The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 772
CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 772.104

772.104 Civil cause of action.—

(1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts.

(2) As an alternative to recovery under subsection (1), any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 due to sex trafficking or human trafficking shall have a cause of action for threefold the amount gained from the sex trafficking or human trafficking and in any such action is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200 and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts.

(3) In no event shall punitive damages be awarded under this section. The defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without substantial fact or legal support. In awarding attorney’s fees and costs under this section, the court shall not consider the ability of the opposing party to pay such fees and costs. Nothing under this section shall be interpreted as limiting any right to recover attorney’s fees or costs provided under other provisions of law.

History.—s. 3, ch. 86-277; s. 1180, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2006-168.

F.S. 772.104 on Google Scholar

F.S. 772.104 on Casetext

Amendments to 772.104

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 772.104

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 772.104.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

ABSOLUTE ACTIVIST VALUE MASTER FUND LIMITED, v. DEVINE,, 233 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (M.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . . § 772.104(1). . . .

PINCUS, v. SPEEDPAY, INC. a, 161 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . 560.204 (count six); Florida civil remedies for Criminal Procedures Act (“CRCPA”), Florida Statute § 772.104 . . .

BURGESE v. STARWOOD HOTELS RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC., 101 F. Supp. 3d 414 (D.N.J. 2015)

. . . Stat. § 772.104(1) (emphasis added). . . . Stat. § 772.104(1). . . . Stat. § 772.104(1). . . . Stat. § 772.104(1)). . . . Stat. § 772.104(3). . . .

FIDELITY WARRANTY SERVICES, INC. v. FIRSTATE INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC. PR., 98 So. 3d 672 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” §§ 772.104(8), 812.035(7), Fla. Stat. . . .

SOLTERO, v. SWIRE DEVELOPMENT SALES, INC. a a, 485 F. App'x 377 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 772.104(1). The jury found this element satisfied, while the district court did not. . . .

R. SPADARO, v. CITY OF MIRAMAR,, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 772.104(1)). . . .

EAGLETECH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. a v. BRYN MAWR INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. a k a a f k a a T. R. II, L. L. C. a a L. P. a L. P. LBC a k a LBC a S. A. J. E. a O a a L. P. a G. a a L. P. a a T. J., 79 So. 3d 855 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 772.104(1) provides civil remedies for violations of section 772.103. . . .

A. HULS, v. C. LLABONA, a C. P. A. a, 437 F. App'x 830 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . §§ 772.104 (providing a civil cause of action for violations of Florida’s Criminal Practices Act); . . .

CAT CHARTER, LLC, v. SCHURTENBERGER, MTI a, 646 F.3d 836 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 772.104(3). . . .

A. McKENZIE, G. LLC d b a v. BETTS, 55 So. 3d 615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See also § 772.104 (authorizing treble actual damages and entitling the prevailing party to reasonable . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. v. PALTEROVICH,, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Stat. §§ 772.104 and 772.11 (Counts IX-X) (DE #1). A. . . . Stat. § 772.104 (Count X). 1. Fla. . . . Stat. §§ 772.103, 772.104. . . . Stat. §§ 772.104(1); 772.11(1); see also Palmas Y Bambu, S.A. v. . . . Stat. § 772.104(1). . . .

TAMBOURINE COMERCIO INTERNACIONAL SA, a v. H. SOLOWSKY, P. A. a, 312 F. App'x 263 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 772.104 (2007). . . .

K. BORTELL, Jr. v. WHITE MOUNTAINS INSURANCE GROUP, LTD. MHG J. J. W. Jr. M., 2 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . As a second cause of action, Bortell alleges violations of sections 772.104(1), 772.103(3), and 772.102 . . . Section 772.104(1) provides, “Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has . . .

ACE PRO SOUND AND RECORDING, LLC, v. P. ALBERTSON a k a, 512 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 772.104. • Count 3 against Defendant Albertson for unconscionable acts and unfair trade practices . . .

XPRESS TITLE, INC. v. JASON M. WANDNER, P. A., 959 So. 2d 278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . complaint against Xpress Title alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and violations of sections 501.204 and 772.104 . . .

ROLLINS, INC. v. BUTLAND, 951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . based on Or-kin’s misleading advertisements and representations that violate Florida Statutes, sections 772.104 . . . See §§ 772.104, 817.06. The circuit court certified the class on both of these claims. b. . . . (misleading advertising); § 772.104, Fla. Stat. (Florida RICO). . . .

ROLLINS, INC. v. BUTLAND, 932 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LP, v. PALMER RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,, 432 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 772.104; criminal false advertising, Fla. . . .

STATE OF BELIZE, a a v. HOWTZER CORPORATION, a a a a a v. EMB, 144 F. App'x 849 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . Stat. ch. 772.104. . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, BOCA RATON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. d b a a v., 420 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . . §§ 772.103(3) and 772.104 (Count III); conspiracy to violate Fla. . . .

SMITH, C. R. St. Jr. St. P. A. St. P. A. v. VIRAGEN, INC. a, 902 So. 2d 187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Hutton & Co., 568 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (affirming fees under section 772.104 when the case . . . alone); see also Roth, 647 So.2d at 1025 (noting that the standard for awarding fees under sections 772.104 . . .

B. PERLMAN, K. J. J. a v. ABEL ZIMMERMAN,, 881 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . We affirm the denial of attorney’s fees to appellants under section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1995). . . .

FLORIDA EVERGREEN FOLIAGE v. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, a, 336 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (S.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . Florida Statute § 772.104 allows a person to bring a civil RICO claim if “he has been injured by reason . . . federal cases interpreting the federal civil damages remedy are also persuasive in interpreting section 772.104 . . .

PALMAS Y BAMBU, S. A. a S. A. a v. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY, INC. a, 881 So. 2d 565 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . treble damages award against DuPont in this products liability case under the provisions of section 772.104 . . . reason of any violation” of Florida’s RICO act, may recover “threefold the actual damages sustained_” § 772.104 . . . Section 1964(c)[the federal counterpart of section 772.104 of the Florida Statutes] provides civil remedies . . . evidence” of "injury by reason of violation of the provisions of s. 772.103” as mandated by section 772.104 . . . . § 772.104, Fla. . . .

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, v. BOEING COMPANY,, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . Criminal activity includes several predicate crimes named in section 772.104(1), Florida Statutes, and . . .

ROLLINS, INC. v. BUTLAND N., 852 So. 2d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . based on Orkin’s misleading advertisements and representations that violate Florida Statutes, sections 772.104 . . .

BLACK, v. BROWN,, 812 So. 2d 581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See § 772.104, Fla. Stat (1995). . . .

RLS BUSINESS VENTURES, INC. v. SECOND CHANCE WHOLESALE, INC. G., 784 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . They then moved for attorney’s fees on three grounds: 1. a contract between the parties; 2. section 772.104 . . . Generally, defendants are entitled to attorney’s fees under section 772.104 when a verdict is directed . . . As we will discuss below, whether a plaintiff under section 772.104 must prove that it has suffered a . . . We need not do so here because we have already affirmed the directed verdict on RLS’s section 772.104 . . . We reverse the award of attorney’s fees to Second Chance based on section 772.104. . . .

D. PIERCE, Jr. v. RITTER, CHUSID, BIVONIA COHEN, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . . §§ 772.101-772.104, the party filing the claim shall serve a RICO Case Statement. . . .

L. STONE, v. WALL,, 734 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1999)

. . . money damages in a civil action under the specific authority of sections 772.102(1)(a)(12), 772.103, 772.104 . . .

JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. a v. FPL GROUP, INC. a FPL a a, 162 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . , under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act (“Florida civil RICO”), FJa.Stat. ch. 772.104 . . . Stat. ch. 772.104 (1997). . . . Stat. ch. 772.104 (1997). . . . The Florida courts have explained that in awarding fees to a defendant under chapter 772.104, “it is . . . Stat. ch. 768.73(l)(a) (1997). .Florida Statutes chapter 772.104 provides that a defendant "shall be . . .

COMPTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC. a v. MILAM COMMERCE PARK, LTD. a D M a, 711 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . legislative declaration, the statutory causes of action for civil theft (and. for that matter, section 772.104 . . .

BALAS v. A. RUZZO,, 703 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Finally, count VII seeks civil remedies for criminal practices or racketeering pursuant to section 772.104 . . .

MOORE BUSINESS FORMS, INC. v. IBEROAMERICAN ELECTRONICS, S. R. L. IBEROAMERICAN ELECTRONICS, S. R. L. v. MOORE BUSINESS FORMS, INC., 698 So. 2d 611 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . substantial legal support, entitling the defendants to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 772.104 . . .

L. DELGADO L. v. J. W. COURTESY PONTIAC GMC- TRUCK, INC., 693 So. 2d 602 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . rule to contract-based claims brought under Florida’s civil RICO and civil theft statutes, sections 772.104 . . .

BRONSON, v. BRONSON,, 685 So. 2d 994 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Hutton & Co., Inc., 568 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990) and section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1995), the . . . See §§ 772.104 & 772.11, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . prevailed in her claim for accounting, whether the defendant is entitled to fees pursuant to sections 772.104 . . .

CAPITAL BANK, v. MVB, INC. a f k a, 683 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Capital contended that it was entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to the note, guaranty and section 772.104 . . .

ANTHONY DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. MILLER BREWING COMPANY,, 941 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . . § 772.104 (1995). . . . Fla.Stat. § 772.104. . . .

HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, v. E. MILLER,, 681 So. 2d 301 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . entry of the summary judgment, Miller moved for attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Statute sections 772.104 . . . The trial court found that Miller was entitled to fees under section 772.104 and granted same, which . . . Florida Statute section 772.104 (1995) states that the defendant shall be entitled to reasonable attorney . . . nature, the district courts have consistently held that defendants are entitled to fees under section 772.104 . . . that this was exactly the type of RICO claim that the legislature intended to discourage by section 772.104 . . .

HADDAD, v. CURA,, 674 So. 2d 168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Haddad moved post-trial, among other things, to treble these damages under section 772.104, Florida Statutes . . . the evidence” presented rather than upon the “clear and convincing” standard prescribed in section 772.104 . . . Haddad argues on appeal that section 772.104 does not require her to establish her damages by clear and . . . Section 772.104 states in relevant part that: Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence . . .

MARCUS P. d b a v. S. MILLER, 663 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . The motion was also pursuant to sections 772.104 (RICO Act) and 772.11 (Civil Theft). . . . We affirm the granting of the attorneys fees and costs awarded pursuant to sections 772.104 and 772.11 . . . However, at bar we nonetheless affirm the award of fees pursuant to sections 772.104 (RICO Act) and 772.11 . . . support, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees pursuant to sections 772.104 . . .

A. SKUBAL, v. O. COOLEY J. a C. O., 650 So. 2d 169 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (discussing standard under identically worded attorney’s fees provision of section 772.104 . . . In summary, we agree with our sister court which said under similar circumstances: [Sjection 772.104 . . . substantial legal support, entitling the defendants to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 772.104 . . .

REMOVA POOL FENCE CO. v. ROTH A-, 647 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . In May of 1993, appellees filed a second motion seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 57.105, 772.104 . . . appellees correctly contend, the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees was also based on sections 772.104 . . . Section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the defendant in a civil action brought under . . . Hutton & Co., 568 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (discussing standard under section 772.104). . . . fact before a losing party would be obligated to pay the opposing party’s attorney’s fees, section 772.104 . . .

B. IVANS B. v. McKID LIMITED,, 642 So. 2d 798 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . .” § 772.104, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, v. ECHEVARRIA, Sr., 864 F. Supp. 1254 (S.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . . § 772.104; see also Leisure Founders, Inc. v. CUC Int'l, Inc., 833 F.Supp. 1562 (S.D.Fla.1993). . . . Fla.Stat. § 772.104. . . .

JONES v. H. CHILDERS, 18 F.3d 899 (11th Cir. 1994)

. . . criminal acts were found to comprise the necessary predicate acts to create civil liability under § 772.104 . . . Florida Statutes § 772.104 provides for an award of treble damages in a civil action when the following . . . holding that the phrase "by reason of” in federal RICO statute [employing similar language to Fla.Stat. § 772.104 . . .

In GENERAL PLASTICS CORPORATION, CAPITAL FACTORS, INC. v. GENERAL PLASTICS CORPORATION,, 170 B.R. 725 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . ., 606 So.2d 630 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1992) (reversing denial of fees under similar provision of § 772.104 . . .

In BARRETT HOME CORP. f k a, 165 B.R. 50 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . . §§ 772.103, and 772.104, the Florida civil Rico Statute, rendering the Debtor liable for treble damages . . . Fla.Stat. § 772.104 Civil cause of action. . . . . § 772.104 clearly indicates that the burden of proof to establish a viable claim pursuant to § 772.104 . . . in a pattern of criminal activity both of which are indispensable elements of a viable claim under § 772.104 . . . Court is satisfied that the claimants equally failed to establish a viable claim under § 772.103 and § 772.104 . . .

ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL CONSULTANTS, INC. a v. SPILLIS CANDELA PARTNERS, INC. a, 639 So. 2d 991 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . The standard of review of an order denying attorney’s fees requested under section 772.104, Florida Statutes . . .

DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. v. TOPPINO,, 611 So. 2d 560 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Because we find that there was substantial factual and legal support for appellee’s claim, see § 772.104 . . .

J. FRIEDMAN, v. LAUDERDALE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT SERVICE, INC., 591 So. 2d 328 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . In construing a similar attorney’s fee provision in section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989), the Third . . . The court stated: The legislative’s clear intent in wording section 772.104 as it did was to discourage . . . [Sjection 772.104 is obviously drawn in the disjunctive in its reference to claims lacking “substantial . . .

A. BECK, II, v. OLSTEIN, Jr., 588 So. 2d 317 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989), entitles a defendant to reasonable attorney’s fees and court . . .

CIARAMELLO, Jr. B. a k a Sr. a k a v. D AMBRA D, 613 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Hutton & Co., Inc., 568 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), holding similar language found in section 772.104 . . .

CIARAMELLO, Jr. B. a k a Sr. a k a v. D AMBRA D, 590 So. 2d 946 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Hutton & Co., Inc., 568 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), holding similar language found in section 772.104 . . .

COFFEY, v. EVANS PROPERTIES, INC., 585 So. 2d 960 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . attorney’s fees to be assessed against Coffey for the dismissed claims, without mentioning section 772.104 . . . Rather, it appears that Foreman opposed the fee award only on the grounds that section 772.104 had to . . . In a case of interrelated claims, we think that section 772.104 should be read to preclude taking up . . . whether he might exercise his discretion to allow Evans to raise an attorney’s fee claim under section 772.104 . . . It is enough for us on this record to note that Evans did not previously plead any right to section 772.104 . . .

N. LAWSON A. v. MULIERI, 578 So. 2d 823 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . originating in the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to the Mulieris pursuant to section 772.104 . . . THE COURT: Under 772.104? MR. MC CLUNG: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. . . . in the aftermath of the trial court’s determination to award fees to the Mulieris based upon section 772.104 . . . utterances which produced the directed verdict and resultant exposure to the fee burden created by section 772.104 . . . The language of section 772.104, conditioning the award of attorney’s fees “upon a finding that the claimant . . .

PALM BEACH ATLANTIC COLLEGE, INC. v. FIRST UNITED FUND, LTD., 928 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . The Florida legislature also enacted section 772.104 of the Florida Statutes, which provided individuals . . . Section 772.104, which became effective on October 1, 1986, expressly established a “clear and convincing . . . See Fla.Stat. § 772.104 (Supp.1990). . . . Section 772.104 also provided for an award of “threefold the actual damages sustained.” . . . Renda and First United contend that section 772.104 is applicable in this case since, although the action . . .

In ROSPATCH SECURITIES LITIGATION. ATLANTIS GROUP, INC. v. ROSPATCH CORPORATION, PLATO PAPER PRODUCTS, INC. v. ROSPATCH CORPORATION, ATCOVITZ, v. J. BEADLE, FREBERG, v. ROSPATCH CORPORATION,, 760 F. Supp. 1239 (W.D. Mich. 1991)

. . . . § 772.104. . . .

In MARSOWICZ f k a FIXEL La v. MARSOWICZ,, 120 B.R. 602 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . . § 772.104 (WEST 1990). . . .

FOREMAN, v. E. F. HUTTON COMPANY, INC., 568 So. 2d 531 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . This is an appeal of an attorney’s fee award to a defendant pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes . . . Appellees then moved, pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989), for an award of attorney’ . . . On appeal, Foreman claims that section 772.104 (applicable solely to fee awards in civil causes of action . . . Foreman further claims that even if sections 772.104 and 57.105 cannot be read in pari materia, the fee . . . The pertinent language of section 772.104 states: The defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable . . .

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

. . . . §§ 772.104, 812.035, 895.05, these exclusions involve civil redress for actions in which punitive damages . . .

ACCENT HOMES, INC. a v. NARCO REALTY, INC. a a R., 566 So. 2d 5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . See §§ 772.103, 772.104, Fla.Stat.; A.S.J. Drugs, Inc. v. . . .

STUART L. STEIN, P. A. L. v. MILLER INDUSTRIES, INC., 564 So. 2d 539 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . of section 812.035 conferring the ability of “any person” to pursue a civil theft claim to section 772.104 . . . The trial court, in rejecting Stein’s proposed instruction apparently concluded that section 772.104’ . . . analysis in Ziccardi points up that the legislative modifications affecting sections 812.035(7) and 772.104 . . . In sum, we concur in the Ziccardi view that section 772.104 was a remedial reenactment undertaken for . . . In that circumstance, the standard of proof prescribed in section 772.104 and sought by Stein’s requested . . .

ZICCARDI, v. STROTHER,, 570 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . dismissal of her second amended complaint for civil damages based on alleged violations of section 772.104 . . . The basis of the complaint, filed in 1987 under section 772.104 Florida Statutes, was alleged criminal . . . The issue presented to us is whether section 772.104, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1986, may . . . The appellees contend that because section 772.104 requires proof of injury only by “clear and convincing . . . Although section 772.104 does not provide for punitive damages as did section 895.-05(7) in the RICO . . .

SCHENK v. SOUTHEAST BANKING CORPORATION, 40 Fla. Supp. 2d 214 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . Sec. 772.104. (emphasis added). 4. . . . on the motion to dismiss Count II is whether Schenk has standing to pursue an action under F.S.A. § 772.104 . . .

T. MANTOOTH, Jr. v. RICHARDS a k a H. Jr., 557 So. 2d 646 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . It was specifically sought to be brought under authority of sections 772.102(l)(a)(12), 772.103, 772.104 . . .

M. BOCZAR, M. D. a v. MANATEE HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. a d b a L. M. D. N. M. D. M. D., 731 F. Supp. 1042 (M.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . Antitrust Act, 7) violation of § 542.19 of Florida’s Antitrust Law, 8) violation of Florida Statute Section 772.104 . . .

GARRISON, v. STATE, 553 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Jur.2d Conversion §§ 117-121 (1985); § 772.104, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

H. BASS, v. MORGAN, LEWIS BOCKIUS, a Jr., 516 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . for the victim, inter alia, of a pattern of criminal extortions, see §§ 772.102( l)(a)(22), 772.103, 772.104 . . .