Cases from cite.case.law:

JAX UTILITIES MANAGEMENT, INC. v. HANCOCK BANK, A LLC, A, 164 So. 3d 1266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . .”); § 517.241(2), Fla. . . .

In INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 954 F. Supp. 81 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . . § 78r) and Sections 517.241 and 517.301 of the Florida Securities Act, has previously consented to . . .

T. McDONOUGH, D. L. J. V. A. H. Jr. R. C. v. AMERICOM INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION n k a E., 151 F.R.D. 140 (M.D. Fla. 1993)

. . . 10b-5, violations of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act at Florida Statutes sections 517.241 . . .

C. PALMER, v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. E. YOUNG, W. v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., 622 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . See, e.g., § 517.241, Pla.Stat. (1983). . . . Subsection 517.241(2) provides that, ”[N]oth-ing in this chapter shall limit any statutory or common-law . . . Similar provisions in slightly different words are carried forward in section 517.241, Florida Statutes . . .

PALM COURT, INC. v. DURHAM,, 47 Fla. Supp. 2d 135 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . Reliance is an element of a plaintiffs action for damages under sections 517.301 and 517.241(3), Florida . . .

In ROSPATCH SECURITIES LITIGATION. ATLANTIS GROUP, INC. v. ROSPATCH CORPORATION, PLATO PAPER PRODUCTS, INC. v. ROSPATCH CORPORATION, ATCOVITZ, v. J. BEADLE, FREBERG, v. ROSPATCH CORPORATION,, 760 F. Supp. 1239 (W.D. Mich. 1991)

. . . . § 517.241(3) provides: (3) The same civil remedies provided by laws of the United States for the purchasers . . . However, Rousseff dealt with Fla.Stat. § 517.211 and not § 517.241(3). . . .

J. KANE, J. P. A. J. F. J. P. A. v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. f k a, 916 F.2d 643 (11th Cir. 1990)

. . . . § 517.241 (stating that “the same civil remedies provided by laws of the United States for the purchasers . . .

BARNEBEY, v. E. F. HUTTON CO., 715 F. Supp. 1512 (M.D. Fla. 1989)

. . . . § 517.241(3) provides: The same civil remedies provided by laws of the United States for the purchasers . . .

MELAMED, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER SMITH, INC., 476 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1985)

. . . We also have jurisdiction because Melamed declared subsection 517.241(2), Florida Statutes (1983), invalid . . .

OPPENHEIMER CO. INC. v. YOUNG,, 456 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1984)

. . . I dissent because I do not believe that section 517.241(3), which incorporates into Florida law the civil . . . If the Florida legislature intended to provide anti-waiver protection through section 517.241(3), it . . . Petitioner first urges that section 517.241, Florida Statutes (1981) does not contain an express prohibition . . .

MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER AND SMITH, INC. a v. MELAMED,, 453 So. 2d 858 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Thus, under the authority of Keating, we hold that section 517.241(2), Florida Statutes (1983) is constitutionally . . .

I. SABATES, M. D. I. M. D. P. A. v. INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CENTERS, INC. a a a d b a Jr., 450 So. 2d 514 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Antitrust Act of 1980, unlike the Florida Securities Act, compare § 542.30, Fla.Stat. (1981), with § 517.241 . . .

EATON, v. COAL PAR OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., 580 F. Supp. 572 (S.D. Fla. 1984)

. . . Section 517.241 is the general remedies provision of the Act, providing in pertinent part that “any person . . . StatAnn. § 517.241(2) (West Supp.1983). . . . Section 517.241 provides in its entirety: (1) Any person aggrieved by a final order of the department . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 517.241 (West Supp.1983). . . . .

YOUNG, v. OPPENHEIMER COMPANY, INC., 434 So. 2d 369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . arbitration of such claims is inconsistent with the Florida Securities Act is made clear by Section 517.241 . . . Beach Condominium Association, Inc., 394 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). .The Florida Securities Act, § 517.241 . . . (2), (3) and (4), Fla.Stat. (1981) provides: 517.241 Remedies.— (2) Nothing in this chapter shall limit . . . We respectfully disagree, and find that the provisions of Sections 517.241(2) and (3) are specific counterparts . . . agreement involving securities transactions in interstate commerce would be unenforceable under Sections 517.241 . . .