Cases from cite.case.law:

BUILDING LLC, v. COMPONENT REPAIR SERVICES, INC., 224 So. 3d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . giving proper notice, Building B1 was entitled to one month’s rent (August 2009), pursuant to section 83.03 . . . Section 83.03 provides: A tenancy at will may • be terminated by - either party giving notice as follows . . .

OKOLO, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE, 892 F. Supp. 2d 931 (M.D. Tenn. 2012)

. . . (Local Rule 83.03.) . . . The joint motion for relief under Local Rule 83.03 is DENIED. . . .

UNITED STATES v. DAMPER,, 406 F. App'x 881 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . crack cocaine amendments would not have changed his guidelines range since he was held accountable for 83.03 . . .

RIDDLE, v. KEMNA,, 523 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2008)

. . . R. 83.02, 83.03. Transfers without a written application are the distinct minority. . . .

KEETON CORRECTIONS, INC. d b a v. RJ RK, INC. a G., 858 So. 2d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 83.03(3), (4), Fla. Stat. . . . Section 83.03(3), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that a month-to-month tenancy may be terminated by . . .

M. DIXON, v. DORMIRE, J. L. v. C. v., 263 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . R. 83.03; or the Supreme Court of Missouri may transfer a case on its own motion prior to disposition . . .

MELI INVESTMENT CORP. v. O. R., 621 So. 2d 676 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . . §§ 83.01, 83.03(3), Fla.Stat. (1991). . . .

WENBOY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. ROCKLEDGE BAR- B- Q, INC. a L. s B- Q, a, 619 So. 2d 414 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Section 83.03, Termination of tenancy at will, provides: A tenancy at will may be terminated by either . . .

EVANS, v. DOWD,, 932 F.2d 739 (8th Cir. 1991)

. . . See Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02, 83.03. . . . Rule 83.03 provides that if the court of appeals denies an application for transfer, the supreme court . . .

HAMILTON, v. JONES,, 907 F.2d 807 (8th Cir. 1990)

. . . application for transfer to Missouri Supreme Court); Mo.R.Crim.P. 30.27 (incorporating Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.03 . . .

BROWN, v. ARMONTROUT,, 898 F.2d 84 (8th Cir. 1990)

. . . After the motion was denied, Brown filed a Rule 83.03 application to transfer in the Missouri Supreme . . . Without such information, we are presently unwilling to decide whether a Rule 83.03 application to transfer . . . Rule 83.03 provides that the supreme court may transfer a case for any of the reasons set forth in Rule . . .

RUSSO v. MANFREDO, 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 23 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . . § 83.03(3) (1987) and that landlord did not waive his right to terminate the agreement by accepting . . . Stat. § 83.03(3) (1987), landlord notified tenants of his intention to terminate the rental agreement . . . Stat. §§ 83.02; 83.03(3) (1987). . . . Stat. § 83.03(3) (1987) and intended to claim double rent for the time tenants remained in possession . . .

BROWN, v. ARMONTROUT,, 853 F.2d 624 (8th Cir. 1988)

. . . R.Civ.P. 83.03. . . . .

P N ENTERPRISES, INC. v. LAMPCOMB, 27 Fla. Supp. 2d 57 (Osceola Cty. Ct. 1988)

. . . due as of November 21st and December 1987 This notice is supplied to you in accordance with Section 83.03 . . .

D. FAUST, v. JONES,, 662 F. Supp. 221 (W.D. Mo. 1987)

. . . Missouri Court of Appeals had affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, failed to file a Missouri Rule 83.03 . . .

E. FISHER, v. TRICKEY,, 656 F. Supp. 797 (W.D. Mo. 1987)

. . . Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Missouri under either Missouri Supreme Court Rule 83.02 or 83.03 . . . it was probable that a substantial number of transfers would be granted, under either Rule 83.02 or 83.03 . . . In all ten cases the appellant may have won the minor Rule 84.08 battle only to lose the Rule 83.03 war . . . ), and, by the favorable exercise of the broad discretion vested by Rule 83.03, grant the application . . . In this Court’s unpublished opinion in Powell we stated that "Rule 83.03 allows the Supreme Court of . . .

WARD v. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, 786 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 83.03 (West Supp.1985), any compensable interest they had in their apartments ceased to exist as . . .

JONES, v. Dr. K. RITTERBUSCH,, 548 F. Supp. 89 (W.D. Mo. 1982)

. . . Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.03. . . .

UNITED STATES v. DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSION,, 548 F. Supp. 794 (S.D. Ala. 1982)

. . . of the broad discretion granted this Court by Rule 83, F.R.C.P. 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, Sections 83.03 . . .

THOMAS, v. W. WYRICK, 687 F.2d 235 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . has run for petitioner to request a transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court pursuant to Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.03 . . . 1982), in which petitioner had failed to file a motion for transfer under either Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02 or 83.03 . . .

L. RATCHFORD, Jr. v. MANCHESTER LIFE CASUALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. B. B. R. J., 679 F.2d 741 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . The instruction is, moreover, adapted from Devitt and Blackmar, § 83.03. . . .

ADAIL, v. WYRICK,, 671 F.2d 1218 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . Civ.P. 83.02 or 83.03 and had not sought to file an out-of-time motion under 84.08. . . . reasoned that since, in either case, Adail had not filed a motion to transfer under Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.02 or 83.03 . . .

In KMM CORP. a a k a A. W. BECK, v. M. ROBB,, 14 B.R. 348 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1981)

. . . . § 83.03. The testimony was clear that the Defendant failed to give the Debt- or such notice. . . .

POWELL, v. W. WYRICK,, 657 F.2d 222 (8th Cir. 1981)

. . . not apply to the Missouri Supreme Court for the transfer of his case to that court under Mo.R.Civ.P. 83.03 . . .

RUOTAL CORPORATION, N. W. INC. a v. OTTATI, d b a, 391 So. 2d 308 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Ottati was advised in writing that his month to month tenancy was being terminated pursuant to Section 83.03 . . .

L. RODGERS, Jr. v. WYRICK,, 621 F.2d 921 (8th Cir. 1980)

. . . be required to directly request the Missouri Supreme Court to transfer that matter pursuant to Rule 83.03 . . . Appellee’s 83.03 argument may be quickly rejected. . . .

CONLEY, v. WHITE,, 470 F. Supp. 1 (W.D. Mo. 1979)

. . . Petitioner then filed motions under Missouri Rules 83.02 and 83.03, without success, but he did not file . . . Motions under Rules 83.02 and 83.03 were denied. State v. McReynolds, 574 S.W.2d 450 (Mo.App.1978). . . . after the United States Supreme Court’s Duren ruling, McReynolds filed a motion under Missouri Rule 83.03 . . .

GREEN, Jr. v. W. WYRICK,, 432 F. Supp. 965 (W.D. Mo. 1977)

. . . this instance by means of a motion to transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court under Rules 83.02 and 83.03 . . .

TRIPLETT, v. WYRICK,, 549 F.2d 57 (8th Cir. 1977)

. . . Sup.Ct.R. 83.03. . . . with directions to allow petitioner to apply for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court under Rule 83.03 . . .

DRAKE, v. WYRICK,, 415 F. Supp. 814 (W.D. Mo. 1976)

. . . M.R. and 83.03 V.A.M.R. . . . In the second place, his application pursuant to Rule 83.03 was premature, since the appellant had filed . . . Such a motion is a prerequisite to the filing of an application for transfer pursuant to Rule 83.03.” . . . or transfer, petitioner would then have thirty days to file his application for transfer under Rule 83.03 . . . Thus, in addition to his application under Rule 83.03, he would be required to file a motion for leave . . .

HAWES, v. CLUB ECUESTRE EL COMANDANTE KREITZER, v. PUERTO RICAN CARS, INC. VENTURA v. EL CONQUISTADOR HOTEL,, 535 F.2d 140 (1st Cir. 1976)

. . . National Dairy Products Corp., 293 F.Supp. 1168 (W.D.Mo.1968); see generally 7 Moore’s Federal Practice 1 83.03 . . . See generally 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 11 54.73, at 1457-59; 7 id. ¶ 83.03, at 83-87, and cases cited . . .

MAGGITT, v. WYRICK,, 533 F.2d 383 (8th Cir. 1976)

. . . Maggitt, 517 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Mo. 1974); Mo.Sup.Ct.R. 83.03. . . .

JX MARTIN, v. WYRICK,, 411 F. Supp. 1069 (W.D. Mo. 1975)

. . . petitioner thereafter file a timely application for transfer in the Supreme Court of Missouri under Rule 83.03 . . . to transfer could then be filed in the Supreme Court of Missouri within the time permitted by Rule 83.03 . . . It is also established that petitioner did not file a Missouri Rule 83.03 motion in the Supreme Court . . . Kansas City District, deny that motion petitioner would have a right to file a timely Missouri Rule 83.03 . . . the Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District, opens the way for the filing of a timely Rule 83.03 . . .

ELI EINBINDER, INC. a v. MIAMI CRYSTAL ICE CO. a, 317 So. 2d 126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . See §§ 83.01, 83.03, 83.06 and Sill v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 265. . . .

M. D. RUTLEDGE v. ELECTRIC HOSE RUBBER COMPANY, 511 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1975)

. . . Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3154, p. 233, and 7 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 83.03 . . .

HOLIDAY PLAZA INVESTMENT CORP. a v. CLARK,, 306 So. 2d 161 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . month to month of a mobile home lot was also subject to termination under Sections 83.01, 83.02, and 83.03 . . .

BOWLES v. BLUE LAKE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,, 504 F.2d 1094 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . . § 83.03, to actions for eviction of month to month tenants. . . .

LEE, v. W. WYRICK,, 383 F. Supp. 623 (W.D. Mo. 1974)

. . . Although Rule 83.02, V.A.M.R., and Rule 83.03, V. . . . Rule 83.03, V.A.M.R. provides: Transfer by Supreme Court After Opinion by Court of Appeals In any case . . .

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a v. FLEETWOOD HOTEL, INC., 261 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1972)

. . . authority by the City Council, and that the Ordinance conflicted with state law, specifically Sections 83.03 . . . finding of the trial court that this rent control ordinance does conflict with Florida Statutes Sections 83.03 . . .

KENT G. v. I. WOOD,, 235 So. 2d 60 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . Section 83.03, F.S.A., unless some other provision of the law creates an exception and permits a shorter . . . Section 83.03 provides: “A tenancy at will may be terminated by either party giving notice as follows . . . Section 83.03, F.S.A. . . . Section 83.03, F.S.A. If a landlord deems a tenant to be undesirable within the purview of F.S. . . .

FLEETWOOD HOTEL, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, 33 Fla. Supp. 192 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1970)

. . . As to the third issue, portions of the ordinance conflict with state law, particularly §§83.03, 83.04 . . .

H. E. DRUM, v. PURE OIL COMPANY, R. V. B., 184 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

. . . . § 83.03 provides that such a tenancy may be terminated by giving notice not less than fifteen days . . .

LEADERS INTERNATIONAL JEWELRY, INC. a v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY,, 183 So. 2d 242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

. . . Stat., F.S.A. rather than a tenancy at will which would require a minimum length of notice under § 83.03 . . .

R. SILL E. v. A. SMITH A., 177 So. 2d 265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)

. . . Chapter 83.03, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. . . .

MINER JUDGES, U. S. DISTRICT COURT, v. ATLASS, 363 U.S. 641 (U.S. 1960)

. . . Cunningham, 233 F. 2d 806, 811; 7 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed.), ¶ 83.03. Cf. United States v. . . .

R. WILEY v. T. DOW I. a, 107 So. 2d 166 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)

. . . month-to-month tenancy upon a fifteen days’ notice prior to the end of any monthly period (see Section 83.03 . . .