Cases from cite.case.law:

BUSHNELL, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,, 255 So. 3d 473 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . The Court therefore finds that a non-contract claim 'aris[es] out of [a] contract' for purposes of § 95.03 . . .

RUSS BERRIE COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 329 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2018)

. . . See also EN 95.03 (instructing that heading 95.03 covers "all toys" not included in headings 95.01 and . . . See EN 95.03 (instructing that HS heading 95.03 excludes "[p]aints put up for children's use (heading . . . EN 95.03. . . . heading 32.13 rather than as toys of heading 95.03. . . . See EN 95.03(A)(1). . . .

IN RE NII HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 311 F.R.D. 401 (E.D. Va. 2015)

. . . Institutional ownership of Nil stock was also robust; institutions held an average of 95.03% of the public . . .

COYOTE PORTABLE STORAGE, LLC, LLC, LLC, v. PODS ENTERPRISES, INC., 618 F. App'x 525 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . Cactus says the answer is no based on Florida Statutes § 95.03: “Any provision in a contract fixing the . . . Cactus’s assertion that § 95.03 invalidates notice provisions is flatly inconsistent with these cases . . . The inapplicability of § 95.03 leaves to the common law the issue of the validity and effect of notice . . . (If the primary purpose was instead to foreclose claims, we would revisit our analysis of § 95.03, the . . .

STREETSURFING LLC, v. UNITED STATES,, 11 F. Supp. 3d 1287 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014)

. . . Explanatory Notes 95.03. . . . Explanatory Notes 95.03. . . . Explanatory Notes 95.03. . . . Explanatory Notes 95.03. . . . Requisites for other sports and outdoor games (other than toys presented in sets, or separately, of heading 95.03 . . .

RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. J. PHILLIPS,, 126 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 2013)

. . . The next statutory provision, section 95.03, uses the term “action” and provides as follows: 95.03. . . . may be begun at a time less than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations is void. § 95.03 . . . the term “proceeding” to exclude arbitration, a person could easily avoid the protection of section 95.03 . . . At that time, the protections against shortening time periods under section 95.03 were limited to apply . . . At the same time, the Legislature amended section 95.03 to its current form, which voids any provision . . .

In ALL AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. AASI A. v. USA,, 490 B.R. 418 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 95.03 provides that "[a]ny provision in a contract fixing the period of time within which an action . . .

AVCO CORPORATION v. M. NEFF J. Co- Jr. C. A. Co- J. J. Co- J. Jo LLC TDY CJ LLC. v. Jr. C. A. Co- J. J. Co- J. Jo M. J. Co- AVCO TDY CJ, 30 So. 3d 597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 95.03 l(2)(d), Fla. Stat. . . .

CLAUSNITZER, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,, 248 F.R.D. 647 (S.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . recognize a contractual limitations period shorter than the statutory provision, but in Florida, Section 95.03 . . .

RANDALL, J. v. LADY OF AMERICA FRANCHISE CORPORATION,, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Minn. 2007)

. . . Section 95.03 of the Florida statutes provides: “Any provision in a contract fixing the period of time . . . Ann. § 95.03 (emphasis added). . . . what types of actions arise out of a contract for purposes of § 95.03. . . . Plaintiffs argue that their FDUTPA claims “arise out of’ the franchise agreement and, therefore, § 95.03 . . . (Section 95.03, it will be recalled, provides that “[a]ny provision in a contract fixing the period of . . .

MAXCESS, INC. v. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 433 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 95.03 (“Any provision in a contract fixing the period of time within which an action arising out . . .

RENNOC, INC. a d b a v. MERICA, BURCH DICKERSON, INC. a, 914 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . . § 95.03, Fla. Stat. . . .

SIMON MARKETING, INC. L. P. v. UNITED STATES,, 395 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)

. . . Explanatory Notes to Chapter 91 exclude toy watches, “such as those without clock or watch movements (heading 95.03 . . . excludes ... c) toy clocks and watches ... such as those without clock or watch movements (heading 95.03 . . . The Explanatory Notes to heading 95.03 states that “[m]any of the toys of this heading are mechanically . . .

L. P. v., 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 1111 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)

. . . Explanatory Notes to Chapter 91 exclude toy watches, “such as those without clock or watch movements (heading 95.03 . . . excludes . . . c) toy clocks and watches . . . such as those without clock or watch movements (heading 95.03 . . . The Explanatory Notes to heading 95.03 states that “[m]any of the toys of this heading are mechanically . . .

FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. LEVINE PARTNERS, P. A. a, 848 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . applicable statute of limitations for bringing suit on the policy and therefore is not barred by section 95.03 . . .

v., 27 Ct. Int'l Trade 11 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003)

. . . Toy Biz observes that the Explanatory Note 95.03(A)(1) provides that “other toys” under heading 9503 . . . The Explanatory Note 95.03 to heading 9503 explicitly states that the “other toys” provision includes . . . The accompanying Explanatory Note 95.03, HTSUS, further explains that “[t]hese include: (1) Toys representing . . . See Explanatory Note 95.03, HTSUS. . . . See 9503.49.00, HTSUS; Explanatory Note 95.03, HTSUS. . . .

TOY BIZ, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003)

. . . Toy Biz observes that the Explanatory Note 95.03(A)(1) provides that “other toys” under heading 9503 . . . The Explanatory Note 95.03 to heading 9503 explicitly states that the “other toys” provision includes . . . The accompanying Explanatory Note 95.03, HTSUS, further explains that “[t]hese include: (1) Toys representing . . . See Explanatory Note 95.03, HTSUS. . . . See 9503.49.00, HTSUS; Explanatory Note 95.03, HTSUS. . . .

v., 26 Ct. Int'l Trade 816 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)

. . . See Explanatory Note 95.03(A) (emphasis in original). . . . See Explanatory Notes 95.03(A) (listing examples of toy sets, including “toy arms, tools, gardening sets . . .

TOY BIZ, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)

. . . See Explanatory Note 95.03(A) (emphasis in original). . . . See Explanatory Notes 95.03(A) (listing examples of toy sets, including “toy arms, tools, gardening sets . . .

v., 24 Ct. Int'l Trade 1351 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)

. . . non-human features — are “toys” under the HTSUS: The Explanatory Notes are unambiguous on this point: 95.03 . . . In short, emphasizing the language of Explanatory Note 95.03(A)(1) — particularly the phrase “even if . . . A figure which is — in the language of Explanatory Note 95.03(A)(1) — “predominantly human,” but which . . .

TOY BIZ, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 123 F. Supp. 2d 646 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)

. . . non-human features — are “toys” under the HTSUS: The Explanatory Notes are unambiguous on this point: 95.03 . . . In short, emphasizing the language of .Explanatory Note 95.03(A)(1) — particularly the phrase “even if . . . A figure which is — in the language of Explanatory Note 95.03(A)(1) — "predominantly human,” but which . . .

v., 24 Ct. Int'l Trade 1175 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)

. . . Although not legally binding on the court, Chapter 95, HTSUS Explanatory Notes, Vol. 4, heading 95.03 . . .

ERO INDUSTRIES, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)

. . . Although not legally binding on the court, Chapter 95, HTSUS Explanatory Notes, Vol. 4, heading 95.03 . . .

In KALVAR MICROFILM, INC. N. V. AAA, 208 B.R. 819 (Bankr. D. Del. 1997)

. . . Claim number 298 also lists six drawback entries totaling $5,280.68 plus $95.03 in interest due (for . . .

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA RETIREMENT CENTER, INC. d b a v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, McMERIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, n k a v. FIREMEN S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK,, 682 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . . § 95.03, Fla. Stat. . . .

In CARSRUD, No. XXX- XX- XXXX, 161 B.R. 246 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1993)

. . . 1992 $ 93.19 • March 23, 1992 93.76 • April 3, 1992 92.75 • April 15, 1992 94.74 • August 12, 1992 95.03 . . .

VAVOULES, v. KLOSTER CRUISE LIMITED d b a, 822 F. Supp. 979 (E.D.N.Y. 1993)

. . . . § 95.03. Plaintiff also contends that the contractual language is ambiguous. . . . The plaintiff argued that F.S.A. § 95.03 rendered a ticket limitation void because F.S.A. § 95.11 allowed . . .

NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, a v. L. J. CLARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 579 So. 2d 743 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Section 95.03, Florida Statutes (1989), provides: Contracts shortening time. — Any provision in a contract . . . coverage over that provided by section 713.23 is illogical when considered in conjunction with section 95.03 . . .

NCNB NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, a f k a N. A. N. A. v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a, 477 So. 2d 579 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . the bringing of suit, NCNB actually had more than twenty-four months to file, by operation of section 95.03 . . .

BURROUGHS CORPORATION, a v. SUNTOGS OF MIAMI, INC. a, 472 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1985)

. . . Section 95.03, Florida Statutes (1975), provides as follows: Any provision in a contract fixing the period . . . The court reversed on the ground that section 95.03, set forth above, expresses a strong public policy . . . First, we find the policy enunciated by section 95.03 to be riddled with exceptions. . . . Furthermore, section 95.03 must be read in pari materia with other laws which suggest that parties to . . . Prior to its amendment by chapter 74-382, section 2, Laws of Florida, section 95.03 provided as follows . . .

SUNTOGS OF MIAMI, INC. a v. BURROUGHS CORPORATION, SUNTOGS OF MIAMI, INC. a v. A. TESTA,, 433 So. 2d 581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Under Florida law, the above contract provision would be rendered void by Section 95.03, Florida Statutes . . . Section 95.03 formerly read as follows: All provisions and stipulations contained in any contract whatever . . . In 1974, however, Section 95.03 was amended, Ch. 74-382, § 2, Laws of Fla. . . . Under Section 95.03, as amended, a contractual reduction of the statutory limitations period is still . . . 317 (Fla.1956), we are nonetheless confident that with the plain legislative expression in Section 95.03 . . .

GUARANTEE TRUST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. FUNDORA,, 343 So. 2d 71 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Section 95.03, Florida Statutes (1975), provides as follows: “95.03 Contracts shortening time. . . .

LIFE SCIENCES, INC. v. EMERY AIR FREIGHT CORPORATION,, 341 So. 2d 272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Moreover, the provisions of Section 95.03, Florida Statutes (1971), which prohibit the contractual shortening . . .

ARROW BEEF CORPORATION, a v. SOUTH ATLANTIC CARIBBEAN LINES, INC., 280 So. 2d 43 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . . § 95.03, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides: “All provisions and stipulations contained in any contract whatever . . .

BURGER KING CORPORATION, a v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO. a, 359 F. Supp. 184 (W.D. Pa. 1973)

. . . Further, plaintiff argues that the Florida District Court would apply § 95.03 of Fla.Stat.Ann. (1969) . . . Plaintiff Clay argued for the applicability of § 95.03. . . . One of the non-constitutional issues which should have been first considered was whether § 95.03 was . . . Here, sufficient contact with the state of Florida existed for the application of § 95.03. . . . Therefore, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 95.03 applies to the facts of the present case and plaintiff’s suit is not . . .

AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, v. E. ENRIGHT,, 258 So. 2d 472 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . sufficient contact with the transaction and the parties to justify the application of Florida Statute § 95.03 . . .

QUARTY, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,, 244 So. 2d 181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

. . . . § 95.03, F.S.A., making void any provisions of a contract fixing the time in which suits may be instituted . . . for the Fifth Circuit at the direction of the United States Supreme Court, it was held that F.S. § 95.03 . . .

COQUETTE ORIGINALS, INC. a v. CANADIAN GULF LINE OF FLORIDA, INC. a, 240 So. 2d 847 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . Under § 95.03 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., contractual provisions shortening statutory limitation periods are against . . .

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY,, 403 F.2d 761 (5th Cir. 1968)

. . . But, § 95.03 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A. provides in part that: “Stipulations in contract shortening . . .

DELDUCA, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY GUARANTY COMPANY,, 357 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1966)

. . . . § 95.03, F.S.A., of a 1-year time-of-suit clause as a contractual effort to prescribe “a period of . . .

D. FORESMAN v. EASTERN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, a, 177 So. 2d 887 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)

. . . Under these circumstances, the limitation provisions provided by Section 95.03, Florida Statutes, F.S.A . . .

HIERNAUX, d b a M V CHARLEROI, v. M V QUEEN CITY, a, 244 F. Supp. 511 (W.D. Pa. 1965)

. . . . § 95.03(a). . Cf. Lie v. San Francisco & Portland S.S. . . .

W. F. THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION CO. a a v. SOUTHEASTERN PALM BEACH COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, a a, 174 So. 2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)

. . . Section 95.03, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: “All provisions and stipulations contained in any . . .

CLAY v. SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., 377 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1964)

. . . Ann. (1960) §§ 95.03, 95.11 (3). Fla. Stat. Ann. (1957) §25.031; Fla. App. Rule 4.61. See Sun Ins. . . .

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LIMITED, v. CLAY,, 319 F.2d 505 (5th Cir. 1963)

. . . for proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court. . (1) Are the provisions of Sections 95.03 . . .

FLONA CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES, 218 F. Supp. 354 (S.D. Fla. 1963)

. . . The depletion value of the 1,319,516 units harvested in 1959 would be $95.03. . . . claim of the plaintiff for depletion allowance for 1958 and 1959 reduced to the amount of $112.90 and $95.03 . . .

SCHLUTER, Sr. v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, a a, 144 So. 2d 95 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)

. . . Sec. 95.03, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides that “[a]ll provisions and stipulations contained in any contract . . . Appeals holding that other issues presented below, one of which was whether, under Florida law, Sec. 95.03 . . . On the question whether or not Florida could apply Sec. 95.03 to the Illinois-made contract consistently . . . Clay, Fla. 1961, 133 So.2d 735, an opinion was rendered in which the court held that Sec. 95.03 Fla.Stat . . .

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LIMITED, v. CLAY,, 133 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1961)

. . . The first question certified reads as follows: “(1) Are the provisions of Section 95.03 and 95.11(3) . . . Section 95.03, supra, was enacted in 1913 as §§ 1 and 2 of Ch. 6465, Acts of 1913, and provides as follows . . . Appeals in its opinion and judgment, supra, 265 F.2d 522, did not decide the question of whether § 95.03 . . . High Court; and he proceeded to do so, advancing cogent reasons in support of the applicability of § 95.03 . . . as appellant insurance company that “grave doubts” should be held to exist as to the validity of § 95.03 . . .

CLAY v. SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LIMITED, 363 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1960)

. . . which was based, inter alia, upon the suit clause, apparently believing that Florida Statutes (1957) § 95.03 . . . The court considered the preliminary question of state law — whether the Florida statute, § 95.03, in . . . The lower court should have first considered: (1) whether, under the law of Florida, § 95.03 is applicable . . . disposed of by the Court of Appeals are questions of local law, the question whether under Florida law § 95.03 . . . Stat., 1957, § 95.03. . . .

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LIMITED, v. CLAY,, 265 F.2d 522 (5th Cir. 1959)

. . . . § 95.03. . . . months next after discovery of the loss was rendered void and unenforceable by Florida Revised Statute 95.03 . . . circumstances of this case a violation of due process would result from the application of Florida Statute 95.03 . . .

J. B. EFFENSON COMPANY, v. THREE BAYS CORPORATION,, 238 F.2d 611 (5th Cir. 1956)

. . . . § 95.03. . . .

JANSSON v. SWEDISH AMERICAN LINE, 185 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1950)

. . . . § 95.03, providing that all stipulations contained in any contract “fixing the period of time in which . . .

SCHEIBEL v. AGWILINES, INC., 156 F.2d 636 (2d Cir. 1946)

. . . Section 95.03 of Florida Statutes Annotated provides: “All provisions and stipulations contained in any . . .

HOLDERNESS v. HAMILTON FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK, 54 F. Supp. 145 (S.D. Fla. 1944)

. . . Sec. 95.03, Fla.Stat.1941, F.S.A. . . . In North Carolina there is no statute such as Sec. 95.03 supra, denouncing such agreements. . . . That Sec. 95.03 declares such limiting agreements contrary to Florida public policy does not justify . . .