Cases from cite.case.law:

LEBRON, v. STATE, 232 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 2017)

. . . This right has been codified in section 90.616(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2017), which provides that the . . . During Lebron’s first attempt to have Osorio excluded from the courtroom pursuant to section 90.616, . . .

G. HEADY, v. STATE, 215 So. 3d 164 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . . § 90.616(2)(d), Fla. Stat. . . .

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 214 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2017)

. . . during the táking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . .

FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL POWER USERS GROUP, v. GRAHAM,, 209 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 2017)

. . . hearing on the petition, FIPUG invoked the rule of sequestration of witnesses, pursuant to section 90.616 . . . erred in not sequestering the witnesses after FIPUG made its request for sequestration under section 90.616 . . . the hearing below was an administrative proceeding, it had discretion as to whether to apply section 90.616 . . . Whether section 90.616 applies to administrative proceedings is a pure question of law, subject to de . . . Section 90.616 reads in its entirety: 90.616 Exclusion of witnesses.— (1) At the request of a party the . . .

DAUGHTRY, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 84 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . . § 90.616(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . person may not be excluded unless the court determines such person’s presence to be prejudicial. § 90.616 . . . The trial court ruled in accordance with section 90.616(2)(d). . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 199 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 2016)

. . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . .

DISMEX FOOD, INC. a O. v. U. HARRIS,, 194 So. 3d 497 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Thereafter, Harris invoked the sequestration rule set forth in section 90.616 of the Florida Statutes . . .

LARKIN, v. STATE, 147 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2014)

. . . See § 90.616, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 131 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 2013)

. . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rale of sequestration of section 90.616 . . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule ol'sequeslralion ofsection 90.616 . . .

HILTON, v. STATE, 117 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 2013)

. . . Section 90.616(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), allows an exception when a witness’s presence is shown . . .

BENJAMIN, v. TANDEM HEALTHCARE, INC. a d b a a, 93 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . . § 90.616(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . . The sequestration rule, articulated in section 90.616, Florida Statutes (2009), provides in part: (1) . . . presence is shown by the party’s attorney to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause. § 90.616 . . . allows courts to exclude witnesses from the trial, but does not permit the court to exclude parties. § 90.616 . . . Gagnon’s other children were parties as contemplated by section 90.616, precluding their exclusion. . . .

R. D. H. a v. STATE, 57 So. 3d 254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Section 90.616, Florida Statutes (2009), provides: (1) At the request of a party the court shall order . . .

L. E. D. a v. STATE, 48 So. 3d 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 90.616, Florida Statutes (2009), provides: (1) At the request of a party the court shall order . . .

FERNANDEZ, v. GUARDIANSHIP OF FERNANDEZ,, 36 So. 3d 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . The Evidence Code provides: 90.616 Exclusion of witnesses.— (1) At the request of a party the court shall . . . such person, unless, upon motion, the court determines such person’s presence to be prejudicial. § 90.616 . . . Id. § 90.616(2)(a). The other fact witnesses were all relatives of the parties. . . .

In FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT OF SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS, 13 So. 3d 1025 (Fla. 2009)

. . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . .

A. HERNANDEZ, Jr. v. STATE, 4 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 2009)

. . . As the majority correctly recognizes, “section 90.616 adopts the view that sequestration is demandable . . . Although sequestration is demandable as a matter of right, section 90.616(2)(c) provides that a court . . . Rather, section 90.616(2)(c) requires the party seeking an exception from the rule for its witness to . . . McClaren’s presence was essential as required under section 90.616(2)(c). . . . to ensure that discretion is being exercised in a manner consistent with both the rule and section 90.616 . . . Section 90.616, Florida Statutes (2006), states in pertinent part: (1) At the request of a party the . . . See § 90.616(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . As one of those categories, section 90.616(2)(c) provides that a court may not exclude “[a] person whose . . . Under section 90.616(2)(c), the burden is on the party seeking to avoid sequestration of a witness to . . . Id. at 541 (quoting § 90.616(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993)). . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 966 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2007)

. . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . . during the taking of testimony notwithstanding the invocation of the rule of sequestration of section 90.616 . . .

J. R. a v. STATE, 923 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Commonly called “the rule,” section 90.616, Florida Statutes (2004), provides: (1) At the request of . . . “If sequestration is invoked, section 90.616(2) provides that four categories of witnesses ... . . . If J.R.’s mother was a “party who is a natural person,” § 90.616(2)(a), Fla. . . . See § 90.616(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004). VI. Nor do we find authority for holding the error harmless. . . . "Section 90.616 adopts the view of Federal Rule 615 that sequestration is de-mandable as a matter of . . .

CHAMBERLAIN, v. STATE, 881 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2004)

. . . . § 90.616(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .

DAVIS, v. STATE v. V. Jr., 875 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2003)

. . . Section 90.616, Florida Statutes (1995), provides an exception to the rule of sequestration for a minor . . .

ROSE, v. STATE, 787 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2001)

. . . Addressing the second part of this claim, Rose recognizes that section 90.616, Florida Statutes (1997 . . .

CAIN, v. STATE, 758 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . .; § 90.616(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . . non-blood relatives can properly be considered next-of-kin under article I, section 16(b) and section 90.616 . . .

RIDER, v. STATE, 724 So. 2d 617 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Although appellant acknowledged the child’s mother to be exempt from the rule, See. 90.616(2)(d), Fla . . .

KNIGHT, n k a v. STATE, 746 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1998)

. . . Section 90.616(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), allows an exception to the rule of sequestration for “ . . .

KNIGHT, n k a v. STATE, 721 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1998)

. . . Section 90.616(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1997), allows an exception to the rule of sequestration for “ . . . Although Knight is correct that the 1990 enactment of section 90.616, a statutory rule of sequestration . . .

STRAUSSER, Jr. v. STATE, 682 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1996)

. . . .” § 90.616(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, v. GOODWIN BEACH PARTNERSHIP,, 644 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . First Union also cited section 90.616(2)(c) of the Florida Evidence Code that a person whose presence . . . $4,875.047.00, which is $111,440.00 less than the total mortgage indebtedness of $4,986,-487.00. . § 90.616 . . .

BLACK v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY,, 621 So. 2d 712 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . individual, as reflected by the record, was neither an officer nor an employee of appellee, and section 90.616 . . .

H. GOODMAN, v. WEST COAST BRACE LIMB, INC. R. d b a, 580 So. 2d 193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Florida legislature codified the case law and essentially adopted the federal rule by enacting section 90.616 . . . Section 90.616 provides that upon the request of a party the court shall exclude all witnesses unless . . .