Cases from cite.case.law:

G. STRICKLAND, v. PINELLAS COUNTY,, 261 So. 3d 700 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . The letter set forth sections 767.01, 767.13(2), and 784.05(1), Florida Statutes (2015), which apply . . . That version of section 767.13(2), notably, prescribed criminal liability for an owner "[i]f a dog that . . . stated that his dog exhibits potentially "dangerous propensities," which is a term used in section 767.13 . . . (2), designating an animal as having "dangerous propensities" as that term is used in section 767.13( . . . Section 767.13(2) has since been amended and no longer imposes liability for a dog that has not been . . .

HOESCH v. BROWARD COUNTY,, 53 So. 3d 1177 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Likewise, Broward ordinance 4-12(j)(2) requires the dog’s destruction, but section 767.13 does not. . . . The argued conflict between section 767.13 and Broward County ordinance section 4-12(j)(2), however, . . . Section 767.13(1) requires the destruction of a dog that has previously been declared dangerous if it . . . See 767.11(l)(b); 767.13(1). . . . See 767.11(l)(b); 767.13. . . .

STATE v. NOWLIN,, 50 So. 3d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . showed Nowlin knew her dog had previously bitten a small child, she could not be liable under section 767.13 . . .

CITY OF OCALA, v. GREEN,, 988 So. 2d 114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Green was not prosecuted and convicted criminally for violating Florida’s dog bite law, section 767.13 . . . (a) The provisions of F.S. s. 767.13 are adopted by reference. . . . (b) All references in F.S. s. 767.13(1), (2) and (3), as adopted in this section,' to a notification . . . Section 767.13(1), Florida Statutes, the statute “adopted by reference” in section 14-62, provides: 767.13 . . . Section 767.13(1) is clear. . . .

FREEMAN, v. STATE, 969 So. 2d 473 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . because the actions alleged and proved were specifically prohibited by the “Dangerous Dog Act,” section 767.13 . . . In particular, section 767.13(2) only requires proof of the dog owner’s “knowledge of the dog’s dangerous . . . While section 767.13(2) requires “reckless disregard for such propensities under the circumstances,” . . . Denial of Requested Jury Instruction Freeman requested an instruction on section 767.13(2) as a lesser . . . Consequently, the requested lesser-included violation of section 767.13(2) was two steps removed and . . .

SIMMONS, v. HONRATH,, 883 F. Supp. 371 (E.D. Wis. 1995)

. . . . § 767.13. . . .

COUNTY OF PASCO, v. RIEHL,, 620 So. 2d 229 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The statute expressly provides in § 767.13(1), F.S. that before a dog [who has been] declared dangerous . . . bites again, without provocation, is destroyed, and in § 767.13(2), F.S. that before a dog[, which has . . .

In FLORIDA PRECAST CONCRETE, INC., 144 B.R. 928 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1992)

. . . C & S has filed an amended claim in the amount of $1,533,-767.13. . . .

D. BLAZEL, v. BRADLEY, III,, 698 F. Supp. 756 (W.D. Wis. 1988)

. . . . § 767.13, and issuing temporary orders for support of spouse and children, Wis. Stat. § 767.23. . . .

ROSS, v. ARNOLD,, 575 F. Supp. 1494 (E.D. Wis. 1983)

. . . . §§ 767.13(l)(b); 757.69(7); 767.40; 785.06. . . .

NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,, 182 F. Supp. 273 (N.D. Ohio 1960)

. . . Sendry), $1,-767.13 (court costs and expenses of litigating the Martin J. . . .