Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 542.32 (2025)
Rule of construction and coverage.
✓ 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
1542.32 Rule of construction and coverage.—It is the intent of the Legislature that, in construing this part, due consideration and great weight be given to the interpretations of the federal courts relating to comparable federal antitrust statutes. In particular, the failure to include in this part the substantive provisions of s. 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 14, shall not be deemed in any way to limit the scope of s. 542.18 or s. 542.19.
1Note.—Amended by s. 18, 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 25
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: MacK v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 673 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
MacK v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 673 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). “Because the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and the rest of the putative class are indirect purchasers of infant formula, it fails to state a cause of action under the Florida Antitrust Act, Chapter 542, Florida Statutes (1993).”
St. Petersburg Yacht Charters v. Morgan Yacht, 457 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “Section 542.32, Florida Statutes (1981), provides: Rule of construction and coverage.”
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2004). “2d DCA 1984); § 542.32, Fla. Stat.; All Care Nursing Serv.”
Sabates v. Int'l Med. Centers, Inc., 450 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). “There is, however, abundant federal authority dealing with the subject of the arbitrability vel non of comparable federal antitrust claims, to which authority we must give "due consideration and great weight" in construing this state's antitrust law.”
MYD Marine Distrib., Inc. v. Int'l Paint Ltd., 76 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). “” See § 542.32, Fla. Stat. (2005). Therefore, we “look to federal cases to elucidate what is an agreement in restraint of trade and what proof constitutes a conspiracy.”
Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “See Fla. Stat. § 542.32 ; also Levine v. Cent.”
All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. High Tech Staffing Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 740 (11th Cir. 1998). “Fla. Stat. § 542.32 ("It is the intent of the Legislature that, in construing this chapter, due consideration prohibiting restraints on trade.”
Parts Depot Co. v. Florida Auto Supply, 669 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). “§ 542.32, Fla.Stat. (1989). Therefore, we look to federal cases to elucidate what is an agreement in restraint of trade and what proof constitutes a conspiracy.”
S. Card & Novelty, Inc. v. Lawson Mardon Label, Inc., 138 F.3d 869 (11th Cir. 1998). “See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 542.32 (West 1997); see also Parts Depot Co.”
Am. Credit Card Tel. Co. v. NAT. PAY TEL. CORP., 504 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). “NOTES [1] By section 542.32, the legislature has directed that in construing chapter 542, "due consideration and great weight be given to the interpretations of the federal courts" relating to the body of antitrust law developed under the Sherman Act.”
Hager v. Venice Hosp., Inc., 944 F. Supp. 1530 (M.D. Fla. 1996). “Florida’s statute regulating combinations in restraint of trade provides: “It is the intent of the Legislature that, in construing this chapter, due consideration and great weight be given to the interpretations of the federal courts relating to comparable federal antitrust…”
Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 694 F. Supp. 889 (S.D. Fla. 1988). “From the facts alleged in the complaint, it appears that the Plaintiff and NBC were either partners or joint venturers. In any case, their relationship is alleged to have been as follows, quoting paragraphs 16, 17 & 23 of the Complaint: 16.”
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.