Cases from cite.case.law:

KIPNIS, v. BAYERISCHE HYPO- UND VEREINSBANK, AG,, 202 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 2016)

. . . See § 772.17, Fla. Stat. (2013) (Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act); § 95.11(3)(a), Fla. . . .

LATERZA, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A., 221 F. Supp. 3d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . claims of negligence are subject to a four-year statute of limitations... ”) (footnote omitted); § 772.17 . . .

OGNENOVIC, v. DAVID J. GIANNONE, INC. J., 184 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See §§ 95.031(2)(a), 772.17, Fla. Stat. (2013); Seymour v. . . .

KIPNIS, E. As A. As v. BAYERISCHE HYPO- UND VEREINSBANK, AG, a a. k. a. AG, HVB U. S. a. k. a. U. S., 784 F.3d 771 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 772.17. . . .

R. PAUL, Jr. v. DETROIT EDISON CO. Co. Co. Co. v. R. Jr., 94 F. Supp. 3d 880 (E.D. Mich. 2015)

. . . among them a 70% lump sum payment of $93,169.71, as well as monthly annuity payments in the amount of $772.17 . . .

R. SPADARO, v. CITY OF MIRAMAR,, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 772.17. . . .

WARE v. UNITED STATES FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION In J. In E. In F. In, 255 F. App'x 838 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 772.17 (providing FHWA-approved methods); 23 C.F.R. § 772.11 (requiring adoption of reasonable and . . .

BOOKWORLD TRADE, INC. d b a a v. DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL, INC. a d b a, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 772.17. . . .

HUFF GROVES TRUST T T Co. v. CAULKINS INDIANTOWN CITRUS CO. a a a, 829 So. 2d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . favor of VNA and BNP, where the claims were barred by the five-year statute of limitations of section 772.17 . . . after the conduct in violation of a provision of this act terminates or the cause of action accrues. § 772.17 . . .

In NATURALLY BEAUTIFUL NAILS, INC. v. d b a s, 262 B.R. 131 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . record that the Statute was not complied with and the five year Statute of Limitation established by § 772.17 . . .

ASSOCIATION CONCERNED ABOUT TOMORROW, INC. ACT v. E. SLATER, M. E. S., 40 F. Supp. 2d 823 (N.D. Tex. 1998)

. . . . § 772.17, and the Court finds that the Defendants’ methodology for noise analysis was reasonable and . . .

J. VELTMANN P. v. WALPOLE PHARMACY, INC., 928 F. Supp. 1161 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . According to section 772.17 of the Florida Statutes, the applicable limitations period for an action . . .

J. SEYMOUR d b a v. P. ADAMS D., 638 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . statute was not complied with and that the five year statute of limitations established by section 772.17 . . .

JONES v. H. CHILDERS, 18 F.3d 899 (11th Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 772.17. . See, e.g., Miami v. . . .

M. KORMAN, v. IGLESIAS,, 825 F. Supp. 1010 (S.D. Fla. 1993)

. . . Fla.Stat. § 772.17 (1991). . . . Such a result cahnot be tbe intent of the legislature in enacting § 772.17. . . . after the cause of action accrues while § 772.17 provides an alternative time for the statute to run . . . Korman argues that the “discovery rule” applies to § 772.17 so that the- limitations period does not . . . Without deciding whether the discovery rule applies to § 772.17, see Jones v. . . .

BEDELL, v. MARSHALL, 42 Fla. Supp. 2d 63 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . As to Count II, section 772.17 does provide that a proceeding under that chapter may be commenced within . . . As to Count II, section 772.17 does provide that a proceeding under that chapter may be commenced within . . .

ZICCARDI, v. STROTHER,, 570 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Under section 772.17 the plaintiff has five years to file suit. . . . See § 772.17, Fla.Stat. (1987); § 895.05(10), Pla.Stat. (1981). . . .

M. KORMAN, v. IGLESIAS,, 736 F. Supp. 261 (S.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . Civil Theft Civil theft claims are governed by the statute of limitation found in Florida Statutes § 772.17 . . . Fla.Stat. § 772.17 (1989). . . .