Cases from cite.case.law:

M. J. a v. STATE, 202 So. 3d 112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . order or acted in gross dereliction of the order- to such an extent that intent can be presumed, § 38.23 . . .

IN RE FACEBOOK, INC. IPO SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, 312 F.R.D. 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . The stock dipped and closed that day at $38.23. . . .

In FACEBOOK, INC. IPO SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, 986 F. Supp. 2d 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Facebook’s stock closed at $38.23. (Id. ¶ 159.) . . .

MALDONADO, v. THALER,, 662 F. Supp. 2d 684 (S.D. Tex. 2009)

. . . Tex.Code Crim Pro. art. 38.23. . . . Appeals conceded that "a violation of this treaty would arguably fall under the language in Article 38.23 . . .

BELL, v. AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC., 633 F. Supp. 2d 305 (N.D. Tex. 2009)

. . . Ann. art. 38.23(a) (Vernon 2005 & Supp. 2008). . . . .

SCHULTZE, TDCJ v. QUARTERMAN,, 622 F. Supp. 2d 439 (S.D. Tex. 2008)

. . . Ann. art. 38.23 (Vernon Supp.2004-2005). . . . Article 38.23 provides as follows: No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of . . . Ann. art. 38.23(a). . . . Therefore, Article 38.23 would not require exclusion of the evidence. Jenschke v. . . . Proc. art. 38.23. Guerrero, Jenschke, supra. . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA PROBATE RULES, 986 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 38.23, Fla. Stat. Contempts defined. § 393.12(2)(h), Fla. Stat. . . .

KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 554 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2008)

. . . . §§ 38.23 and 38.556(2)(d) (West 2005); N. C. Gen. Stat. . . .

CARDENAS, v. DRETKE,, 405 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2005)

. . . Convention, a treaty of the United States, in violation of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, article 38.23 . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE, AND THE FLORIDA PROBATE RULES, 887 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2004)

. . . . § 38.23, Fla. Stat. Contempts defined. § 733.5036, Fla. Stat. . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA PROBATE RULES, 848 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 38.23, Fla. Stat. Contempts defined. § 733.502, Fla. Stat. . . .

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. M. JACKSON, v. P., 846 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2003)

. . . See § 38.23; § 61.14(6)(b)(l)d, (6)(d), Fla. Stat. (2001); see also Russell v. . . .

F. RYKIEL, v. A. RYKIEL,, 838 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 2003)

. . . Abrams, Family Law § 38.23(2)(d) (1999), citing Temp. Treas. Reg. § 1.71-lT(b), Q & A 8. . . .

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, v. R. H. A, 819 So. 2d 858 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . that the alleged contemnors had the present ability to comply with the underlying order); see also § 38.23 . . .

MOAKLEY, v. SMALLWOOD,, 826 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2002)

. . . .”); § 38.23, Fla. . . .

UNITED STATES v. COLEMAN,, 162 F. Supp. 2d 582 (N.D. Tex. 2001)

. . . Ann. art. 38.23(a) (Vernon 1979 & Supp.2001). . . .

DAGHOFER, v. DAGHOFER,, 792 So. 2d 683 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . . § 38.23, Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added). . . .

BOUIE, v. STATE, 784 So. 2d 521 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . then included the following on the judgment sheet: “Contempt of court — Failure to Appear, statute 38.23 . . . Section 38.23, Florida Statutes (1997), defines contempts as: A refusal to obey any legal order, mandate . . .

GOODWIN, III, v. L. JOHNSON,, 224 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2000)

. . . had failed to challenge the trial court’s refusal to modify its Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 38.23 . . .

PEAVY v. WFAA- TV, INC., 221 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2000)

. . . Ann. art. 38.23(a) (prohibiting admission at trial against accused in criminal case of evidence “obtained . . . See Reeves, 969 S.W.2d at 487 (construing art. 38.23 and stating that “‘obtain’ means to gain or attain . . .

A. ALMODOVAR, v. ALMODOVAR,, 754 So. 2d 861 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Abrams, Family Law § 38.23(2)(d) (1999), citing Temp. Treas. Reg. § 1.71-lT(b), Q & A 8. . . .

GOODWIN, III, v. L. JOHNSON,, 132 F.3d 162 (5th Cir. 1997)

. . . Tex.Crim.PROC.Code Ann. art. 38.23 (Vernon Supp.1998). . . . Code Ann. § 38.23 (Vernon Supp.1998); Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696, 707 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). . . . Assuming that the trial court’s refusal to provide the requested article 38.23 instruction would have . . . We are convinced that the trial court’s failure to provide the jury with an article 38.23 instruction . . . Tex.Crim.PRo&Code Ann. § 38.23(a) (Vernon Supp.1998). . . .

COFIELD v. CITY OF LAGRANGE, GEORGIA W., 969 F. Supp. 749 (N.D. Ga. 1997)

. . . Supreme Court 1992 31.76 38.23 .515 3.71 43. As was the case with the endogenous elections, Dr. . . .

CORDOVA, v. STATE, 675 So. 2d 632 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . See § 38.23, Fla.Stat. (1993); 11 Fla.Jur.2d Contempt § 36 (1979). . . .

B. S. a v. STATE, 646 So. 2d 287 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . See § 38.23, Fla.Stat. (1991). . . .

UNITED STATES v. EASTLAND,, 989 F.2d 760 (5th Cir. 1993)

. . . According to appellants, because the Texas state exclusionary statute, see Vernon’s Ann.Texas C.C.P. art. 38.23 . . .

FINEMAN F. v. F. GREENBERG, H. M. a, 614 So. 2d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . See § 38.23, Pla.Stat. (1991). . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 606 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1992)

. . . concerned with various situations considered by the legislature to be punishable as contempt (e.g., section 38.23 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA PROBATE RULES, 607 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 1992)

. . . . § 38.23, Fla.Stat. Contempts defined. RSt§ 733.502, Fla.Stat. . . .

M. L. B. a v. STATE, 604 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . In regard to violation of a court order being the basis for contempt, section 38.23, Florida Statutes . . . the juvenile arraignment citation issued to M.L.B. constitutes a court order for purposes of section 38.23 . . .

STATE v. J. WOODLAND,, 602 So. 2d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Neither the statute defining contempt, section 38.23, Florida Statutes (1989), nor the section setting . . .

MORGAN v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 50 Fla. Supp. 2d 60 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . Section 38.23, F.S. (1989). At issue in this appeal is a judgment of direct criminal contempt. . . .

GIBSON a k a v. BENNETT,, 561 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1990)

. . . Section 38.23, Florida Statutes (1987), defines contempt as [a] refusal to obey any legal order, mandate . . .

In BEN COOPER, INC. Co. BEN COOPER, INC. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,, 896 F.2d 1394 (2d Cir. 1990)

. . . defends and/or counterclaims for cancellation on the ground of fraud.” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 38.23 . . .

In BEN COOPER, INC. Co. BEN COOPER, INC. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,, 896 F.2d 1394 (2d Cir. 1990)

. . . defends and/or counterclaims for cancellation on the ground of fraud.” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice H 38.23 . . .

K. CRIDER, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,, 555 So. 2d 408 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . See, §§ 61.17(3) and 38.23, F.S. (1987), and Rule 1.570(c)(2), Fla.R.Civ.P. . . .

In H. FRIEDBERG, H. CHAPLIN, As v. HARBISON GROUP, a H. N., 106 B.R. 50 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice H 38.23 (2d. Ed.1988); American Life Ins. Co. v. . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR. In Re RULES OF PROBATE AND GUARDIANSHIP PROCEDURE, 537 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1988)

. . . Statutory References F.S. 38.22-38.23 Contempt. . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR. In Re RULES OF PROBATE AND GUARDIANSHIP PROCEDURE, 531 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1988)

. . . Statutory References F.S. 38.22 — 38.23 Contempt. . . .

SANDUCCO CORP. v. UNIVERSITY VILLAGE EAST CONDOMINIUM II,, 484 So. 2d 640 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Section 38.23, Florida Statutes (1983), permits sanctions such as were imposed here where a party has . . .

E. PHILLIPS, v. C. KAPLUS, 764 F.2d 807 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . Gerald, 170 F.2d 917, 919 (5th Cir.1948); see generally 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 38.23 at 38-187, . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR RE AMENDMENT TO RULES- PROBATE AND GUARDIANSHIP, 458 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1984)

. . . Statutory References F.S. 38.22-38.23 Contempt. . . .

H. DeMENT, v. ABBOTT CAPITAL CORP., 589 F. Supp. 1378 (N.D. Ill. 1984)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 38.23 at 38-188 (1982); W. . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. W. FURMAN, d b a, 451 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1984)

. . . The legislature recognized this by enacting sections 38.22 and 38.23, Florida Statutes (1983), specifically . . .

In C. S. A BROWN, v. R. A. GREEN, Jr., 424 So. 2d 130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 38.23, Florida Statutes (1981), defines contempt as “[a] refusal to obey any legal order,” made . . .

LANGBERT, v. I. LANGBERT,, 409 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Under Sections 38.22 and 38.23, Florida Statutes, Florida judges are granted broad powers of contempt . . .

J. CORMIER, v. P. P. G. INDUSTRIES, INC., 519 F. Supp. 211 (W.D. La. 1981)

. . . CREW BY PPG 1969 17.7% Oct-Dec 1970 17.7% 20% 17.7% 24.24% 17.7% 29.03% 1978 17.7% 44.44% 1974 17.7% 38.23% . . .

CALIFORNIA v. ARIZONA, 452 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1981)

. . . S 02°47'21" W 38.23 feet; 660. S 46°39'58" E 84.63 feet; 661. S 28°51'47" E 212.26 feet; 662. . . .

CAMREX HOLDINGS LTD. v. CAMREX RELIANCE PAINT COMPANY, INC. C. J. CAMREX CONTRACTORS MARINE LIMITED, v. RELIANCE MARINE APPLICATORS, INC. C. A., 90 F.R.D. 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . Essex Wire Corp., 490 F.2d 414, 421-22 (4th Cir. 1974); 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 38.23 at . . . claim for a rescission of a contract is “traditionally equitable,” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 38.23 . . .

THOMAS, Jr. v. W. J. ESTELLE,, 588 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1979)

. . . Code Crim.Proc. art. 38.23 to sanction his having raised the suppression issue, that statute will not . . . Art. 38.23 [727a] Evidence not to be used No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation . . .

G. NUNEZ, v. SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY,, 572 F.2d 1119 (5th Cir. 1978)

. . . Gerald, 5 Cir. 1948,170 F.2d 917; 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 38.23 (2d ed. 1977); but see Logan v. . . .

GILMOUR, v. STATE, 358 So. 2d 63 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Sullivan, 157 Fla. 496, 26 So.2d 509; §§ 38.22 and 38.23, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . . .

W. CRUTCHFIELD, W. v. CRUTCHFIELD,, 345 So. 2d 831 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Aside from any consideration that the above order may not be in compliance with Section 38.23, Florida . . .

E. BOSWELL v. DICKINSON, 315 So. 2d 515 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . By Section 38.23, Florida Statutes Annotated, contempt of court is defined as follows : “A refusal to . . .

UNITED STATES v. HUNT W., 505 F.2d 931 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . Article 38.23 of the Vernon’s Ann.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that: No evidence obtained . . . As defendants correctly point out, Article 38.23 is a broad state exclusionary rule. See Mapp v. . . . desirous of deterring its law enforcement officers from making illegal searches and seizures that Article 38.23 . . .

J. HAYUTIN B. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 508 F.2d 462 (10th Cir. 1974)

. . . . § 38.23 (Zimet & Barton rev. 1967). . See, e. g., CIR v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BENNETT, 358 F. Supp. 580 (S.D. Tex. 1973)

. . . Because Texas Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.23 (1965) excludes evidence obtained in violation of constitutional . . .

STANDARD CHLORINE OF DELAWARE, INC. v. D. LEONARD, d b a, 384 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1967)

. . . See 5 Moore’s Federal Practice |[f[ 38.22 and 38.23 (2d ed. 1966). . . .

LEAL, v. Dr. J. BETO,, 378 F.2d 8 (5th Cir. 1967)

. . . Art. 727a, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., now Art. 38.23, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, 1966. . 28 U.S.C.A. . . .

FLORES, v. Dr. J. BETO,, 374 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1967)

. . . Code of Criminal Procedure (now Art. 38.23, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, 1966). . . . Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 38.23. . Baysden v. . . .

In FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 196 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1967)

. . . concerned with various situations considered by the legislature to be punishable as contempt (e g., sec. 38.23 . . .

STATE SAUNDERS, v. E. BOYER,, 166 So. 2d 694 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

. . . McMurrough, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 97; §§ 38.22, 38.23 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . . . .

D. PHILLIPS, v. STATE, 147 So. 2d 163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)

. . . Sullivan, 157 Fla. 496, 26 So.2d 509; §§ 38.22 and 38.23, Fla.Stat, F.S.A. . . .

UNITED GROCERS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES, 308 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1962)

. . . McKay Products Corp., 3 Cir., 1949, 178 F.2d 639; 7 Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation § 38.23. . . . .

MARYLAND JOCKEY CLUB OF BALTIMORE CITY, a v. UNITED STATES, 189 F. Supp. 70 (D. Md. 1960)

. . . Mer-ten’s Law of Federal Income Taxation, secs. 38.20 and 38.23. . . .

DUCKSWORTH, v. E. BOYER,, 125 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1960)

. . . See § 38.22, § 38.23, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; and also South Dade Farms, Inc. v. . . .

E. GREENHOOD, v. ORR SEMBOWER, H., 158 F. Supp. 906 (D. Mass. 1958)

. . . equitable in nature and in v/hich plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial, 5 Moore’s Federal Practice jf 38.23 . . .

SOUTH DADE FARMS, a Jr. v. C. PETERS, 88 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1956)

. . . By Section 38.23, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., contempt of court is defined as follows: “A refusal to obey . . .

PENNEKAMP v. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331 (U.S. 1946)

. . . Florida Statutes 1941, § 38.23 and § 932.03; see also 156 Fla. at 248,249,22 So. 2d at 886. . . .

JOHN D. PENNEKAMP, THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 156 Fla. 227 (Fla. 1945)

. . . Sections 38.23 and 932.04, Florida Statutes 1941, are also pertinent here and are as follows: “Section . . . 38.23. . . .

CENTRAL R. BANKING CO. OF GEORGIA v. FARMERS LOAN TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK, 113 F. 405 (C.C.D.S.C. 1902)

. . . By 3,383.38 tons scrap rail, at $38.23 V10 By 41.280-2,240 tons frogs.............. . $23,273 73 431 . . .