Cases from cite.case.law:

SKYDIVE SPACE CENTER, INC. v. POHJOLAINEN, d b a, 275 So. 3d 825 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . intercept oral communications, and the subsequent use or disclosure of intercepted oral communications); § 934.10 . . .

STATE v. CARABALLO,, 198 So. 3d 819 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . employee alleged that the recording of his statements during a meeting with his employer violated section 934.10 . . .

B. STALLEY, v. ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC., 997 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . if this exception is met, then no interception occurred and there can be no liability under section 934.10 . . .

B. STALLEY, v. ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC., 296 F.R.D. 670 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . Third Amended Complaint, Stalley and Hallback seek injunctive relief pursuant to Florida Statute § 934.10 . . . While § 934.10 provides a statutory scheme for the award of actual damages, it requires that damages . . . Stat. § 934.10(l)(b). . . .

BOLLEA, v. CLEM, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . of emotional distress, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (5) violation of Section 934.10 . . . Section 934.10(1) provides ''[a]ny person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted . . .

Z. FRANCE, v. P. FRANCE,, 90 So. 3d 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . In providing a private cause of action, section 934.10 would appear to - be punitive in nature. . . . France to have committed an act that allowed for a civil remedy under section 934.10, it would seem to . . .

PERDUE, v. STATE, 78 So. 3d 712 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . belief that the recording was authorized by other provisions of Florida law governing 911 systems); § 934.10 . . .

In D. WALKER, D. v. SLM S. C. P. C., 650 F.3d 1227 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . The paystubs indicate automatic payroll deductions in the amount of $934.10 for items such as retirement . . .

In D. WALKER, D. v. SLM S. C. P. C., 650 F.3d 1227 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . The paystubs indicate automatic payroll deductions in the amount of $934.10 for items such as retirement . . .

V. MINOTTY, M. D. v. A. BAUDO, M. D. M. D. M. D. V. M. D. v. A. M. D. M. D. M. D., 42 So. 3d 824 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Claim for Interception of Communications Pursuant to Section 934.10, Florida Statutes Dr. . . . Section 934.10, Florida Statutes provides: Civil remedies. (1) Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic . . . Armstrong sued Southern Bell for damages for violation of 934.10. . . . essentially the same language, we conclude that silent video surveillance is not covered by section 934.02 or 934.10 . . .

In D. WALKER, D. v. SLM P. C. S. C., 427 B.R. 471 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2010)

. . . from income, the Bankruptcy Court found that Troy’s paystubs from his police job showed that he had $934.10 . . .

In D. WALKER, D. v. SLM P. C. S. C., 406 B.R. 840 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2009)

. . . These total to $934.10 per month. . . . as follows: HCSP-MSRS $ 50.00 Def Comp 300.00 4 MED CHBtx 151.60 B Tax Opt L 28.76 Pension 403.74 $934.10 . . .

KOUNTZE, v. H. KOUNTZE,, 996 So. 2d 246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . in 2003 in Collier County against Neely claiming the right to receive a civil remedy under section 934.10 . . .

BRILLINGER, v. CITY OF LAKE WORTH,, 978 So. 2d 265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . . § 934.10(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .

O. HORNING- KEATING, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU,, 969 So. 2d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Statutes for reporting evidence of suspected insurance fraud; (4) he had a good faith belief under section 934.10 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. B. CARNEY,, 157 F. App'x 103 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . . §§ 1983 and 1985; (2) section 934.10, Florida Statutes; and (3) state law governing “intentional torts . . . Section 934..10, Florida Statutes Section 934.10, Florida Statutes provides a civil remedy for persons . . . Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing his section 934.10 claims, as his statements . . . Section 934.10, Florida Statutes provides a civil remedy for the unlawful interception, disclosure, or . . .

A. BOEHNER, v. A. McDERMOTT,, 332 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.D.C. 2004)

. . . . § 934.10 that authorize private actions to recover for violations of the federal and state wiretapping . . . Stat. §§ 934.03, 934.10 because Defendant did not avail himself of the protection of Florida law and . . .

COHEN BROTHERS, LLC. LLC, v. ME CORP. S. A., 872 So. 2d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . The Wiretap Statute provides in pertinent part that: § 934.10(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BATES, DUNNING ASSOCIATES, INC., 858 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 934.10 provides an injured party with civil remedies for violation of section 934.03. . . . . addition, we are precluded from following Bates' suggestion and considering a good-faith defense, § 934.10 . . .

ALLOCCO, v. CITY OF CORAL GABLES, A A, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . § 934.10. As extensively discussed in the earlier part of this order, for purposes of Fla. . . . . § 934.10, the plaintiffs are classified as “part-time law enforcement officers”. . . .

JATAR, v. LAMALETTO a, 758 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Jatar brought an action for civil remedies pursuant to section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1989), alleging . . .

A. BOEHNER, v. A. McDERMOTT,, 191 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1999)

. . . . §§ 934.03(l)(c) & 934.10 (West 1996), these statutes are patterned after the federal statute and do . . .

MIRANDA, v. CHASE MANHATTAN INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., 706 So. 2d 130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . . § 934.10(3), Fla. Stat. (1993). . . .

WOLFSON v. LEWIS,, 168 F.R.D. 530 (E.D. Pa. 1996)

. . . and illegal interception of wire, oral or electronic communications under Florida Statutes Ann. eh. 934.10 . . .

WOLFSON v. LEWIS,, 924 F. Supp. 1413 (E.D. Pa. 1996)

. . . Fla.Stat.Anno. eh. 934.10; 18 Pa. C.A. § 5725. . . .

COTEAU PROPERTIES COMPANY, v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, 53 F.3d 1466 (8th Cir. 1995)

. . . . § 934.10 (1989). . . .

WOOD, v. STATE, 654 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . had researched case law and spoken with many people, some of whom had worked on amendments to section 934.10 . . . Appellant requested and submitted a jury charge, based on section 934.10(2)(b), instructing that a defense . . . Appellant attempted to raise a defense under section 934.10(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), which states . . . Neither party has revealed any cases interpreting the defense provided in section 934.10(2)(b). . . . parties, the legislature fui'ther amended chapter 934 in 1986 to create the defense provided in section 934.10 . . .

RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. LAZZARA OIL COMPANY,, 601 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . The. suit for damages was based upon section 934.10 which provides for the recovery of damages from “ . . . consequences of that act, to wit, the harm which section 934.03 was enacted to interdict and for which section 934.10 . . . enacted after the alleged recordings in this case which provide a good faith defense under section 934.10 . . .

WANDER v. FEINBERG, 50 Fla. Supp. 2d 126 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . Count I is based on F.S. 934.10 — Civil remedies for violations of Florida’s Securities of Communications . . . Count I — Florida Security of Communications Claim F.S. 934.10 In 1987, F.S. 934.10 did not contain its . . . Subsequently, effective October 1, 1989, F.S. 934.10 was amended as follows: (3) A civil action under . . . Nor is there any manifestation of legislative intent that F.S. 934.10(3) be given retroactive effect. . . . F.S. 934.10(3) makes no provision for the applicability of the two year period to causes of action accrued . . .

ROYAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, d b a v. JEFFERSON- PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . HISTORY Royal Health sued JP Life for unauthorized interception of an oral communication under section 934.10 . . . Royal Health alleges a claim under section 934.10 of the Act. . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.10 (West Supp.1990). . . . if this exception is met, then no interception occurred and there can be no liability under section 934.10 . . .

MITCHELL, v. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE, a, 747 F. Supp. 1446 (M.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . misleading advertising); 817.706(1) (violations of regulations governing credit service organizations); 934.10 . . .

J. SCUTIERI, Jr. v. ESTATE OF REVITZ,, 683 F. Supp. 795 (S.D. Fla. 1988)

. . . . § 934.10) The parties agree that this statute is modeled after 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and that a four-year . . .

B. HUTCHINS, v. T. HUTCHINS,, 508 So. 2d 391 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . $20,-000 award for unlawful interception of a communication under the wiretapping statute (section 934.10 . . .

J. SCUTIERI, Jr. v. PAIGE J. SCUTIERI, Jr. v. PAIGE,, 808 F.2d 785 (11th Cir. 1987)

. . . . § 605, a Florida wiretapping statute, Fla.Stat. 934.10, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and claims . . . The complaint sought civil damages for, inter alia, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 and Fla.Stat. § 934.10 . . .

S. RUBIN, v. STATE, 490 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . State of Florida, 495 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir.1974) (good faith reliance on wiretap order); § 934.10, Fla.Stat . . .

DOANE v. ASSOCIATED BUREAUS, INC., 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 12 (Orange Cty. Ct. 1984)

. . . He has, therefore, brought action for damages pursuant to Florida Statute Section 934.10 alleging that . . .

D. BURGESS, v. F. BURGESS,, 447 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1984)

. . . I do not believe that the legislature, in enacting section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979), intended . . . I disagree with the majority that section 934.10 positively and unambiguously provides an aggrieved party . . . I believe that the majority has misread section 934.10 to allow this limited exception to the doctrine . . . civil cause of action for money damages brought by one spouse against the other spouse, under Section 934.10 . . . For reasons discussed below we find that the language of section 934.10 is both “positive and unambiguous . . . Burgess, petitioner, filed a civil action seeking monetary damages under section 934.10 based on Mr. . . . The word “person”, as used in section 934.10, is defined by statute as follows: (5) “Person” means any . . . In sum, the remedy afforded by section 934.10 should not be circumscribed by the doctrine of interspousal . . .

LOMELO, Jr. v. O. SCHULTZ,, 422 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . appellee with improper disclosure of an intercepted wire or oral communication, in violation of Sections 934.10 . . . Section 934.10, Florida Statutes, states: Any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, . . .

D. BURGESS, v. F. BURGESS,, 417 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . the trial court reluctantly dismissing her cause of action for civil damages brought under Section 934.10 . . . Burgess filed a complaint pursuant to Section 934.10 based on Mr. . . . played before her neighbors so that she might maintain a cause of action for damages under Section 934.10 . . . civil cause of action for money damages brought by one spouse against the other spouse, under Section 934.10 . . .

M. BROWN, v. SHEARSON HAYDEN STONE, INC., 94 F.R.D. 159 (S.D. Fla. 1982)

. . . . § 934.10. . . .

ROBERTS, v. JARDINE,, 366 So. 2d 124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . She based her action on Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1977), which authorizes damages for the wrongful . . .

ARMSTRONG v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY,, 366 So. 2d 88 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . upon their telephone line, thereby entitling them to a cause of action pursuant to Florida Statute 934.10 . . .

STATE v. BLACKBURN,, 35 Fla. Supp. 202 (Seminole Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)

. . . controlling statutes are contained in chapter 934, Florida Statutes, specifically §§934.01 through 934.10 . . .