Cases from cite.case.law:

SUNTRUST BANK, v. ARROW ENERGY, INC., 199 So. 3d 1026 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Moreover, section 77.28, Florida Statutes (2013), provides that the court must determine the garnishee . . .

ZELAYA CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL JUDGMENT, LLC, v. ZELAYA,, 769 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 77.28) as a garnishee bank. . . . Nothing in § 77.28 or any other section of Florida’s garnishment statute requires'such a determination . . . Stat. § 77.28. . . .

AKERMAN SENTERFITT EIDSON, P. A. a a o De S. A. v. VALUE SEAFOOD, INC. V. LLC,, 121 So. 3d 83 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . First, Matthews concerns the construction and application of section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1989), . . . Section 77.28 relates to attorney’s fees, costs and expenses in a garnishment proceeding, providing for . . . reimbursement to a garnishee upon rendition of a final judgment. § 77.28, Fla. . . . In applying section 77.28, our sister court in Matthews held that the trial court’s order granting the . . . dismiss and dissolving the writ of garnishment was a final judgment “within the meaning of section 77.28 . . .

ARNOLD, MATHENY AND EAGAN, P. A. v. FIRST AMERICAN HOLDINGS, INC., 982 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2008)

. . . certified question, we first provide an overview of the Florida garnishment statute, sections 77.01-77.28 . . . See § 77.28, Fla. Stat. (2002). B. . . .

PAPADOPOULOS v. SIDI, 547 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . . §§ 77.01-77.28. . . .

OLDCASTLE MATERIALS, INC. v. ROHLIN, A. B., 343 F. Supp. 2d 762 (N.D. Iowa 2004)

. . . The Rohlins own 2,700 shares in the Company, or approximately 77.28 percent of the shares. . . .

RPS, INC. v. TRAVEL MAX INTERNATIONAL, INC. a, 823 So. 2d 243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See § 77.28, Fla. . . . the only statute authorizing an award of attorney’s fees in these garnishment proceedings, section 77.28 . . .

BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, v. UNIVERSAL MEDICAL LABS, INC., 760 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 77.28, Florida Statutes, does provide that the court shall determine the garnishee’s costs and . . . Thus the judicial oversight of the “garnishee’s costs and expenses” provided in section 77.28 has been . . .

INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. WINDSOR- THOMAS GROUP, INC., 709 So. 2d 627 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . with the exception that the garnishee may recover on remand the $100 deposited pursuant to section 77.28 . . .

PAZ v. F. HERNANDEZ,, 654 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Under section 77.28, the plaintiff must deposit $100 in the court registry before applying for a writ . . .

M. BROWN W. v. UNITED STATES,, 30 Fed. Cl. 23 (Fed. Cl. 1993)

. . . . § 77.28. A “clear zone” is an area the same width as the runway, and 1,000' long. . . .

ALL AMERICAN SEMI- CONDUCTOR, INC. v. ELLISON GRAPHICS CORPORATION,, 594 So. 2d 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . judge to restrict appellant/garnishee’s attorney’s fees award to the $100 deposit provided by section 77.28 . . .

ELLIS, v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC- MIAMI AGENCY,, 594 So. 2d 826 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . This cause is remanded with directions to award attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 77.28, Florida Statutes . . .

SCHERER E. v. SCHERER,, 591 So. 2d 327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Cowan then sought attorney’s fees against Robert pursuant to section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1989). . . . Section 77.28 provides, in pertinent part: On rendering final judgment the Court shall determine Garnishee . . .

GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION AUTHORITY, v. LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, a Co. a, 587 So. 2d 651 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . . §§ 77.21, 77.23, 77.25, 77.28-.29. . § 333.11, Fla.Stat. (1989); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.630. . . . .

EBSARY FOUNDATION CO. v. BARNETT BANK OF SOUTH FLORIDA, N. A., 569 So. 2d 806 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . that the trial judge correctly refused to award the bank a reasonable attorney’s fee under section 77.28 . . .

EWING, v. MONROE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI,, 740 F. Supp. 417 (N.D. Miss. 1990)

. . . other ethnic origin and 43.75% are black; the City of Amory has a total population of 7307 of which 77.28% . . .

MATTHEWS v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN OF ENGLEWOOD H., 571 So. 2d 2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . The garnishees filed with this court a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section. 77.28, Florida . . . dependent upon the final judgment was simply an inappropriate reference to the literal language of section 77.28 . . . that the order dissolving the writ of garnishment was a final judgment within the meaning of section 77.28 . . .

C. v., 86 T.C. 243 (T.C. 1986)

. . . The parties ultimately agreed that petitioner would donate 77.28 acres to the Forest Service and that . . . On October 16, 1975, petitioner conveyed 77.28 acres to the Forest Service (i.e., to the United States . . . charitable contribution deduction, representing the fair market value of the surface interest of the 77.28 . . . OPINION The threshold issue before us is whether petitioner’s retention of a mineral interest in the 77.28 . . . Petitioner is therefore entitled to a deduction of $139,103 with respect to the 77.28 donated acres, . . .

FINANCIAL INVESTMENT PLANNING, INC. v. LIEBERMAN,, 475 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Plainly, FIP is absolutely entitled to such an award under Section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1983), which . . .

FLORIDA PATIENT S COMPENSATION FUND, v. ROWE,, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)

. . . (Supp.1984) (alimony and child support enforcement); § 77.28, Fla.Stat. (1983) (garnishment); § 718.- . . .

FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF STUART, v. E. BRYAN, C. B. Jr., 427 So. 2d 392 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . The bank, on the other hand, was merely a stakeholder and was entitled under the statute, Section 77.28 . . .

v., 72 T.C. 855 (T.C. 1979)

. . . gross ton Gross tons Average price per gross ton 1948 38,195.0 $69.01 20,304.30 $58.21 1949 45,521.0 77.28 . . .

In NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY,, 479 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1973)

. . . receiverships by which exorbitant fees were obtained by the reorganizers.” 5 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 77.28 . . . See 5 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 77.28. . . . .

UNITED STATES PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, v. HOLCOMB PIPE LINES, INC. J., 465 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1972)

. . . Florida Statutes § 77.28, F.S.A provides for an initial ten dollar deposit by the party applying for . . .

BUYER FINANCE CORPORATION, a v. J. W. OLIVEROS, a, 196 So. 2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . Section 77.28, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides for the allowance by the court of an attorney’s fee and cost . . .

JEFFERSON NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, a v. CLOVERLEAF HOSPITAL, INC. a, 194 So. 2d 287 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . Section 77.28, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides, in part: * * * * * * “ * * * Upon the rendering of . . .

BEASLEY, v. WOLF Co., 151 So. 2d 679 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)

. . . The garnishee thereafter moved for assessment of attorney’s fees as costs under § 77.28, Fla.Stat., F.S.A . . . This procedure is not permissible under § 77.28 when a timely objection is made. . . . Reversed and remanded. “77.28 Garnishment; attorney’s fees, costs, expenses, etc.; deposit required. . . . Section 77.28, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . . .

SARAN v. HILL YORK ACCEPTANCE CO., 11 Fla. Supp. 90 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1957)

. . . attorney’s fee, stating that she had agreed to pay her attorney $250 and that under provisions of section 77.28 . . . This appellate court is called upon to construe section 77.28 to determine whether the statute limits . . . It is interesting to note that the present section 77.28, Laws of 1943, superseded and repealed section . . .

EDWARD D. SOHIER AND CHARLES A. WELCH, MASSACHUSETTS FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES SETH P. SNOW, v. THE UNITED STATES FRAZER D. HEAD, v. THE UNITED STATES CHARLES F. ADAMS v. THE UNITED STATES JAMES G. FREEMEN, v. THE UNITED STATES ARTHUR P. CUSHING, v. THE UNITED STATES CHARLES F. ADAMS, v. THE UNITED STATES THOMAS N. PERKINS, v. THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM VERNON, v. THE UNITED STATES A. LAWRENCE LOWELL, v. THE UNITED STATES FRANK DABNEY, v. THE UNITED STATES SETH P. SNOW, v. THE UNITED STATES SETH P. SNOW, v. THE UNITED STATES FRANCIS M. BOUTWELL, v. THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM ROPES TRASK, v. THE UNITED STATES CHARLES K. COBB, v. THE UNITED STATES, 36 Ct. Cl. 378 (Ct. Cl. 1901)

. . . policy the sum of $1,363.20, leaving' a final loss to the underwriters the sum of $4,636.80, being 77.28 . . .