Cases from cite.case.law:

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

. . . State , 143 So.2d 484, 488 (Fla. 1962) ; see § 90.106, Fla. . . . ."); § 90.106, Fla. Stat. . . .

GRIGG, v. STATE, 230 So. 3d 943 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.106, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

MITCHELL, v. STATE, 207 So.3d 369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . implicitly or explicitly commented on the witness’s status as an “expert,” the court violated section 90.106 . . . on the witness’s testimony or placing the court’s imprimatur on the witness in violation of section 90.106 . . .

OSORIO, v. STATE, 186 So. 3d 601 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.106, Fla. . . .

GUTIERREZ, v. STATE, 177 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 2015)

. . . This important prohibition has in fact been codified in section 90.106, Florida Statutes (2014), which . . .

WALDEN, v. STATE, 123 So. 3d 1164 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.106, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 114 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . This principle is codified in section 90.106, Florida Statutes (2011), which provides that “[a] judge . . .

ORANGE COUNTY, v. S. BUCHMAN,, 81 So. 3d 520 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . instruction was improper because it violated the prohibition against judicial comment set forth in section 90.106 . . . Section 90.106 provides that a judge may not comment to the jury upon the weight of the evidence. § 90.106 . . .

UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, v. WARFEL,, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012)

. . . Section 90.106 The application of section 90.304 to section 627.7073(l)(c), as articulated at trial, . . . was also inconsistent with section 90.106 Florida Statutes (2005), which provides that “[a] judge may . . . instruction would be in clear violation of the prohibition against such instructions articulated in section 90.106 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 70 So. 3d 733 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . .” § 90.106, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION, v. LALIBERTE, T., 52 So. 3d 31 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . constituted a statement on the evidence and the ultimate issue to be decided, in violation of section 90.106 . . .

BROWN, Jr. v. STATE, 11 So. 3d 428 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Florida’s prohibition of judicial comment on the evidence has been codified in section 90.106, Florida . . . Section 90.106 provides: “A judge may not sum up the evidence or comment to the jury upon the weight . . . Marr I and Marr II were decided after the adoption of section 90.106 and the 1983 amendment to section . . . In reaching this conclusion, the en banc majority relied on section 90.106. Id. at 711. . . .

RUTLEDGE, v. STATE, 1 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 90.106, Florida Statutes (2005), states that a judge “may not sum up the evidence or comment . . .

DIAZ, v. STATE, 958 So. 2d 377 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See also § 90.106, Fla. Stat. (2004); Charles W. . . .

ALEXANDER, v. STATE, 931 So. 2d 946 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 90.106, Fla. Stat. (2005); Brown v. State, 678 So.2d 910, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). . . .

VAUGHN, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 907 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . This general principle has been codified in section 90.106, Florida Statutes (2003), which provides that . . .

WALKER, v. STATE, 896 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2005)

. . . because they would likely overshadow that testimony of the witnesses themselves and of counsel, section 90.106 . . . Consistent with our judicial rule, section 90.106, Florida Statutes (2004), provides that “[a] judge . . . See § 90.106, Fla. . . .

JACQUES, v. STATE, 883 So. 2d 902 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Section 90.106, Florida Statutes (1999), states that a trial “judge may not sum up the evidence or comment . . .

COATES, v. STATE, 855 So. 2d 223 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Coates argues that section 90.106, Florida Statutes (2001), compelled the granting of a mistrial. . . .

THOMAS, v. STATE, 838 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 90.106, Florida Statutes (2001), prohibits a trial judge from summing up the evidence or commenting . . .

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

. . . Section 90.106 of the Florida Evidence Code clearly dictates that in a jury trial a judge may not sum . . .

WHITAKER, v. STATE, 742 So. 2d 530 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 90.106, Fla. Stat. (1997); Fogelman v. State, 648 So.2d 214, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). . . .

P. GONZALEZ E. v. MERCY HOSPITAL, INC., 738 So. 2d 955 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . .” § 90.106, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

BROWN, v. STATE, 678 So. 2d 910 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Section 90.106, Florida Statutes (1995), provides that “[a] judge may not ... comment to the jury upon . . .

MOTON, v. STATE, 659 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . . § 90.106, Fla.Stat. (1993); Williams v. . . .

FOGELMAN, v. STATE, 648 So. 2d 214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . because they would likely overshadow the testimony of the witnesses themselves and of counsel, Section 90.106 . . .

METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, v. YEARBY,, 580 So. 2d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Canevary, 553 So.2d 1312, 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); § 90.106, Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

HARMON, v. STATE, 527 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1988)

. . . Section 90.106, Florida Statutes (1985), provides that a judge may not comment to the jury on the weight . . .

DAVIS, v. STATE, 516 So. 2d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . State, 460 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); § 90.106, Fla.Stat. (1985). . . .

MARR, v. STATE, 494 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1986)

. . . Also, section 90.106 of the Florida Evidence Code, adopted by this Court, 372 So.2d 1369; 376 So.2d 1161 . . .

HUFF, v. STATE, 495 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1986)

. . . Section 90.106, Florida Statutes (1983) provides: A judge may not sum up the evidence or comment to the . . .

MARR, v. STATE, 470 So. 2d 703 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . quality of the evidence ... ”; (3) the adoption of the Florida Evidence Code, particularly section 90.106 . . . As to the majority’s reliance upon section 90.106 — barring comments by the trial court regarding the . . . Cases are legion in annotation under Section 90.106, supra, that the judge must avoid any expression . . .

MILLETT, v. STATE, 460 So. 2d 489 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Appellant argues that the trial judge violated Section 90.106, Florida Statutes, providing: “A judge . . . because they would likely overshadow the testimony of the witnesses themselves and of counsel, Section 90.106 . . .