Cases from cite.case.law:

MARCUM LLP, v. POTAMKIN,, 107 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . . § 90.510, Fla. Stat. (2010). ." . . .

THESTREET. COM, INC. v. CARROLL,, 20 So. 3d 947 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 90.510, Fla. Stat. . . .

CHOMAT v. NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, 919 So. 2d 535 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . privileged communication is properly viewed as a communication necessary to an adverse party under section 90.510 . . .

STATE v. FAMIGLIETTI,, 817 So. 2d 901 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . The defendant argues that disclosure is authorized in this case by section 90.510, Florida Statutes, . . . which states: 90.510. . . . By its terms, section 90.510 does not apply. . . .

In KELLER FINANCIAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. O v. M. F. R., 259 B.R. 391 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . Plaintiff asserts that the Court should strike Keller’s answer and affirmative defenses pursuant to § 90.510 . . . The Plaintiff further contends that § 90.510 of the Florida Statutes supplies the applicable rule in . . . That section provides: 90.510. . . . In fact, the “sword and shield” principle has been acknowledged in specific connection with § 90.510 . . . Neither case refers to § 90.510 of the Florida Statutes. . . .

MYRON, a By BROCK B. B. v. DOCTORS GENERAL HOSPITAL, LTD. D B A N K A D. O. D. O. J. M. D. J. M. D. P. A. D. M. D. D. M. D. P. A. P. A. D B A D B A F. M. D. M. D. P. A. D B A M. D. M. D. P. A. D B A D B A D B A M. D. P. A., 704 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The appellees then moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to section 90.510, Florida Statutes (1993 . . . report was confidential and was exempt from disclosure, even from the courts and the parents, section 90.510 . . .

In FORFEITURE OF U. S. CURRENCY. BOND, v. EAGAN,, 522 So. 2d 408 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . trial court’s order and final judgment were specifically based on the adverse application of section 90.510 . . . We reverse and hold that section 90.510 does not apply in a forfeiture case where the state claims privileged . . . Section 90.510 was enacted by Chapter 76-237, section 1, Laws of Florida (eff. . . . Therefore, section 90.510 was inapplicable to Bond’s claim. . . . Although courts have not had the opportunity to discuss application or interpretation of section 90.510 . . .

KADET v. DAYTONA TIMES, INC., 12 Fla. Supp. 2d 106 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985)

. . . In addition, section 90.510, Florida Statutes (1983), requires plaintiffs in libel cases to make a choice . . .

AFFILIATED OF FLORIDA, INC. a v. U- NEED SUNDRIES, INC. R. A., 397 So. 2d 764 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . They asked the court, pursuant to section 90.510, Florida Statutes (1979), to inspect the documents which . . . The court held a hearing on the motion at which it ruled that section 90.510 was inapplicable since the . . . J., and DAN-AHY, J., concur. . 90.510 Privileged communication necessary to adverse party. — In any civil . . .