542.15
Short title.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
1542.15 Short title.—This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Florida Antitrust Act of 1980.”
History.—s. 1, ch. 80-28; s. 3, ch. 2025-213.
1Note.—Amended by s. 3, ch. 2025-213, effective July 1, 2025, per s. 22, ch. 2025-213. Chapter 2025-213 became law without the Governor’s signature on July 3, 2025, per s. 8(a), Art. III of the State Constitution. In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor Request of June 29, 1979, 374 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1979), specifies the constitutional effective date in s. 9, Art. III of the State Constitution in this situation. The constitutional effective date is August 15, 2025, for ch. 2025-213.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: General Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A.
General Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A. (2002)
“§ 1125 (a); (6) violations of the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Fla.Stat. § 542.15, et. seq. (1999); (7) violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.”
Pierson v. Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems, Inc. (2009)
“§ 1 , 21 and the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Section 542.15, Florida Statutes, et seq.”
In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation (2009)
“The amended complaint does not reference the Florida Antitrust Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 542.15 et seq. The plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss, however, does rely in part on that statute.”
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC (2010)
“However, in their response to GSK’s motion to dismiss the Florida antitrust claim, plaintiffs clarify that they do not state a claim under the Florida antitrust statute, which is codified at Fla Stat. §§ 542.15, et seq., and instead assert a claim only under the consumer…”
Thomas A. Schopler, D.D.S. v. Rupert Bliss (1990)
“Schopler claimed defamation, intentional interference with business, and violation of the Florida Anti-Trust Act of 1980, Fla.Stat. §§ 542.15-542.36. Dr. Scho-pler demanded injunctive relief against all defendants and money damages against all defendants except the DPR.”
Bankers Insurance v. Florida Residential Property & Casualty Joint Underwriting Ass'n (1998)
“When those failed, it sued the Association and the committee that controlled the bidding process for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Fla. Stat. § 542.15 et seq. Bankers makes no monopoly- or monopsony-related claims under § 2 of the…”
KING DRUG CO. OF FLORENCE, INC. v. Cephalon, Inc. (2010)
“) Additionally, Defendants moved to dismiss the end payor class Plaintiffs’ claims under Florida’s antitrust statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 542.15 (West 2010), and the end payor class Plaintiffs did not respond to that portion of the motion.”
MYD Marine Distributor, Inc. v. International Paint Ltd. (2011)
“3 See § 542.15, Fla. Stat. (2005). Pursuant to section 542.”
Falls Chase Special Taxing District Elba, Inc. Sunshine Land Development, Inc. And E. Lamar Bailey Associates v. City of (1986)
“§§ 1-7 (1982), and the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Fla.Stat. §§ 542.15-.36 (1985), in attempting to acquire a monopoly over the provision of water and sewage treatment services in Leon County, and by tying the provision of sewage services to the provision of water services.”
Carrera, Annel v. United States (2025)
“§ 542.15(a). If the Regional Director rejects the AIC’s appeal, the Director must provide a written notice explaining the basis for the rejection.”
Abram v. Leu (2020)
“§ 542.15(a). If the inmate is dissatisfied with the Regional Director’s response to his appeal, he may submit a Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal to the General Counsel within 30 calendar days of the date the Regional Director signed the response – hereinafter referred…”
Ramdeo v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low (2020)
“Pursuant to § 542.15(a), if Ramdeo was not satisfied with the result of the regional director’s decision, he could have submitted an appeal to the General Counsel.”
— 542.15(a) — 7 cases
Abram v. Leu (2020)
“§ 542.15(a). If the inmate is dissatisfied with the Regional Director’s response to his appeal, he may submit a Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal to the General Counsel within 30 calendar days of the date the Regional Director signed the response – hereinafter referred…”
Ramdeo v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low (2020)
“Pursuant to § 542.15(a), if Ramdeo was not satisfied with the result of the regional director’s decision, he could have submitted an appeal to the General Counsel.”
Carrera, Annel v. United States (2025)
“§ 542.15(a). If the Regional Director rejects the AIC’s appeal, the Director must provide a written notice explaining the basis for the rejection.”
— 542.15(b) — 2 cases
Carrera, Annel v. United States (2025)
“§ 542.15(a). If the Regional Director rejects the AIC’s appeal, the Director must provide a written notice explaining the basis for the rejection.”
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.