Florida Statute 540.01 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 540
COMMERCIAL DISCRIMINATION

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 540.01

540.01 Unfair discrimination and competition prohibited; definition of commodity.—

(1) Any person doing business in the state, and engaged in the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of any commodity in general use, that shall, for the purpose of destroying the business of a competitor in any locality, discriminate between different sections, communities, or cities of this state by selling such commodity at a lower rate in one section, community or city, than is charged for said commodity by said party in another section, community or city, after making due allowance for the difference, if any, in the grade or quality and in the actual cost of transportation from the point of production, if a raw product, or from the point of manufacture, if a manufactured product, shall be deemed guilty of unfair discrimination, which is declared unlawful; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent discrimination in prices in the same or different sections, communities, or cities of this state made in good faith in an amount necessary to meet competition.

(2) As used in this chapter the word “commodity” shall include any article, product, thing of value, service or output of a service trade.

History.—s. 1, ch. 6945, 1915; RGS 2517; CGL 3939; s. 1, ch. 61-323; s. 1, ch. 67-485.

F.S. 540.01 on Google Scholar

F.S. 540.01 on Casetext

Amendments to 540.01

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 540.01

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S540.01 - ANTITRUST - UNFAIR COMMERCIAL DISCRIMINATION COMPETITION - M: F

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 540.01

Total Results: 20

BARTON PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES v. ISADORA REDMON, etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-08-09

Snippet: pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.540, 1.820 and 1.090. Allied attached sworn affidavits

Department of Revenue ex rel. Williams v. Annis

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-03-04

Citation: 159 So. 3d 263, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2969, 2015 WL 894331

Snippet: to rule 1.540(a) and Florida Family Law Rule 12.540.1 While noting that the use of a median wage level

National City Bank v. White

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-05-01

Citation: 112 So. 3d 663, 2013 WL 1810601, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6940

Snippet: requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Procedure 2.540.1 On April 1, 2010 counsel for the plaintiff and for

Toler v. BANK OF AMERICA, NAT. ASS'N

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-02-01

Citation: 78 So. 3d 699, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1329, 2012 WL 280379

Snippet: Procedure R. 1010, cmt. 010.1[1], R. 1.540, cmt. 540.1 (2011-2012 ed.). Given the statute's plain language

Kozich v. Keller

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-10-29

Citation: 10 So. 3d 1102, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 17208, 2008 WL 4724308

Snippet: pursuant to Florida Rules *1103 of Civil Procedure 1.540, 1.550, and 1.560, was itself a violation of the 1998

Net One, LLC v. CHRISTIAN TELECOM NETWORK

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-05-20

Citation: 901 So. 2d 417, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7538

Snippet: default must establish three things under Rule 1.540:(1) excusable neglect; (2) a meritorious defense;

Chancey v. Chancey

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-09-03

Citation: 880 So. 2d 1281, 2004 WL 1948649

Snippet: referencing Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.[1] The court denied his motion on February 12, 2003

Suppa v. Suppa

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-04-16

Citation: 871 So. 2d 988, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5242, 2004 WL 813179

Snippet: pursuant *989to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.1 Wife made, inter alia, the following allegations:

Higbee v. Higbee

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-04-02

Citation: 871 So. 2d 970, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 4334, 2004 WL 689292

Snippet: more strict standard of review set forth in Rule 1.540,1 would reverse the order and remand for a new hearing

Anderson v. Anderson

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2003-01-09

Citation: 845 So. 2d 870, 2003 WL 60544

Snippet: motion, pursuant to Florida Family *871 Law Rule 12.540,[1] for relief from the dissolution judgment and his

Mahmoud v. King

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-07-31

Citation: 824 So. 2d 248, 2002 WL 1758246

Snippet: and thus also the summary judgment, under rule 1.540.[1] At the evidentiary hearing on the motion, defendants

DF v. Department of Revenue Ex Rel. LF

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-06-06

Citation: 823 So. 2d 97, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 549, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1162, 2002 WL 1206757

Snippet: provisions of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.[1] Rule 1.540 states in relevant part: (b) Mistakes;

Landis v. Landis

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-04-18

Citation: 785 So. 2d 599, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5150, 2001 WL 388017

Snippet: properly entertained by the court, Fla.Fam.L.R.P. 12.540 1 the wife’s allegation was merely conclusory and

Gostyla v. Gostyla

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1998-04-08

Citation: 708 So. 2d 674, 1998 WL 158658

Snippet: pursuant to Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540.[1] We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing

Smith-Adam v. Komer

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1996-05-29

Citation: 673 So. 2d 991, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5520, 1996 WL 280032

Snippet: motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.1 Donaldson Engineering, Inc. v. City of Plantation

Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davis

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-12-15

Citation: 629 So. 2d 259, 1993 WL 517243

Snippet: cases in which relief has been granted under rule 1.540[1] involve cases where the parties had not had a trial

A.G. Holly State Hospital v. Kaiser

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-03-13

Citation: 577 So. 2d 612, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2250, 1991 WL 35445

Snippet: Tri-State Motor Transit Company v. Judy, 566 So.2d 537, 540-1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), that an inflation factor should

Curbelo v. Ullman

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-12-06

Citation: 571 So. 2d 443, 1990 WL 198319

Snippet: question of whether Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540[1] is a proper vehicle to set aside a judgment for

Lee v. Chung

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1988-08-03

Citation: 528 So. 2d 1313, 1988 WL 80910

Snippet: pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.[1] We reverse. This appeal stems from a lawsuit[2]

FLORIDA NAT. BANK v. Domanska

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1986-04-22

Citation: 486 So. 2d 1384, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 951

Snippet: judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.[1]Cf. Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division of Administration