Cases from cite.case.law:

FARRELL, v. STATE, 273 So. 3d 43 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ." § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). . . .

LEE, v. STATE, 264 So. 3d 225 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 90.104(2), Fla. . . .

M. RAYMOND, v. STATE, 257 So. 3d 624 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . that the trial court take evidence as to witness's state of mind, which the court refused); see also § 90.104 . . .

DELISLE, v. CRANE CO., 258 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2018)

. . . Evidence Code-Section 90.104 , 914 So.2d 940 (Fla. 2005) ; Amends. to the Fla. . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 252 So. 3d 859 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . The issue is preserved for our review, see section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2017), but we find no . . .

L. JACKSON, v. STATE, 252 So. 3d 767 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) ; Vergara v. . . .

KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. v. DOUGHTY, 242 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. . . .

PHILLIPS, v. STATE, 238 So. 3d 845 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (2017). . . .

FABREGAS, v. FERNANDEZ,, 215 So. 3d 111 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016); Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass’n v. . . .

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE, 210 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 2017)

. . . Evidence Code—Section 90.104, 914 So.2d 940 (Fla. 2005); Amends. to Fla. . . .

COLLINS, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . Because of the dictates of Section 90.104(l)(b), it is important to secure a “definitive ruling on the . . .

GRAHAM, v. STATE, 207 So.3d 135 (Fla. 2016)

. . . .” § 90.104(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, v. ALAQUA PROPERTY,, 190 So. 3d 662 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.104(1), Fla.. . . .

L. CARR, v. STATE, 156 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 2015)

. . . While section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that, “[i]f the court has made a definitive . . .

SPECIAL, v. WEST BOCA MEDICAL CENTER,, 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014)

. . . Section 90.104, Florida Statutes (2009), is also applicable to the instant case. . . .

M. BEAUCHAMP, v. BANK OF NEW YORK, N. A. JP N. A., 150 So. 3d 827 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Taylor, 860 So.2d 436, 447-48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

BURDESHAW v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 148 So. 3d 819 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . While section 90.104, Florida Statutes, requires “a specific ground of objection if the specific ground . . . Section 90.104 does not require “magic words” to preserve a hearsay objection, so long as the trial court . . .

KYNE, v. STATE, 141 So. 3d 759 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . However, the State’s argument ignores the plain language of section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2012 . . .

BOYLES, III, v. A G CONCRETE POOLS, INC. E., 149 So. 3d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . evidentiary issue for appeal when trial court does not make a definitive pre-trial ruling), with § 90.104 . . . “Section 90.104(1) was amended in 2003 to provide that, ‘If the court has made a definitive ruling on . . . Appellant would correctly rely on section 90.104(1), which states that appellant need not object in order . . . limine filed early in a case have dramatically increased in the years since the amendment of section 90.104 . . .

RODRIGUES, v. STATE, 142 So. 3d 901 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added). . . .

MONTES- VALETON, v. STATE, 141 So. 3d 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Section 90.104(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that a court may reverse a judgment on the basis . . . cousin ‘improper predicate,’ is not a ‘specific ground of objection’ within the meaning of section 90.104 . . .

CALHOUN, v. STATE, 138 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 2013)

. . . See 90.104(l)(b), Fla. . . .

R. F. GREENWALD, v. EISINGER, BROWN, LEWIS FRANKEL, P. A., 118 So. 3d 867 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . . § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. . . .

GOLDEN, v. STATE, 114 So. 3d 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, provides, "If the court has made a definitive ruling on the record . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 109 So. 3d 831 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . for appellate review, a litigant must make a timely, specific, contemporaneous objection); see also § 90.104 . . .

BRADDY, v. STATE, 111 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 90.104(1), Fla. . . .

ADVANCED CHIROPRACTIC AND REHABILITATION CENTER, CORPORATION, d b a a a o v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 103 So. 3d 866 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2010); State v. Calvert, 15 So.3d 946, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). . . . See § 90.104(3), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

HARDEN, v. STATE, 87 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .”); § 90.104(1), Fla. . . .

E. POWELL, v. STATE, 79 So. 3d 921 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. . . .

SPECIAL, v. BAUX, M. D. M. D. P. A. P. L., 79 So. 3d 755 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . In addition to section 59.041, section 90.104, Florida Statutes (2009) provides that a court may reverse . . . Section 90.104 adds little to harmless error analysis; if admitted or excluded evidence does not adversely . . .

DeLUISE, v. STATE, 72 So. 3d 248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 90.104(1), Fla. . . .

MARSHALL, v. STATE, 68 So. 3d 374 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 90.104, Fla. . . .

CORONA, v. STATE, 64 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2011)

. . . Corona’s trial was conducted before the July 1, 2003, effective date of the provision of section 90.104 . . .

McGIRTH, v. STATE, 48 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2010)

. . . See 90.104(l)(b), Fla. . . .

W. McWATTERS, v. STATE, 36 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 2010)

. . . See § 90.104(1), Fla. . . .

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. EDUARDO J. GARRIDO, D. C. P. A., 22 So. 3d 120 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). The point is adequately preserved. . . .

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. ALLEN, 17 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, provides: “If the court has made a definitive ruling on the record . . .

SALEEBY, v. ROCKY ELSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009)

. . . .” § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

MURRAY, v. STATE, 3 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 2009)

. . . See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (2003); see also Miller v. . . .

L. WHEELER, v. STATE, 4 So. 3d 599 (Fla. 2009)

. . . Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, was amended in 2003 to make a contemporaneous objection to admission . . .

KOVALESKI, v. STATE, 1 So. 3d 254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . . § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Reaves v. State, 531 So.2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 998 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 2008)

. . . See § 90.104(1 )(b), Fla. . . . Stat. (2003); In re Amendments to The Florida Evidence Code—Section 90.104, 914 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla.2005 . . .

VANEVERY, v. STATE, 980 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . 980, 987 (Fla.1999) (“vague” objection preserved hearsay issue when basis was clear from context); § 90.104 . . .

SOUTHSTAR EQUITY, LLC, v. LAI CHAU,, 998 So. 2d 625 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . not be reversed except where “the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice”); § 90.104 . . .

NEALS, v. STATE, 972 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . court’s limitation of cross-examination is subject to an abuse of discretion standard); see also § 90.104 . . .

F. WILLIAMS v. LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC., 973 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2006), discusses rulings on evidence. . . . Based on section 90.104(1), we held that since the trial court did not either at trial or prior to trial . . .

TILLMAN, v. STATE, 964 So. 2d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . State, 914 So.2d 514, 516 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. . . .

M. FRANKLIN, v. STATE, 965 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2007)

. . . Section 90.104(l)(b), Florida Statutes, covering rulings on evidence, was amended in 2003 to add the . . . (codified at § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005)). . . .

STATE v. ROBERTS,, 963 So. 2d 747 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . State, 546 So.2d 65, 67 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); see also § 90.104(1)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (2006); cf. . . . Sections 90.104(l)(a) and (l)(b) provide, in pertinent part: A court may predicate error ... on the basis . . .

JOHNSON, v. W. MOORE,, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . THE PROFFER Citing Section 90.104(l)(b), Florida Statutes, Moore claims that “Davis’s testimony was not . . . Section 90.104(l)(b) states in pertinent part: A court may predicate error, set aside .or reverse a judgment . . .

CARTER, v. STATE, 951 So. 2d 939 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . State, 738 So.2d 382, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat.). . . .

OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FSB, v. J. KIDDER R., 950 So. 2d 480 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . no longer necessary to move for a mistrial, if an objection has been sustained, because of section 90.104 . . .

ZERBE, v. STATE, 944 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR NEUROLOGIC REHABILITATION, INC. v. MARSHALL, 943 So. 2d 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . .” § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

RODGERS, Jr. v. STATE, 948 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2006)

. . . Section 90.104(l)(b), Florida Statutes, as amended in 2003, provides that “[i]f the court has made a . . .

L. ROWLEY, v. STATE, 939 So. 2d 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004); A McD. v. State, 422 So.2d 336, 337-38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). . . .

D. BRITTON, v. STATE, 928 So. 2d 386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . . § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004). . . .

TOLBERT, v. STATE, 922 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . The State notes the provision of section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2003), which was amended by the . . . In re Amendments to The Florida Evidence Code-Section 90.104, 914 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla.2005) (“After considering . . .

MARSHALL, v. STATE, 915 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Florida Statute § 90.104(l)(a) provides that a reviewing court may reverse based on wrongfully admitted . . . This argument was not sufficiently specific or precise within the meaning of section 90.104(1)(a) and . . .

STOKES, v. STATE, 914 So. 2d 514 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . However, section 90.104(l)(b) states "[i]f the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting . . . , a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.” § 90.104 . . .

DUNSTON v. STATE, 913 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See § 90.104(b), Fla. Stat. (2003); Pearce v. State, 880 So.2d 561 (Fla.2004); Morrison v. . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE- SECTION, 914 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2005)

. . . Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence Committee (the Committee) concerning a recent amendment to section 90.104 . . . Florida Evidence Code, the Committee recommended that the Court adopt the 2003 amendment to section 90.104 . . . Code, 891 So.2d 1037, 1038 (Fla.2004), Chapter 2003-259, section 1, Laws of Florida, amended section 90.104 . . . APPENDIX Chapter 2003-259, § 1: 90.104. . . . Section 90.104(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), in pertinent part, states that "[i]f the court has made . . . In re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE—SECTION 90.104. No. SC05-685. . . .

VERITE ANTIQUES, INC. d b a v. CHELSEA ENTERPRISES, INC. a, 912 So. 2d 380 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (2002). Affirmed. . . .

HAMMETT, v. STATE, 908 So. 2d 595 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002); see also Reaves v. . . .

ALVAREZ, v. V. CROSBY,, 907 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE, 891 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2004)

. . . Chapter 2003-259, section 1, amended section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, to eliminate the need for an . . .

R. CASTANEDA, a CARDONA, v. REDLANDS CHRISTIAN MIGRANT ASSOCIATION, INC. a, 884 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . This case was tried prior to the 2003 amendment of section 90.104(l)(b), Florida Statutes, which dispensed . . .

DONES, M. D. v. MOSS, M. D., 884 So. 2d 230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Local Contractors, Inc., 785 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (quoting § 90.104(1), Fla. . . .

HUCK, v. STATE, 881 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Merchant, 652 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . .

O. CASH, v. STATE, 875 So. 2d 829 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .

CRUMBLEY, v. STATE, 876 So. 2d 599 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . We are aware of the recently adopted provision of section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2003), which provides . . . the difference between rules of substance and procedure, we conclude that the provision of section 90.104 . . .

RICHARDSON, v. STATE, 875 So. 2d 673 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . the State contends that Appellant’s objection was neither “specific” within the meaning of section 90.104 . . .

A. MALLORY, v. STATE, 866 So. 2d 127 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Section 90.104(l)(b), Florida Statutes, was amended by the 2003 legislature to provide: If the court . . .

BULKMATIC TRANSPORT COMPANY, v. C. TAYLOR,, 860 So. 2d 436 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . . § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2000); see also Parsons v. . . .

MILLER, v. STATE, 870 So. 2d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

BELL, v. STATE, 847 So. 2d 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . necessary state of mind is present is a preliminary fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104 . . .

COUZO, v. STATE, 830 So. 2d 177 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . cousin ‘improper predicate,’ is not a ‘specific ground of objection’ within the meaning of section 90.104 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE, 825 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2002)

. . . amendment to section 90.404(2) based upon the inherent conflicts between the new legislation and sections 90.104 . . .

MORRISON, Jr. v. STATE, 818 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2002)

. . . I didn't — at the time I didn't know — I didn’t even read the confession. .Furthermore, “[sjection 90.104 . . .

PADILLA, v. BIV INVESTMENTS AND MANAGEMENT, INC., 783 So. 2d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 90.104(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

MIDTOWN ENTERPRISES, INC. v. LOCAL CONTRACTORS, INC., 785 So. 2d 578 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1999); Parsons v. . . . See § 90.104(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999). II. MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE In Brown v. . . .

D. MOYER, v. REYNOLDS, M. D., 780 So. 2d 205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1999); Hoffman v. . . .

EDWARDS, v. STATE, 763 So. 2d 549 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . necessary state of mind is present is a preliminary fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104 . . .

GRANT, v. STATE, 764 So. 2d 804 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . In jury trials, section 90.104(2) of the Florida Evidence Code mandates: “A court shall conduct proceedings . . .

STOLL, v. STATE, 762 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2000)

. . . necessary state'of mind is present is a preliminary fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104 . . .

A. PERSAUD, v. STATE, 755 So. 2d 150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See §§ 90.104(l)(b), 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

FILAN, v. STATE, 768 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 90.104(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that a court may reverse a judgment on the basis . . . cousin ‘improper predicate,’ is not a ‘specific ground of objection’ within the meaning of section 90.104 . . . The objection was neither “specific” within the meaning of section 90.104(l)(a), nor “sufficiently precise . . .

MOSER, v. STATE, 763 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . State, 694 So.2d 157, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

SUAREZ- BURGOS, v. MORHAIM,, 745 So. 2d 368 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See §§ 90.104(2); 90.105, Fla.Stat. (1997). . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 738 So. 2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 90.104(l)(a), Fla. . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 738 So. 2d 382 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . .” § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . cousin “improper predicate,” is not a “specific ground of objection” within the meaning of section 90.104 . . .

LEE, v. STATE, 729 So. 2d 975 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . In so doing, the preservation requirements of section 90.104(l)(b),(3), Florida Statutes (1997) are met . . .

K. FRAVEL, D. M. D. v. HAUGHEY,, 727 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). Dr. . . .

M. CELENTANO v. BANKER,, 728 So. 2d 244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . See also § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

STATE v. RAYDO,, 713 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1998)

. . . decision not to display his voice before the jury rendered the trial court’s ruling unreviewable); § 90.104 . . .

C. KETTERSON MRI v. In ESTATE OF BRUNS,, 711 So. 2d 613 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Holloway, 581 So.2d 619, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

E. SMITH v. Dr. HUGO, V. M. D Of, 714 So. 2d 467 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Hugo’s cat handling abilities was not properly preserved under section 90.104(l)(a), Florida Statutes . . .

GUITTEREZ, v. STATE, 704 So. 2d 161 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Additionally, the proffer was too vague under section 90.104(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), to preserve . . .

TAYLOR, a k a S. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 701 So. 2d 610 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . P. 1.450(b); § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

N. NIXON, v. STATE, 694 So. 2d 157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995); Woodson v. State, 483 So.2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). . . .