Cases from cite.case.law:

RIVERA, v. STATE, 274 So. 3d 537 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . That rule can be viewed similarly to section 90.403, balancing the relevance of a defendant's potential . . . relied upon by the majority, the Fourth District cautioned that the trial court must engage in a section 90.403 . . .

STRONG, v. UNDERWOOD R., 275 So. 3d 760 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. . . .

COOLEY, v. STATE, 273 So. 3d 258 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ." § 90.403, Fla. Stat.; see also McLean v. . . . the record, we cannot say that any reasonable judge would have excluded the evidence under section 90.403 . . .

THORNE, v. STATE, 271 So. 3d 177 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . (citing §§ 90.402, 90.403, Fla. Stat.). . . .

STUBBS, v. STATE, 275 So. 3d 631 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Id. at 1259 (quoting § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2005) ); see also Peralta-Morales v. . . . under section 90.404(2) is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant under section 90.403 . . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017). Affirmed. Warner and Levine, JJ., concur. . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 272 So. 3d 482 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Stat. (2017) (providing: "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law"); § 90.403, . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. GLOGER,, 273 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Citing to section 90.403 of the Florida Statutes, defense counsel argued that limiting Mr. . . . Sinkovics and Altemose were subject to limitation under section 90.403 of the Florida Statutes. . . . The trial court's limiting instruction was not effective in this case Section 90.403 gives the trial . . . Sinkovics and Altemose " Section 90.403 may be applied to limit only a part of a statement or the details . . . Because the trial court had the discretion, under section 90.403, to decide how to limit Mr. . . .

STATE v. KNOWLES,, 265 So. 3d 733 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ." § 90.403. 934 So.2d at 1259. . . . Moreover, a trial court is given a "large measure of discretion" under section 90.403 in determining . . .

BARRY, III, v. STATE, 264 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. . . . 292 (holding that even inextricably intertwined evidence is subject to the balancing test of section 90.403 . . . trial court to conclude that this evidence never reached the point of inadmissibility under section 90.403 . . .

MARTINEZ, v. STATE, 265 So. 3d 704 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017). But relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial. State v. . . .

GONZALEZ, v. STATE, 271 So. 3d 80 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ."); see §§ 90.404(2) and 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2018). . . .

PITTS, v. STATE, 263 So. 3d 834 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . as part of its weighing of the probative value and prejudicial effect of the evidence under section 90.403 . . . See McLean , 934 So.2d at 1251 ("Application of section 90.403 in determining admissibility ensures that . . . Thus, subject to weighing under section 90.403, evidence of other sexual offenses committed by the defendant . . .

J. GILLIAMS, v. STATE, 262 So. 3d 869 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . . § 90.403. . . .

TEACHMAN, v. STATE, 264 So. 3d 242 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . State , 451 So.2d 1386, 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) ; see also § 90.403, Fla. Stat. . . .

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. v. ROLLAND,, 271 So. 3d 33 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

KING, v. STATE, 260 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 2018)

. . . reasons, including: (1) the statements were irrelevant and prejudicial under sections 90.401, 90.402, and 90.403 . . .

WHISBY, v. STATE, 262 So. 3d 228 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . , similar fact evidence of other crimes is subject to exclusion under the balancing test of section 90.403 . . . acts of child molestation against its potential for unfair prejudice, which is compelled by section 90.403 . . . that a trial court should consider when balancing the collateral crime evidence pursuant to section 90.403 . . . prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403 . . .

SIMS, v. STATE, 260 So. 3d 509 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . According to Sims, the court should have excluded the evidence under section 90.403, which precludes . . .

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. BALLESTER, 259 So. 3d 977 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. . . .

CAMPBELL, v. STATE v. L., 271 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2018)

. . . However, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2018), states: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative . . . determined by its relevancy and, of course, subject to exclusion under the balancing test of section 90.403 . . .

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

. . . . § 90.403. . . .

AGUILA, v. STATE, 255 So. 3d 522 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . child molestation must be relevant and that the evidence "remains subject to weighing under section 90.403 . . . prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403 . . . is a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing under section 90.403 . . . Section 90.403 provides, in part: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially . . .

TAYLOR, v. STATE, 256 So. 3d 950 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.403. . . . is a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing under section 90.403 . . .

FULLER, v. STATE, 257 So. 3d 521 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017). . . .

D. SANDERS, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 1038 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Castanon , 162 So.3d at 54 (citing § 90.403, Fla. Stat.). . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 252 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 2018)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017). . . .

MACOMBER, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ."); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. . . .

VEACH, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 624 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.403, Fla. . . .

J. CORMIER III, v. STATE, 253 So. 3d 75 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

ARROYO, v. STATE, 252 So. 3d 374 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . reputation evidence relating to a victim's prior sexual conduct ... shall not be admitted into evidence"); § 90.403 . . .

HOGLE, v. STATE, 250 So. 3d 178 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2016). III. . . .

HAWTHORNE, v. STATE, 248 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . certified driving record, to which Appellant objected, asserting the record was prejudicial under section 90.403 . . . prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403 . . .

GRIMES, v. STATE, 248 So. 3d 150 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Thus, his objection was lodged pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2016), which provides that . . . The Florida Supreme Court has elaborated on the balancing inquiry of section 90.403 : "Unfair prejudice . . . The trial court relied on Harris , 449 So.2d at 896-98, which involved the application of section 90.403 . . . The court explained that not all relevant evidence is admissible under the balancing test of section 90.403 . . . With a stipulation lacking, the trial court had to engage in the balancing inquiry of section 90.403- . . .

PIERRE, v. STATE, 246 So. 3d 545 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), establishes a limitation on the introduction of relevant evidence . . .

A. GUTIERREZ, v. VARGAS, M. D., 239 So. 3d 615 (Fla. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added); see also Delgardo v. Allstate Ins. . . .

WOOD, v. STATE, 238 So. 3d 924 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . In every case, the trial court must conduct the weighing required by section 90.403." McLean v. . . . Here, while the trial court properly performed the balancing required by § 90.403 and McLean , it failed . . . do not believe this conclusion mandates a new trial because the trial court did perform the section 90.403 . . .

THOMPSON, v. STATE, 237 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . court erred by admitting child hearsay statements without conducting a balancing test under section 90.403 . . . danger of presentation of repetitive and cumulative evidence under the protection afforded by section 90.403 . . . trial court did not articulate any balancing consideration, but "there is no requirement under section 90.403 . . .

R. NOLLEY, v. STATE, 237 So. 3d 469 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . witness's opinion about the guilt or innocence of the defendant is inadmissible pursuant to section 90.403 . . .

BURTON, v. STATE, 237 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . "Despite the fact that all relevant evidence is admissible, section 90.403 provides for the exclusion . . . the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.' " Taylor, 855 So.2d at 21-22 (quoting § 90.403 . . .

KIRKMAN, v. STATE, 233 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2015); see also Victorino v. . . .

RAZZ, v. STATE, 231 So. 3d 479 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . . § 90.403, Fla. . . .

D. SUGGS, v. STATE, 238 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 2017)

. . . See §§ 90.401, 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017). . . .

J. KIRKLAND- WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 230 So. 3d 580 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 90.403 (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by . . .

ANDERSON, v. STATE, 229 So. 3d 383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Appellant contends that under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the prejudicial impact of the' victim . . . for the statutory exception in section 90.803(23) is subject to the balancing test found in section 90.403 . . . to preserve the argument that the trial court failed to apply the balancing test required by section 90.403 . . . defendant failed to preserve the argument that child hearsay statements were inadmissible under section 90.403 . . .

BECKMAN, v. STATE, 230 So. 3d 77 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence,” Id. at 1212 (quoting § 90.403 . . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

COFFEY, v. STATE, 228 So. 3d 179 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence,” § 90.403 . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. R. J. v. POLLARI,, 228 So. 3d 115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury” (quoting § 90.403 . . .

HARRISON v. GREGORY,, 221 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . even if it were marginally relevant, the statement was nevertheless inadmissible pursuant to section 90.403 . . . identical to Harrison’s statement to her sister that the court had previously excluded pursuant to section 90.403 . . . Lang, 796 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). - Section 90.403 provides that “[rjelevant evidence is . . . that, under the facts o'f this case, Harrison’s statement to her sister was inadmissible under section 90.403 . . .

CROSBY, v. STATE, 222 So. 3d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . State, 863 So.2d 323, 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (citing § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1997)). . . .

DAVIS, Jr. v. STATE, 217 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. 2017)

. . . See §§ 90.402, 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

COZZIE, v. STATE, 225 So. 3d 717 (Fla. 2017)

. . . below to the amount of the victim impact evidence and its cumulative prejudicial effect under section 90.403 . . .

KNIGHT, v. STATE, 217 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . was substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice, and therefore was inadmissible under section 90.403 . . . 1st DCA 2011) (“Appellant failed to object at trial on undue prejudice grounds pursuant to section 90.403 . . . inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ....”§ 90.403 . . .

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. RE SHEPARD, 217 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 2017)

. . . improperly introducing evidence at the final hearing—over her objections—purportedly excluded by sections 90.403 . . .

SCOTT, v. STATE, 218 So. 3d 476 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2014), however, states that “[rjelevant evidence is inadmissible if . . . feature of the trial, did not constitute an abuse of discretion under the balancing test of section 90.403 . . .

MORRIS, v. STATE, 219 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 2017)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. . . .

OLIVER, v. STATE, 214 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 2017)

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

JONES, v. STATE, 212 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2013); accord majority op. at 340. . . . previous, atrocious murders did not “substantially outweigh[ ]” any probative value it provided. § 90.403 . . . See § 90.403, Fla. . . .

TRUEHILL, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 2017)

. . . determined by its relevancy and, of course, subject to exclusion under the balancing test of section 90.403 . . . separately to determine its relevancy to the charges here and, of course, keep the balancing test of section 90.403 . . .

MORLAS, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .Ӥ 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

SCOTT, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2014); Johnson v. State, 112 So.3d 564, 566 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). . . .

WOODRUFF, v. STATE, 208 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2015); McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 2006). . . .

B. LAHENS, v. STATE, 204 So.3d 982 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . provided, however, the court finds that the testimony is not inadmissible pursuant to s. 90.402 or s. 90.403 . . .

GREENWICH, v. STATE, 207 So.3d 258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. . . . “The unfair prejudice that section 90.403 attempts to eliminate relates to evidence that ‘inflames the . . .

BOWLES, v. STATE, 198 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

OKEECHOBEE AERIE FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES, INC. v. WILDE, 199 So. 3d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. . . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. The evidence should not have been admitted. • C. . . . We hold that evidence of the Eagles being on notice of the RVA was inappropriate under section 90.403 . . .

BOYLES, v. DILLARD S INC., 199 So. 3d 315 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . inadmissible as being, scientifically unreliable, irrelevant, and overly prejudicial under sections 90.702 and 90.403 . . .

MULLENS, v. STATE, 197 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 2016)

. . . See, e.g., § 90.403, Fla. . . .

MOSLEY, v. STATE, 194 So. 3d 473 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . The appellant filed a motion' in limine to exclude the “time and crime” report based on section 90.403 . . .

De RIOS, v. STATE, 193 So. 3d 111 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . could, under different circumstances, outweigh .its probative value.” 920 So.2d at 1208-09 (citing § 90.403 . . .

ARIZONA CHEMICAL COMPANY, LLC, v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., 193 So. 3d 95 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Even though relevant, evidence is inadmissible under, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2013), “if its . . .

D. ALLEN, v. STATE, 192 So. 3d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . The rule of evidence applicable here is section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2013), which provides, in pertinent . . . inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ....” § 90.403 . . .

STATE v. HORWITZ,, 191 So. 3d 429 (Fla. 2016)

. . . probative value is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice” pursuant to section .90.403 . . . , confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403 . . .

CONCEPCION, v. STATE, 188 So. 3d 5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . questions which probe a witness’s credibility are subject to the balancing test set forth in section 90.403 . . .

P. OPSINCS, v. STATE, 185 So. 3d 654 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . “The unfair prejudice that section 90.403 attempts to eliminate relates to evidence that inflames the . . .

BANEGAS- MEMBRAN, v. STATE, 182 So. 3d 865 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Amendment narrows, a trial court’s discretion to exclude evidence of a witnesses] bias under section 90.403 . . . prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury,.or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403 . . .

D. WALKER, v. STATE, 180 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . It argues the section 90.403 balancing test weighed in its favor and any error was harmless. . . .

TAYLOR, v. CULVER,, 178 So. 3d 550 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . inadmissible where its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, see section 90.403 . . .

EVANS, v. STATE, 177 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

MANIGLIA, v. CARPENTER,, 182 So. 3d 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . the grounds that its prejudicial effect substantially'outweighed its probative value under section 90.403 . . . prejudice: whether the “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” § 90.403 . . .

RAMROOP, v. STATE, 174 So. 3d 584 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2013), provides that “[rjelevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative . . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2013). This required the court to determine its probative value. . . .

COTTON, v. STATE, 176 So. 3d 310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . §§ 90.403, 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . issue as required by section 90.402, and is also subject to the balancing test provided in section 90.403 . . . is a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing under section 90.403 . . . Factors other than the potential for unfair prejudice are also pertinent in a section 90.403 analysis . . . In applying the balancing test set forth in section 90.403, in conjunction with section 90.404(2)(b), . . .

WOODSON, v. GO, M. D. M. D., 166 So. 3d 231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . over the presentation of the evidence so as to avoid the needless consumption of time, and section 90.403 . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 166 So. 3d 195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . State, 785 So.2d 1209, 1212-13 (Fla.2001) (citing section 90.403, Florida Statutes). . . . . Evidence of other acts of child molestation in such cases " ‘remains subject to weighing under section 90.403 . . . Thus, even in child molestation cases, the application of section 90.403 "ensures that section 90.404 . . .

FARRELL, v. STATE, 186 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Any attack on an expert witness’s credibility is subject to a section 90.403 balancing analysis. . . .

JACOBS a k a v. ATLANTIC COAST REFINING, INC. d b a ACR, 165 So. 3d 714 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . .” § 90.403, Florida Statutes (2013). . . .

JONES, v. ALAYON,, 162 So. 3d 360 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . The court conducted an analysis under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2012), and determined that the . . . of the wife’s testimony on this issue and made a probative versus prejudicial analysis under section 90.403 . . . Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2012), provides: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative . . .

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

. . . inherent prejudice associated with ... relevant evidence” necessary to require its exclusion under section 90.403 . . .

WADE, v. STATE, 156 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 2014)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. . . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . not shown that upon a motion by trial counsel, the photographs would have been excluded under section 90.403 . . .

BLAKE, v. STATE v. H., 180 So. 3d 89 (Fla. 2014)

. . . Blake asserts that the testimony could have been excluded únder section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005 . . .

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

. . . Section 90.403 of the Florida Statutes permits trial courts to exclude orily evidence in which the “probative . . . prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403 . . .

CASCO, v. STATE, 150 So. 3d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2008). In Council v. . . .

CAVALIERE, v. STATE, 147 So. 3d 628 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Section 90.403, which provides that “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially . . . See Wright, 19 So.3d at 291 (quoting § 90.403). . . .

HARRELSON, v. STATE, 146 So. 3d 171 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . evidence of a collateral crime was clear and convincing, and if so, then to determine, under section 90.403 . . . trial court were to assume, initially, the evidence was clear and convincing, and proceed with the 90.403 . . . do not believe this conclusion mandates a new trial because the trial court did perform the section 90.403 . . .

STEWART, v. STATE, 147 So. 3d 119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . that even under the relaxed standard the evidence is subject to relevancy requirements and the section 90.403 . . .

E. CASTANON, v. STATE Of, 162 So. 3d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 90.403, Fla.Stat. (2012). As such, “the prerequisite to admissibility is relevancy.” . . .

PERALTA- MORALES, v. STATE, 143 So. 3d 483 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . context or whether they share any similarity,” such evidence “remains subject to weighing under section 90.403 . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. LLC. v. BUCHANAN,, 155 So. 3d 1156 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. . . .

C. PETERSON, v. STATE C. v. D., 154 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2014)

. . . See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2013). “Cumulative evidence” calls for-a mere “repetition of testimony.” . . .

J. JACKSON, v. STATE, 140 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . significantly less importance than its prejudicial effect, and the evidence should be excluded under section 90.403 . . .

J. CARLISLE, v. STATE, 137 So. 3d 479 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Florida’s equivalent is found in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007). . . .