Cases from cite.case.law:

NOCK, v. STATE, 256 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.102, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1976); see, e.g. , Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line R. . . .

A. BROWNE, v. STATE, 132 So. 3d 312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . State, 25 So.3d 49, 51-52 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), the court explained: Although section 90.102 states that . . .

CHAVEZ, v. STATE, 25 So. 3d 49 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Although section 90.102 states that common law that does not conflict with the Code is still applicable . . . of forfeiture by wrongdoing is applicable in Florida as a common-law hearsay exception under section 90.102 . . .

PAWLENDZIO, v. SENCO PRODUCTS, INC., 610 So. 2d 734 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . It is also urged that through section 90.102, Florida Statutes (1987), section 90.608, Florida Statutes . . .

DEAN, v. DEAN,, 607 So. 2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Although FEC section 90.102 provides generally that the Florida Evidence Code supersedes the common law . . .

SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, W. BUSHNELL, v. CANNELTON INDUSTRIES, INC., 867 F.2d 1432 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 90.102(a). . . . The Secretary contrasts the language of section 90.103(b) with section 90.102(a), which is explicitly . . . limited to dust-related transfers; section 90.102(a) limits the positions to which a miner may be transferred . . . ]henever a Part 90 miner is transferred in order to meet the respirable dust standard.” 30 C.F.R. § 90.102 . . . the Commission supposed, the Secretary could have easily made such a limit explicit, as in section 90.102 . . .

E. RITTER, V. v. J. SHAMAS,, 452 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . . § 90.102, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . .

SIKES, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a, 429 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . . § 90.102, Fla.Stat. . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. CARTER, 4 Fla. Supp. 2d 43 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1981)

. . . F.S.S. 90.102. It further provides that hearsay is inadmissible except as provided by statute. . . .