The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . Apparently agreeing with Baraya's position that section 770.01 does not apply here, the circuit court . . . "The denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to provide the presuit notice required by section 770.01 . . . , which provides as follows: 770.01. . . . "In its original form, section 770.01 applied only to newspapers and periodicals." . . . meant to expand the scope of section 770.01 beyond the news media. . . .
. . . Second, Cousins claims the presuit letter provided to Post-Newsweek complied with section 770.01. . . . But the sufficiency of notice, for purposes of compliance with the notice provision of section 770.01 . . . According to Post-Newsweek, Cousins is required to "strict[ly] compl[y] with Section 770.01, Florida . . . Gore, 48 So.2d 412, 415 (Fla. 1950) (explaining section 770.01 "was enacted ... to afford to newspapers . . . Because Cousins sufficiently complied with section 770.01, we find Cousins sufficiently pleads a claim . . .
. . . . §§ 770.01-.02, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .
. . . . § 770.01 did not start the statute-of-limitations clock. . . .
. . . . § 770.01, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .
. . . does not, on its face, indicate that it was sent as a five day pre-suit notice required under section 770.01 . . . Stat. § 770.01.” . . . letter further states that the purpose of the letter is to serve as notice that, pursuant to section 770.01 . . . Additionally, those letters from Rolle’s counsel appear to comply with section 770.01’s requirement to . . . information it is difficult to characterize the Letter as a pre-suit notice as required by section 770.01 . . .
. . . . §§ 770.01-.02, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .
. . . Thereafter, on January 13, 2015, Roca allegedly sent the Opinion Parties a correspondence under Section 770.01 . . . Stat. § 770.01 give rise to a cause of action of defamation.” . . .
. . . , Florida Statutes that requires pre-suit notification in certain slander and libel cases: 770.01. . . . article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory. § 770.01 . . . does not necessarily mean that only media defendants are entitled to pre-suit notice under section 770.01 . . . hand and concluded that Vanvoorhis’s blog was covered under the “other medium” language in section 770.01 . . . Accordingly, on these facts, the trial court properly concluded that section 770.01’s pre-suit notice . . .
. . . VanVoorhis [“VanVoorhis”], for Comins’s failure to comply with the presuit notice requirement of section 770.01 . . . The issue in Ross was the constitutionality of section 770.01. . . . However, the amended language of section 770.01 was not so specific. In Laney v. . . . Bd DCA 1984), in which it also held that section 770.01 applies only to media defendants. . . . “Accordingly, § 770.01 does not extend to nonmedia defendants.” Id. . . .
. . . the reporters, and he sent timely, written post-publication retraction demands pursuant to section 770.01 . . .
. . . Indeed, in response to Green’s notice to the newspaper, pursuant to section 770.01, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . Plaintiffs failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement set forth in Florida Statute § 770.01 . . . Stat. § 770.01. . . . That the internet constitutes a “other medium” for the purposes of § 770.01 should be well-settled. . . . There is no dispute in Florida about who is entitled to receive pre-suit notice under § 770.01. . . . Accordingly, § 770.01 does not extend to nonmedia defendants. . . .
. . . The interplay between section 770.01 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(a) is central to our review . . . The statute provides as follows: 770.01 Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution for libel . . . Section 770.01 does not specify whether the five-day period is calculated using business or calendar . . . Canónico mailed his section 770.01 notice on Tuesday, October 4, 2005. . . . Under section 770.01, Mr. Canónico could not act until the five-day notice period expired. . . .
. . . Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Section 770.01 of the Florida Statutes . . . Next, Plaintiffs argue that Section 770.01 of the Florida Statutes is not applicable to internet chat . . . Stat. § 770.01 (2008) (emphasis added). . . . Whether the internet is included as part of the “other medium” language used in Section 770.01 is an . . . The court, however, held that the phrase “other medium” in Section 770.01 includes the internet. . . .
. . . . § 770.01, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .
. . . The second amended complaint alleges compliance with the notice requirement laid down by section 770.01 . . .
. . . Stat. ch. 112.532(3) & 770.01 et seq., rather than a restriction which operates to suppress members of . . .
. . . Inc., 702 So.2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding that failure to provide notice under section 770.01 . . .
. . . See § 770.01, Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . .
. . . Florida Statutes section 770.01 requires that, in certain circumstances, notice must be given to a potential . . . Section 770.02 allows the defendants to whom section 770.01 is applicable the right to avoid punitive . . . In its original form, section 770.01 applied only to newspapers and periodicals. . . . That was the last substantive amendment to section 770.01. . . . The denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to provide the presuit notice required by section 770.01 . . .
. . . Ann § 770.01 (West 1997). . See Gifford v. Bruckner, 565 So.2d 887 (Fla.App.1990); Davies v. . . .
. . . 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), and the statutory notice requirements in defamation actions under section 770.01 . . .
. . . Fla.Stat. § 770.01; see Time v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 452, 96 S.Ct. 958, 47 L.Ed.2d 154 (1976). . . . Moreover, resolution of this question is irrelevant, as section 770.01 of the Florida Statutes is not . . . As such, Section 770.01 is not applicable. . . . In 1982, this Court held that 770.01 applies to all defendants in civil actions for libel or slander. . . . Subsequently, however, Florida courts have construed 770.01 to apply only to media defendants (Davies . . .
. . . certiorari is whether a columnist for a local newspaper is entitled to pre-suit notice pursuant to section 770.01 . . . to dismiss asserted plaintiff’s failure to comply with the statutory notice requirements of section 770.01 . . . Failure to comply with the notice provision of section 770.01 requires dismissal of the complaint for . . . If section 770.01 applies, defendant is entitled to certio-rari relief from the trial court’s refusal . . . Although plaintiff is unable to point to any limiting language within section 770.01, plaintiff points . . .
. . . Stat. ch. 770.01 (1993) precludes the filing of a lawsuit for libel or slander until five days after . . . Flanagan, 629 So.2d 113 (Fla.1993), courts were in disagreement over whether section 770.01 applied only . . . F.Supp. 1152, 1158 (D.Colo.1984) (applying Florida law and holding that the requirements of Section 770.01 . . . Failure to comply with Section 770.01 mandates dismissal of the action. . . . Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1995), states: Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution . . .
. . . superiors submitted to prepare a response to a notice served on the publication pursuant to section 770.01 . . .
. . . dismissing their complaint for failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement under section 770.01 . . . trial court erred: by finding appellants’ demand letters for retraction insufficient under section 770.01 . . . Section 770.01, Florida Statutes, provides: Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution for libel . . . with particularity” the alleged defamatory statements to satisfy the notice requirement of section 770.01 . . .
. . . failed to allege a cause of action and that Gifford had not complied with the requirements of section 770.01 . . . However, this court has held that section 770.01 does not apply when an action is brought against a non-media . . . Compli-atice with section 770.01, where necessary, is a condition precedent to maintaining an action, . . .
. . . On the other hand, Saro is required under section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1987), to furnish WBBH with . . . Section 770.01 does not provide for the preservation of evidence during the interim five-day period before . . . Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1987) provides: Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution . . .
. . . . § 770.01 (1976) provides as follows: "Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast . . .
. . . Section 770.01 (West 1986) and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. . . . Section 770.01 states: 770.01. . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 770.01 (West 1986). Plaintiff, relying on Bridges v. . . . In this situation, the Court finds as a matter of law that § 770.01 has not been complied with. . . . Ann. § 770.01. The remainder of the statement is not actionable, at least not by Ms. . . .
. . . In compliance with the mandatory notice requirement of section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1981), Ortega . . . Section 770.01 requires that a plaintiff first notify the broadcaster and specify the alleged defamatory . . .
. . . . § 770.01. The Court recognizes that Ross v. . . .
. . . Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1983), does not apply to non-media defendants. Demolfetta v. . . .
. . . . § 770.01 reads: Before any civil action is brought for publication in a newspaper, periodical, or other . . .
. . . The trial court’s order of dismissal for failure to serve the 5 day notice provided by Section 770.01 . . .
. . . This appeal questions the applicability of Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1983)— which requires a . . . The court did not hold, as does Laney, that Section 770.01 applies to media and non-media libelees alike . . . The earlier version of Section 770.01, which was construed in Ross v. . . . Since no other section of Chapter 770 uses the language “other medium” as found in Section 770.01, we . . . There is no logical reason to suppose that Section 770.01 contemplates any form of medium not covered . . .
. . . Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because appellants failed to comply with section 770.01 . . . motion but allowed appellants twenty days to amend their complaint to allege compliance with section 770.01 . . . Therefore, we find the trial court erred in requiring appellant to comply with section 770.01. . . . Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1981), provides as follows: Notice condition precedent to action or . . . Ch. 76-123, Laws of Fla. (1976) (codified as amended at § 770.01, Fla.Stat. (1983)). . . .
. . . proper also on the ground that appellant did not show adequately that he complied with the section 770.01 . . .
. . . acknowledged, but no effort was made [either then or later after proper written notice was served, see §§ 770.01 . . .
. . . .2d 412 (Fla.1950) the supreme court held that compliance with the -demand for retraction of Section 770.01 . . . Neze-lek’s response to appellees’ motion to strike the pleadings indicates compliance with Section 770.01 . . . that Hulander, supra, may bar a single amendment of a demand for retraction made pursuant to Section 770.01 . . . Though Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1979) has been held constitutional, Ross v. . . . for denying a plaintiff the opportunity to amend his demand notice in order to comply with Section 770.01 . . .
. . . . § 770.01. . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 770.01. . . . statute’s language and the lack of dispositive precedent, leads the Court to hold that Fla.Stat.Ann. § 770.01 . . . Plaintiff is free to refile this action upon compliance with Fla.Stat.Ann. § 770.01. . . . . Ann. § 770.01, however, has such a significant impact upon the extent and nature of both the harm and . . .
. . . Of primary concern here are sections 770.01 and 770.02, and they are as follows: 770.01 Notice condition . . .
. . . alleges libel, is fatally defective in that the plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with Section 770.01 . . .
. . . Motion the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 770.01 . . . Section 770.01, Florida Statutes, states: ‘Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast . . .
. . . Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1975); Ross v. . . .
. . . initial complaint on September IS, 1971, appellants, in an apparent attempt to comply with Fla.Stat. 770.01 . . . result might very well enable plaintiffs in libel to circumvent the notice requirements of Fla.Stat. 770.01 . . . action is insufficient due to appellants’ failure to serve the written notice requirement of Fla.Stat. 770.01 . . . appellants’ complaint an examination of appellants’ notice letter purportedly in compliance with F.S. 770.01 . . . Ma.Stat. 770.01. . . .
. . . defendants a notice of the alleged defamatory character of this article prior to filing suit as required by §770.01 . . . Under §770.01, Florida Statutes, notice of the alleged defamatory nature of a publication must be served . . .
. . . the article appellee’s attorney wrote to appellant the following letter: “Pursuant to Florida Statute 770.01 . . .
. . . in requesting retraction of the defamatory publication which is the subject of this suit, Sections 770.01 . . .
. . . Under F.S. 770.01, plaintiff must, prior to the time suit is brought, serve notice in writing; and paragraph . . . Under F.S. 770.01, notice is required “before any civil action is brought”; and under F.S. 95.11 (6), . . . The statute of limitation had run prior to the time of service of notice herein under F.S. 770.01 (as . . . that although the alleged libel was published on January 24, 1966, demand for retraction under F.S. 770.01 . . .
. . . Since Section 770.01, F.S.1967, F.S.A., makes notice a condition precedent to a libel action against . . .
. . . Sec. 770.01, F.S.A. by serving written notice on Fawcett, the publisher, demanding apology and retraction . . . Sec. 770.01, F.S.A. provides: “Before any civil action is brought for publication, in a newspaper or . . .
. . . were: (1) that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, (2) that the notice pursuant to F.S. 770.01 . . . As to the second and third grounds of the motion, we first note that Section 770.01, Florida Statutes . . . It is seen that F.S. § 770.01 F.S.A., supra, required the plaintiff to perform certain acts as a condition . . . ), 84 So.2d 549, 553, the Florida Supreme Court held that in order to meet the requirements of F.S. 770.01 . . .
. . . The plaintiff further alleged notice to the defendants pursuant to Section 770.01, Florida Statutes, . . .
. . . 236, 86 A.L.R. 466, holding that the principles expressed in that case were not changed by sections 770.01 . . . Tribune Company, supra, but also by Florida Statutes, § 770.01 and § 770.02. The facts in Layne v. . . . Chapter 16071, Laws of Florida, 1933 (§ 770.01 and § 770.02, Florida Statutes, 1959, F.S.A.) was passed . . . Tribune Company, supra, and that such holding is not affected or changed by Florida Statutes, § 770.01 . . .
. . . . § 770.01, F.S.A., reads as follows: “Before any civil action is brought for publication, in a newspaper . . . . § 770.01, F.S.A. . . .
. . . Secs. 770.01 and 770.-02, F.S.A., making notice a condition precedent to an action for libel, and affording . . .
. . . applicable to civil actions and not to criminal prosecutions, a statute identical in content, Section 770.01 . . .
. . . . § 770.01, but no apology, retraction or correction has been made. . . . Also under the Florida statute, F.S.A. § 770.01, notice of the intended suit was given so that a retraction . . .