Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 542.20 (2025)
Exemptions.
✓ 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
1542.20 Exemptions.—Any activity or conduct exempt under Florida statutory or common law or exempt from the provisions of the antitrust laws of the United States is exempt from the provisions of this part.
1Note.—Amended by s. 6, 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 18
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case: Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. City of New London, 873 A.2d 965 (Conn. 2005).
Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. City of New London, 873 A.2d 965 (Conn. 2005). “' § 542.20, Fla. Stat. (1995). Thus, the doctrine of state action immunity which has developed under federal antitrust law is also an available defense to a suit against a municipality for a violation of Florida's antitrust laws.”
Major League Baseball, Alan H. Selig, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, LTD., Florida Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Charlie Crist, 331 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2003). “See Fla. Stat. § 542.20 . It is perhaps misleading to say that Florida law is "preempted" by federal law when both laws should be read coterminously.”
Williams Elec. Co., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 1225 (N.D. Fla. 1991). “Accordingly, Honeywell’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the federal antitrust claims, Counts I through V.”
Duck Tours Seafari, Inc. v. City of Key West, 875 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). “" [3] § 542.20, Fla. Stat. (1995). Thus, the doctrine of state action immunity which has developed under federal antitrust law is also an available defense to a suit against a municipality for a violation of Florida's antitrust laws.”
Major League Baseball v. Butterworth, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Fla. 2001). “§ 542.20, Fla. Stat. (2001). The Florida legislature adopted this provision in 1980, just eight years after Flood v.”
Bobby Auton, Etc. v. Dade City, Florida, a Mun. Corp., 783 F.2d 1009 (11th Cir. 1986). “…to do so, however, because conduct exempt under federal antitrust law is also exempt from Fla.Stat. Ch. 542. Fla.Stat. § 542.20 (1985).”
Golta, Inc. v. Greater Orlando Aviation Auth., 761 F. Supp. 778 (M.D. Fla. 1991). “” Fla.Stat. § 542.20 (1989); Auton v. Dade City, 783 F.”
Haines v. Verimed Healthcare Network, LLC, 613 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (E.D. Mo. 2009). “" Fla. Stat. 542.20. Because VeriMed is exempt from antitrust liability under Haines' federal claims, Haines' Florida antitrust claims must similarly fail.”
Falls Chase Special Taxing Dist. Elba, Inc. Sunshine Land Dev., Inc. & E. Lamar Bailey Assocs. v. City of Tallahassee, 788 F.2d 711 (11th Cir. 1986). “Fla.Stat. § 542.20 (1985). See Auton v. Dade City, 783 F.”
Amis v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 1121 (M.D. Fla. 1983). “§§ 542.20, 542.32. In counts eleven and twelve, plaintiffs purport to state causes of action under “Florida Statuatory (sic) Law” and under “common law principles.”
Sebring Utils. Com'n v. Home Sav. Ass'n, 508 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). “The Commission correctly points out that section 542.20, Florida Statutes (1983), of the Florida Antitrust Act provides any activity or conduct exempt under federal antitrust law is also exempt from the Florida Antitrust Act.”
Jet 1 Ctr., Inc. v. City of Naples Airport Auth. (In Re Jet 1 Ctr., Inc.), 322 B.R. 182 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005). “However, one does not have to rely on this analogy to conclude that the Debtor has no viable claims against the Authority under the relevant Florida Statutes because Florida expressly provides in § 542.”
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.