statutes chapter 772.14 . . .

FAR OUT PRODUCTIONS, INC. a v. OSKAR d b a v., 247 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . .1995) (recognizing that Romano was superseded as to criminal judgments by Florida Statutes chapter 772.14 . . .

J P TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK,, 750 So. 2d 752 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . The Legislature enacted sections 772.14 and 775.089(8) to aid crime victims in obtaining a civil recovery . . . These sections provide as follows: 772.14. . . .

STARR TYME, INC. v. COHEN,, 659 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1995)

. . . AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF OR DEFENDING A CLAIM IN A SUBSEQUENT CIVIL ACTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 772.14 . . . The motion was based on Florida’s civil remedies for criminal practices estoppel statute, section 772.14 . . . Section 772.14 is a codification of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. . . . It appears Starr Tyme based its claim of estop-pel at the trial level solely on section 772.14. . . . Section 772.14 was enacted in 1986. Ch. 86-277, § 3, Laws of Fla. . . . .

STOGNIEW, v. J. McQUEEN,, 656 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1995)

. . . legislature effectively abolished the doctrine of mutuality when it enacted sections 775.089(8) and 772.14 . . . Section 772.14 provides: A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the state in any criminal proceeding . . .

COULTER CORPORATION, v. LEINERT,, 869 F. Supp. 732 (E.D. Mo. 1994)

. . . Ch. 772.14 of the civil theft statute as affording a victim of trade secret theft a civil injunction . . .

BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE OF FLORIDA, By UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, v. TABORSKY,, 648 So. 2d 748 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . departed from the essential requirements of law as enunciated by the Legislature in enacting sections 772.14 . . . Stats., and is entitled to judgment against Taborsky as provided for under Section 772.14, FlaStats., . . . When section 772.14 is considered and applied, injunctive relief is even more clearly required. . . . Section 772.14 grants crime victims in Florida a valuable litigation tool that eliminates the victim’ . . . A defendant’s estoppel is readily apparent from reading sections 772.14 and section 775.089(8). . . . Sections 772.14 and 775.089(8) cannot give estoppel effect to the conditions in a judge’s order of probation . . . convinced that a trial court had no discretion but to grant a specific order under either sections 772.14 . . .

STARR TYME, INC. v. COHEN,, 638 So. 2d 599 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . In doing so, it relied on section 772.14, Florida Statutes (1991), Florida’s collateral estoppel statute . . . Appellant argues sections 772.14 and 775.089(8), Florida Statutes (1991), preclude appellee’s recovery . . . Those sections provide: 772.14 Estoppel of defendant. — A final judgment or decree rendered in favor . . . Satterfield to these facts harmonizes the facial conflict between the Florida Evidence Code and sections 772.14 . . . AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF OR DEFENDING A CLAIM IN A SUBSEQUENT CIVIL ACTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 772.14 . . .

PATERNO, v. FERNANDEZ, 569 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . See §§ 775.089(8) and 772.14, Fla.Stats. (1985). . . . as to the issue of liability, we find no need in addressing the plaintiffs’ contention that Section 772.14 . . .

F. O GRIFFIN, v. SEMPERIT OF AMERICA, INC. a, 414 F. Supp. 1384 (S.D. Tex. 1976)

. . . Defendant originally alleged a claim of $238,-772.14, but later modified such claim to approximately . . .