90.406
Routine practice.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
90.406 Routine practice.—Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases, 1982–2018 · leading case: SHANDS TEACHING HOSP. AND CLINICS v. Dunn
SHANDS TEACHING HOSP. AND CLINICS v. Dunn (2007)
“§ 90.406 Fla. Stat. (2007). The existence of a routine practice creates an inference that an agent or employee of the organization acted according to the practice.”
Thurman v. UAC (2004)
“Section 90.406, Florida Statutes, states, Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or *93 not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity…”
Tabb Ex Rel. Tabb v. FLORIDA NICA (2004)
“See § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2001) ("Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the…”
Thigpen v. United Parcel Services, Inc. (2008)
“[6] § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2007) ("Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the…”
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Higgins (2001)
“Under section 90.406, Florida Statutes (2000), evidence of a business routine with regard to mailing letters is admissible to show that the letter in question was mailed in accordance with the routine practice.”
Edmonds v. U.S. Bank National Association (2017)
“at 4; see also § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2014); CitiMortgage, Inc.”
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Hoskinson (2016)
“§ 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2014); see Brown v.”
Natacha Peuguero and Angelo Peuguero v. Bank of America, N.A. (2015)
“” § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2013); People’s Trust Ins.”
Burchett v. Commonwealth (2003)
“Fla. Stat. § 90.406 . A leading authority on Florida evidence law has opined that prior cases allowing admission of evidence of the habit of an individual, if corroborated by other evidence of the occurrence of the conforming conduct, were not "displaced" by the adoption of the…”
Eig v. INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA (1984)
“Appellee introduced the deposition of an employee who testified, pursuant to section 90.406, Florida Statutes (1981), that appellee's routine practice was to require that both a corporate and a personal indemnification agreement be signed when a surety bond was issued to a…”
Allen v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (2017)
“Coffron testified that she knew the letter was mailed because it had been created, the account did not contain anything indicating that it was returned as undeliverable, and “servicers aren’t in the habit of generating letters that they don’t send.”
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Alvarez (1983)
“1973) (a general presumption exists that the ordinary course of business or conduct in respect to mailing was followed in a particular case absent a contrary showing), was effectively done away with in 1979 with the enactment of Section 90.406, Florida Statutes (1979). [1] That…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.