Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 112.3187 (2025)

Adverse action against employee for disclosing information of specified nature prohibited; employee remedy and relief.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

112.3187 Adverse action against employee for disclosing information of specified nature prohibited; employee remedy and relief.—

(1) SHORT TITLE.—Sections 112.3187-112.31895 may be cited as the “Whistle-blower’s Act.”

(2) LEGISLATIVE INTENT.—It is the intent of the Legislature to prevent agencies or independent contractors from taking retaliatory action against an employee who reports to an appropriate agency violations of law on the part of a public employer or independent contractor that create a substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, safety, or welfare. It is further the intent of the Legislature to prevent agencies or independent contractors from taking retaliatory action against any person who discloses information to an appropriate agency alleging improper use of governmental office, gross waste of funds, or any other abuse or gross neglect of duty on the part of an agency, public officer, or employee.

(3) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this act, unless otherwise specified, the following words or terms shall have the meanings indicated:

(a) “Adverse personnel action” means the discharge, suspension, transfer, or demotion of any employee or the withholding of bonuses, the reduction in salary or benefits, or any other adverse action taken against an employee within the terms and conditions of employment by an agency or independent contractor.

(b) “Agency” means any state, regional, county, local, or municipal government entity, whether executive, judicial, or legislative; any official, officer, department, division, bureau, commission, authority, or political subdivision therein; or any public school, community college, or state university.

(c) “Employee” means a person who performs services for, and under the control and direction of, or contracts with, an agency or independent contractor for wages or other remuneration.

(d) “Gross mismanagement” means a continuous pattern of managerial abuses, wrongful or arbitrary and capricious actions, or fraudulent or criminal conduct which may have a substantial adverse economic impact.

(e) “Independent contractor” means a person, other than an agency, engaged in any business and who enters into a contract, including a provider agreement, with an agency.

(4) ACTIONS PROHIBITED.—

(a) An agency or independent contractor shall not dismiss, discipline, or take any other adverse personnel action against an employee for disclosing information pursuant to the provisions of this section.

(b) An agency or independent contractor shall not take any adverse action that affects the rights or interests of a person in retaliation for the person’s disclosure of information under this section.

(c) The provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable when an employee or person discloses information known by the employee or person to be false.

(5) NATURE OF INFORMATION DISCLOSED.—The information disclosed under this section must include:

(a) Any violation or suspected violation of any federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor which creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, safety, or welfare.

(b) Any act or suspected act of gross mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, suspected or actual Medicaid fraud or abuse, or gross neglect of duty committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor.

(6) TO WHOM INFORMATION DISCLOSED.—The information disclosed under this section must be disclosed to any agency or federal government entity having the authority to investigate, police, manage, or otherwise remedy the violation or act, including, but not limited to, the Office of the Chief Inspector General, an agency inspector general or the employee designated as agency inspector general under s. 112.3189(1) or inspectors general under s. 20.055, the Florida Commission on Human Relations, and the whistle-blower’s hotline created under s. 112.3189. However, for disclosures concerning a local governmental entity, including any regional, county, or municipal entity, special district, community college district, or school district or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing, the information must be disclosed to a chief executive officer as defined in s. 447.203(9) or other appropriate local official.

(7) EMPLOYEES AND PERSONS PROTECTED.—This section protects employees and persons who disclose information on their own initiative in a written and signed complaint; who are requested to participate in an investigation, hearing, or other inquiry conducted by any agency or federal government entity; who refuse to participate in any adverse action prohibited by this section; or who initiate a complaint through the whistle-blower’s hotline or the hotline of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Department of Legal Affairs; or employees who file any written complaint to their supervisory officials or employees who submit a complaint to the Chief Inspector General in the Executive Office of the Governor, to the employee designated as agency inspector general under s. 112.3189(1), or to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. The provisions of this section may not be used by a person while he or she is under the care, custody, or control of the state correctional system or, after release from the care, custody, or control of the state correctional system, with respect to circumstances that occurred during any period of incarceration. No remedy or other protection under ss. 112.3187-112.31895 applies to any person who has committed or intentionally participated in committing the violation or suspected violation for which protection under ss. 112.3187-112.31895 is being sought.

(8) REMEDIES.—

(a) Any employee of or applicant for employment with any state agency, as the term “state agency” is defined in s. 216.011, who is discharged, disciplined, or subjected to other adverse personnel action, or denied employment, because he or she engaged in an activity protected by this section may file a complaint, which complaint must be made in accordance with s. 112.31895. Upon receipt of notice from the Florida Commission on Human Relations of termination of the investigation, the complainant may elect to pursue the administrative remedy available under s. 112.31895 or bring a civil action within 180 days after receipt of the notice.

(b) Within 60 days after the action prohibited by this section, any local public employee protected by this section may file a complaint with the appropriate local governmental authority, if that authority has established by ordinance an administrative procedure for handling such complaints or has contracted with the Division of Administrative Hearings under s. 120.65 to conduct hearings under this section. The administrative procedure created by ordinance must provide for the complaint to be heard by a panel of impartial persons appointed by the appropriate local governmental authority. Upon hearing the complaint, the panel must make findings of fact and conclusions of law for a final decision by the local governmental authority. Within 180 days after entry of a final decision by the local governmental authority, the public employee who filed the complaint may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If the local governmental authority has not established an administrative procedure by ordinance or contract, a local public employee may, within 180 days after the action prohibited by this section, bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction. For the purpose of this paragraph, the term “local governmental authority” includes any regional, county, or municipal entity, special district, community college district, or school district or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing.

(c) Any other person protected by this section may, after exhausting all available contractual or administrative remedies, bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction within 180 days after the action prohibited by this section.

(9) RELIEF.—In any action brought under this section, the relief must include the following:

(a) Reinstatement of the employee to the same position held before the adverse action was commenced, or to an equivalent position or reasonable front pay as alternative relief.

(b) Reinstatement of the employee’s full fringe benefits and seniority rights, as appropriate.

(d) Payment of reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees, to a substantially prevailing employee, or to the prevailing employer if the employee filed a frivolous action in bad faith.

(e) Issuance of an injunction, if appropriate, by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(f) Temporary reinstatement to the employee’s former position or to an equivalent position, pending the final outcome on the complaint, if an employee complains of being discharged in retaliation for a protected disclosure and if a court of competent jurisdiction or the Florida Commission on Human Relations, as applicable under s. 112.31895, determines that the disclosure was not made in bad faith or for a wrongful purpose or occurred after an agency’s initiation of a personnel action against the employee which includes documentation of the employee’s violation of a disciplinary standard or performance deficiency. This paragraph does not apply to an employee of a municipality.

(10) DEFENSES.—It shall be an affirmative defense to any action brought pursuant to this section that the adverse action was predicated upon grounds other than, and would have been taken absent, the employee’s or person’s exercise of rights protected by this section.

(11) EXISTING RIGHTS.—Sections 112.3187-112.31895 do not diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of an employee under any other law or rule or under any collective bargaining agreement or employment contract; however, the election of remedies in s. 447.401 also applies to whistle-blower actions.

History.—ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ch. 86-233; s. 1, ch. 91-285; s. 12, ch. 92-316; s. 1, ch. 93-57; s. 702, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 95-153; s. 15, ch. 96-410; s. 20, ch. 99-333; s. 2, ch. 2002-400; s. 37, ch. 2023-8.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 182 cases (51 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Allocco v. City of Coral Gables, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Allocco v. City of Coral Gables, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2002). · cites it 25× “(against UM); count VII, violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process rights (against the City); count VIII, violation of Florida’s public whistleblower statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 112.3187 (against UM and the City); and count IX, violation of 42 U.”

Igwe v. City of Miami, 208 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). · cites it 19× “Victor Igwe (“Igwe”) appeals the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment in favor of the City of Miami (“the City”), disposing of Igwe’s retaliatory discharge claim, which was brought pursuant to section 112.3187, Florida Statutes (2011) (“the Whistle-blower’s Act” or “the…”

Rice-Lamar v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 853 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). · cites it 12× “This appeal arises from an action by Deborah Rice-Lamar (Lamar) against the City of Fort Lauderdale (City) pursuant to the Florida Whistleblower Act, section 112.3187, Florida Statutes (Supp.”

Caldwell v. Florida Dep't of Elder Affairs, 121 So. 3d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). · cites it 19× “3187, Florida Statutes, in turn, prohibits an employer from taking retaliatory action against an employee who discloses information of a specified nature and discloses that information in a specified manner. The Act protects information disclosed about “[a]ny act or suspected…”

Bradshaw v. Bott, 205 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). · cites it 18× “§ 112.3187, Fla. Stat. (2012). . Petitioner originally filed the petition as one for prohibition.”

Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States Ex Rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (2005). · cites it 4× “103 (2) (Lexis 2004) (90-day limitations period for certain whistle-blower actions); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 112.3187 (8)(a) (2003) (180-day limitations period); Hughes Aircraft Co.”

Barbara Rustowicz v. North Broward Hosp. Dist. n/k/a Broward Health, 174 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). · cites it 14× “The section pertinent to this appeal is section 112.3187. 2 . Sections 760.01-760.”

Martin Cnty. v. Edenfield, 609 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1992). · cites it 13× “§ 112.3187(10), Fla. Stat. (1989). Although Martin County urges us to find ambiguity in the statute, we believe the language is plain and supports the conclusions reached by the district court.”

Tillery v. Florida Dep't of Juv. Just., 104 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). · cites it 13× “The Act further establishes that: [I]f a disclosure under § 112.3187 includes or results in alleged retaliation by an employer, the employee or former employee of .”

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). · cites it 2× “29, § 5115 (2003); Fla. Stat. § 112.3187 (2003); Haw. Rev. Stat.”

Irven v. Dep't of Health & Rehab., 790 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2001). · cites it 8× “§ 112.3187, Fla.Stat. (1993) (emphasis added).”

Castro v. Sch. Bd., 903 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (M.D. Fla. 2012). · cites it 13× “He also alleges that the School Board terminated his employment in retaliation for filing complaints against the School Board, in violation of the Florida Public Sector Whistle-blower Act, Fla. Stat. § 112.3187 (“FWA”). As explained below, the undisputed evidence shows that…”

Show all 182 citing cases →

— 112.3187(1) — 2 cases

McShea v. Sch. Bd., 58 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (M.D. Fla. 2014).

Allen v. Florida Intern. Univ., 981 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

— 112.3187(10) — 5 cases

Martin Cnty. v. Edenfield, 609 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1992). “§ 112.3187(10), Fla. Stat. (1989). Although Martin County urges us to find ambiguity in the statute, we believe the language is plain and supports the conclusions reached by the district court.”

Janette Nazzal v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 267 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Competelli v. City of Belleair Bluffs, 113 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

City of Hollywood v. Witt, 789 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Wallace v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., Fla., 41 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D. Fla. 1998).

— 112.3187(11) — 3 cases

Dahl v. Eckerd Fam. Youth Alternatives, Inc., 843 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Taylor v. Pub. Employees Relations Com'n, 878 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Dept. of Health & Rehab. v. Irven, 724 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

— 112.3187(2) — 25 cases

Igwe v. City of Miami, 208 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “Victor Igwe (“Igwe”) appeals the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment in favor of the City of Miami (“the City”), disposing of Igwe’s retaliatory discharge claim, which was brought pursuant to section 112.3187, Florida Statutes (2011) (“the Whistle-blower’s Act” or “the…”

Caldwell v. Florida Dep't of Elder Affairs, 121 So. 3d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “3187, Florida Statutes, in turn, prohibits an employer from taking retaliatory action against an employee who discloses information of a specified nature and discloses that information in a specified manner. The Act protects information disclosed about “[a]ny act or suspected…”

Rice-Lamar v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 853 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “This appeal arises from an action by Deborah Rice-Lamar (Lamar) against the City of Fort Lauderdale (City) pursuant to the Florida Whistleblower Act, section 112.3187, Florida Statutes (Supp.”

Irven v. Dep't of Health & Rehab., 790 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2001). “§ 112.3187, Fla.Stat. (1993) (emphasis added).”

Tillery v. Florida Dep't of Juv. Just., 104 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “The Act further establishes that: [I]f a disclosure under § 112.3187 includes or results in alleged retaliation by an employer, the employee or former employee of .”

— 112.3187(3)(a) — 10 cases

Bradshaw v. Bott, 205 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “§ 112.3187, Fla. Stat. (2012). . Petitioner originally filed the petition as one for prohibition.”

Kogan v. Israel, 211 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. Co., 645 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Caldwell v. Bd. of Trs. Broward Cmty. Coll., 858 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

— 112.3187(3)(b) — 5 cases

Bradshaw v. Bott, 205 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “§ 112.3187, Fla. Stat. (2012). . Petitioner originally filed the petition as one for prohibition.”

Lindamood v. Off. of State Attorney, 731 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Vonceil Bradford v. Florida A & M Univ. Bd. of Trs., 272 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Dolch v. Sixth Jud. Circuit Court of Florida (M.D. Fla. 2025).

— 112.3187(3)(c) — 7 cases

Fox v. City of Pompano Beach, 984 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Milton, 707 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Amador v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 830 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Lindamood v. Off. of State Attorney, 731 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Pritz v. Sch. Bd. of Hernando Cnty., 260 So. 3d 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

— 112.3187(3)(d) — 1 case

Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. Co., 645 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

— 112.3187(3)(e) — 1 case

Perez v. City of Opa-Locka (S.D. Fla. 2023).

— 112.3187(4) — 9 cases

State, Dot v. Fla. Com'n on Human Relations, 842 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Janette Nazzal v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 267 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Stanton v. Florida Dep't of Health, 129 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

City of Hollywood v. Witt, 939 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

— 112.3187(4)(a) — 10 cases

Fox v. City of Pompano Beach, 984 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Kogan v. Israel, 211 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Milton, 707 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Rehman v. Florida Dept. of Law Enf't, 681 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Harris v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Polk Cmty. Coll., 981 F. Supp. 1459 (M.D. Fla. 1997).

— 112.3187(4)(b) — 1 case

Shed v. Univ. of South Florida Bd. of Trs. (M.D. Fla. 2023).

— 112.3187(4)(c) — 1 case

Vickaryous v. Mason Classical Academy, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2022).

— 112.3187(5) — 21 cases

Irven v. Dep't of Health & Rehab., 790 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2001). “§ 112.3187, Fla.Stat. (1993) (emphasis added).”

Rosa v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 915 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Robet Shaw v. Town of Lake Clarke Shores, 174 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

— 112.3187(5)(a) — 11 cases

Graddy v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 237 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (M.D. Fla. 2017).

Kogan v. Israel, 211 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. Co., 645 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Kearns v. Farmer Acquisition Co., 157 So. 3d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

Dept. of Health & Rehab. v. Irven, 724 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

— 112.3187(5)(b) — 4 cases

Fernandez v. Bal Harbour Vill., 49 F. Supp. 3d 1144 (S.D. Fla. 2014).

Lavallee v. Chronister (M.D. Fla. 2021).

— 112.3187(6) — 21 cases

Quintini v. Panama City Hous. Auth., 102 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Barbara Rustowicz v. North Broward Hosp. Dist. n/k/a Broward Health, 174 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “The section pertinent to this appeal is section 112.3187. 2 . Sections 760.01-760.”

— 112.3187(7) — 24 cases

Barbara Rustowicz v. North Broward Hosp. Dist. n/k/a Broward Health, 174 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “The section pertinent to this appeal is section 112.3187. 2 . Sections 760.01-760.”

City of Hollywood v. Witt, 939 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Bradshaw v. Bott, 205 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “§ 112.3187, Fla. Stat. (2012). . Petitioner originally filed the petition as one for prohibition.”

— 112.3187(8) — 13 cases

Bradshaw v. Bott, 205 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “§ 112.3187, Fla. Stat. (2012). . Petitioner originally filed the petition as one for prohibition.”

Janette Nazzal v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 267 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Univ. of Cent. Florida Bd. of Trs. v. Turkiewicz, 21 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Allocco v. City of Coral Gables, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2002). “(against UM); count VII, violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process rights (against the City); count VIII, violation of Florida’s public whistleblower statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 112.3187 (against UM and the City); and count IX, violation of 42 U.”

— 112.3187(8)(a) — 12 cases

Robinson v. Dep't of Health, 89 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Univ. of Cent. Florida Bd. of Trs. v. Turkiewicz, 21 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Lindamood v. Off. of State Attorney, 731 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

— 112.3187(8)(b) — 19 cases

Bradshaw v. Bott, 205 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “§ 112.3187, Fla. Stat. (2012). . Petitioner originally filed the petition as one for prohibition.”

The Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty., Florida v. Stephanie Woodford, 270 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Fox v. City of Pompano Beach, 984 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Dinehart v. Town of Palm Beach, 728 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Pintado v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Hous. Agency, 20 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

— 112.3187(8)(c) — 1 case

Dahl v. Eckerd Fam. Youth Alternatives, Inc., 843 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

— 112.3187(9) — 8 cases

O'Neal v. Fla. a & M Univ. Ex Rel. Bd. of Trs., 989 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Tracey-Meddoff v. J. Altman Hair & Beauty, 899 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Lindamood v. Off. of State Attorney, 731 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Amador v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 830 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Marchetti v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 117 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

— 112.3187(9)(a) — 5 cases

Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Milton, 707 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty. v. Gary Groover (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Hamway v. The Sch. Bd. of Lee Cnty., Florida (M.D. Fla. 2022).

State of Florida, Agency for Persons With Disabilities v. Sally Toal (Fla. 1st DCA 2025).

Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Dr. David Fintan Garavan (Fla. 3d DCA 2026).

— 112.3187(9)(c) — 3 cases

O'Neal v. Fla. a & M Univ. Ex Rel. Bd. of Trs., 989 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Fox v. City of Pompano Beach, 984 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Florida Dep't of Child. & Families v. Herstein (Fla. 1st DCA 2025).

— 112.3187(9)(d) — 2 cases

McGregor v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 130 F.R.D. 464 (S.D. Fla. 1990).

Florida Dep't of Child. & Families v. Herstein (Fla. 1st DCA 2025).

— 112.3187(9)(f) — 15 cases

Marchetti v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 117 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

State, Dot v. Fla. Com'n on Human Relations, 842 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Luster v. West Palm Beach Hous. Auth., 801 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Milton, 707 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Pritz v. Sch. Bd. of Hernando Cnty., 260 So. 3d 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

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.