Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 542.335 (2025)

Valid restraints of trade or commerce.

✓ 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

542.335 Valid restraints of trade or commerce.—

(1) Notwithstanding s. 542.18 and subsection (2), enforcement of contracts that restrict or prohibit competition during or after the term of restrictive covenants, so long as such contracts are reasonable in time, area, and line of business, is not prohibited. In any action concerning enforcement of a restrictive covenant:

(a) A court shall not enforce a restrictive covenant unless it is set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought.

(b) The person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant. The term “legitimate business interest” includes, but is not limited to:

1. Trade secrets, as defined in s. 688.002(4).

2. Valuable confidential business or professional information that otherwise does not qualify as trade secrets.

3. Substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, patients, or clients.

4. Customer, patient, or client goodwill associated with:

a. An ongoing business or professional practice, by way of trade name, trademark, service mark, or “trade dress”;

b. A specific geographic location; or

c. A specific marketing or trade area.

5. Extraordinary or specialized training.

Any restrictive covenant not supported by a legitimate business interest is unlawful and is void and unenforceable.

(c) A person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant also shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction. If a person seeking enforcement of the restrictive covenant establishes prima facie that the restraint is reasonably necessary, the person opposing enforcement has the burden of establishing that the contractually specified restraint is overbroad, overlong, or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect the established legitimate business interest or interests. If a contractually specified restraint is overbroad, overlong, or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests, a court shall modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interest or interests.

(d) In determining the reasonableness in time of a postterm restrictive covenant not predicated upon the protection of trade secrets, a court shall apply the following rebuttable presumptions:

1. In the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against a former employee, agent, or independent contractor, and not associated with the sale of all or a part of:

a. The assets of a business or professional practice, or

b. The shares of a corporation, or

c. A partnership interest, or

d. A limited liability company membership, or

e. An equity interest, of any other type, in a business or professional practice,

a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 6 months or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 2 years in duration.

2. In the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against a former distributor, dealer, franchisee, or licensee of a trademark or service mark and not associated with the sale of all or a part of:

a. The assets of a business or professional practice, or

b. The shares of a corporation, or

c. A partnership interest, or

d. A limited liability company membership, or

e. An equity interest, of any other type, in a business or professional practice,

a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 1 year or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 3 years in duration.

3. In the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against the seller of all or a part of:

a. The assets of a business or professional practice, or

b. The shares of a corporation, or

c. A partnership interest, or

d. A limited liability company membership, or

e. An equity interest, of any other type, in a business or professional practice,

a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 3 years or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 7 years in duration.

(e) In determining the reasonableness in time of a postterm restrictive covenant predicated upon the protection of trade secrets, a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint of 5 years or less and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint of more than 10 years. All such presumptions shall be rebuttable presumptions.

(f) The court shall not refuse enforcement of a restrictive covenant on the ground that the person seeking enforcement is a third-party beneficiary of such contract or is an assignee or successor to a party to such contract, provided:

1. In the case of a third-party beneficiary, the restrictive covenant expressly identified the person as a third-party beneficiary of the contract and expressly stated that the restrictive covenant was intended for the benefit of such person.

2. In the case of an assignee or successor, the restrictive covenant expressly authorized enforcement by a party’s assignee or successor.

(g) In determining the enforceability of a restrictive covenant, a court:

1. Shall not consider any individualized economic or other hardship that might be caused to the person against whom enforcement is sought.

2. May consider as a defense the fact that the person seeking enforcement no longer continues in business in the area or line of business that is the subject of the action to enforce the restrictive covenant only if such discontinuance of business is not the result of a violation of the restriction.

3. Shall consider all other pertinent legal and equitable defenses.

4. Shall consider the effect of enforcement upon the public health, safety, and welfare.

(h) A court shall construe a restrictive covenant in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests established by the person seeking enforcement. A court shall not employ any rule of contract construction that requires the court to construe a restrictive covenant narrowly, against the restraint, or against the drafter of the contract.

(i) No court may refuse enforcement of an otherwise enforceable restrictive covenant on the ground that the contract violates public policy unless such public policy is articulated specifically by the court and the court finds that the specified public policy requirements substantially outweigh the need to protect the legitimate business interest or interests established by the person seeking enforcement of the restraint.

(j) A court shall enforce a restrictive covenant by any appropriate and effective remedy, including, but not limited to, temporary and permanent injunctions. The violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury to the person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant. No temporary injunction shall be entered unless the person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant gives a proper bond, and the court shall not enforce any contractual provision waiving the requirement of an injunction bond or limiting the amount of such bond.

(k) In the absence of a contractual provision authorizing an award of attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party, a court may award attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in any action seeking enforcement of, or challenging the enforceability of, a restrictive covenant. A court shall not enforce any contractual provision limiting the court’s authority under this section.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted to legalize or make enforceable any restraint of trade or commerce otherwise illegal or unenforceable under the laws of the United States or of this state.

(3) This act shall apply prospectively, and it shall not apply in actions determining the enforceability of restrictive covenants entered into before July 1, 1996.

History.—ss. 1, 3, ch. 96-257.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 218 cases (59 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: & SC16-400 Elizabeth White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Florida, LLC., & Americare Home Therapy, Inc., etc. v. Carla Hiles, 226 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

& SC16-400 Elizabeth White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Florida, LLC., & Americare Home Therapy, Inc., etc. v. Carla Hiles, 226 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2017). · cites it 44× “Const, The issue presented-is whether home health service referral sources can be a protected legitimate business interest under section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2016).”

Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). · cites it 27× “§ 542.335, Fla. Stat. (2005); Henao, 929 So.”

Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon, 576 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2009). · cites it 18× “On appeal, Gordon challenges the district court’s grant of the injunction and the damages award. After Gordon filed a notice of appeal, the district court entered a separate judgment against Gordon, awarding Proudfoot 5,050.”

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). · cites it 29× “33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 964 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). · cites it 17× “[1] Dolgencorp moved for summary judgment, arguing that section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1998) rendered the grocery exclusive unenforceable against it because Dolgencorp was not a signatory to Winn-Dixie's lease.”

Autonation, Inc. v. O'BRIEN, 347 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2004). · cites it 16× “The Threat of Irreparable Injury If the Injunction Is Not Granted Once the party seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant establishes one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restriction, irreparable injury is “presumed” by the Court and the burden then…”

Henao v. Prof'l Shoe Repair, Inc., 929 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). · cites it 17× “33, however, was repealed with respect to restrictive covenants entered into or having an effective date on or after July 1, 1996, as a result of enactment, in 1996, of section 542.335, Florida Statutes, entitled "Valid restraints of trade or commerce.”

Bauer v. Dilib, Inc., 16 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). · cites it 22× “335 as a whole, we must read subsection (l)(k) in context with subsection (l)(a), which states, “A court shall not enforce a restrictive covenant unless it is set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought.”

Corp. Exp. Off. Prods., Inc. v. Phillips, 847 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2003). · cites it 9× “33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”

Whitby v. Infinity Radio Inc., 951 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). · cites it 12× “[5] Appellants argue that the trial court erred in applying section 542.335, and not its predecessor, section 542.”

Partylite Gifts, Inc. v. MacMillan, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (M.D. Fla. 2012). · cites it 21× “Fla. Stat. § 542.335 (l)(b) and (c). 12 If the party seeking enforcement of the restrictive covenant establishes a prima facie ease, the party opposing enforcement has the burden of establishing that the contractually specified restraint is overbroad, overlong, or otherwise not…”

Milner Voice & Data, Inc. v. Tassy, 377 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2005). · cites it 25× “1989); Fla Stat. § 542.335. The existence of irreparable harm is presumed if intentional breach of an enforceable restrictive covenant is shown.”

Show all 218 citing cases →

— 542.335(1) — 26 cases

Supinski v. Omni Healthcare, Pa, 853 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). “§ 542.335, Fla. Stat. (2005); Henao, 929 So.”

Whitby v. Infinity Radio Inc., 951 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “[5] Appellants argue that the trial court erred in applying section 542.335, and not its predecessor, section 542.”

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 964 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “[1] Dolgencorp moved for summary judgment, arguing that section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1998) rendered the grocery exclusive unenforceable against it because Dolgencorp was not a signatory to Winn-Dixie's lease.”

& SC16-400 Elizabeth White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Florida, LLC., & Americare Home Therapy, Inc., etc. v. Carla Hiles, 226 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2017). “Const, The issue presented-is whether home health service referral sources can be a protected legitimate business interest under section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2016).”

— 542.335(1)(a) — 10 cases

Tusa v. Ralph Roffe & Kka, Inc., 791 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Coastal Loading v. Tile Roof Loading, 908 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Anich Indus., Inc. v. Raney, 751 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

K3 Enter., Inc. v. Sasowski (S.D. Fla. 2022).

— 542.335(1)(b) — 48 cases

Univ. of Florida, Bd. of Trs. v. Sanal, 837 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Advantage Digit. Sys., Inc. v. Digit. IMAG. SERV., INC., 870 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Passalacqua v. Naviant, Inc., 844 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Tusa v. Ralph Roffe & Kka, Inc., 791 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Colucci v. Kar Kare Auto. Grp., Inc., 918 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

— 542.335(1)(b)(1) — 1 case

Let Us Claim Consultants Ins., Inc. v. Cepeda (M.D. Fla. 2024).

— 542.335(1)(b)(2) — 3 cases

Hasley v. Harrell, 971 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Lubkey v. Compuvac Sys., Inc., 787 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Blue-Grace Logistics LLC v. Fahey (M.D. Fla. 2022).

— 542.335(1)(b)(3) — 2 cases

Javier Alonso-llamazares, M.D. v. Int'l Dermatology Rsch., Inc., Etc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).

Blue-Grace Logistics LLC v. Fahey (M.D. Fla. 2023).

— 542.335(1)(b)(5) — 1 case

Blue-Grace Logistics LLC v. Fahey (M.D. Fla. 2023).

— 542.335(1)(c) — 28 cases

Whitby v. Infinity Radio Inc., 951 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “[5] Appellants argue that the trial court erred in applying section 542.335, and not its predecessor, section 542.”

Ansaarie v. First Coast Cardiovascular Inst., P.A., 252 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Walsh v. Paw Trucking, Inc., 942 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Balasco v. Gulf Auto Holding, Inc., 707 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Florida Hematology & Oncology v. Tummala, 927 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

— 542.335(1)(d) — 10 cases

Henao v. Prof'l Shoe Repair, Inc., 929 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). “33, however, was repealed with respect to restrictive covenants entered into or having an effective date on or after July 1, 1996, as a result of enactment, in 1996, of section 542.335, Florida Statutes, entitled "Valid restraints of trade or commerce.”

Advantage Digit. Sys., Inc. v. Digit. IMAG. SERV., INC., 870 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

SOUTHERNMOST v. Torregrosa, 891 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

Balasco v. Gulf Auto Holding, Inc., 707 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Flickenger v. RJ Fitzgerald & Co., Inc., 732 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

— 542.335(1)(d)(1) — 3 cases

Head Kandy LLC v. McNeill (S.D. Fla. 2023).

K3 Enter., Inc. v. Sasowski (S.D. Fla. 2022).

Let Us Claim Consultants Ins., Inc. v. Cepeda (M.D. Fla. 2024).

— 542.335(1)(d)(3) — 1 case

Head Kandy LLC v. McNeill (S.D. Fla. 2023).

— 542.335(1)(e) — 2 cases

K3 Enter., Inc. v. Sasowski (S.D. Fla. 2022).

Let Us Claim Consultants Ins., Inc. v. Cepeda (M.D. Fla. 2024).

— 542.335(1)(f) — 4 cases

Whitby v. Infinity Radio Inc., 951 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “[5] Appellants argue that the trial court erred in applying section 542.335, and not its predecessor, section 542.”

Corp. Exp. Off. Prods., Inc. v. Phillips, 847 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2003). “33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”

Tusa v. Ralph Roffe & Kka, Inc., 791 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Richland Towers, Inc. v. Denton, 139 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

— 542.335(1)(f)(1) — 1 case

LUPIN ATLANTIS HOLDINGS SA, a foreign Corp. v. ZENG (S.D. Fla. 2024).

— 542.335(1)(f)(2) — 3 cases

Infinity Radio Inc. v. Whitby, 780 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Whitby v. Infinity Radio Inc., 951 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “[5] Appellants argue that the trial court erred in applying section 542.335, and not its predecessor, section 542.”

LUPIN ATLANTIS HOLDINGS SA, a foreign Corp. v. ZENG (S.D. Fla. 2024).

— 542.335(1)(g) — 2 cases

Usi Ins. Servs. of Florida, Inc. v. Pettineo, 987 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Gfa Int'l, Inc. v. Eric Trillas (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

— 542.335(1)(g)(1) — 1 case

Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc. v. Haas (M.D. Fla. 2020).

— 542.335(1)(g)(2) — 2 cases

Walsh v. Paw Trucking, Inc., 942 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Richland Towers, Inc. v. Denton, 139 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

— 542.335(1)(g)(3) — 2 cases

Benemerito & Flores, MD's v. Roche, 751 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Lee v. Pinsky, 895 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

— 542.335(1)(h) — 17 cases

Alvarez v. Rendon, 953 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

SOUTHERNMOST v. Torregrosa, 891 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

JonJuan Salon, Inc. v. Acosta, 922 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Corp. Exp. Off. Prods., Inc. v. Phillips, 847 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2003). “33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”

Tusa v. Ralph Roffe & Kka, Inc., 791 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

— 542.335(1)(i) — 5 cases

Corp. Exp. Off. Prods., Inc. v. Phillips, 847 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2003). “33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”

Transunion Risk & Alt. Data Solutions, Inc. v. James Reilly, 181 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Bariana v. Florida Health Sciences Ctr., Inc., D/B/A Tampa Gen. Hosp. (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).

Reineldo Urgelles v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

The Filta Grp., Inc. v. LXU, Ltd., Kenneth Melick, Kitchen Kare Innovations, LLC & Shane Farrer (M.D. Fla. 2025).

— 542.335(1)(j) — 36 cases

Ansaarie v. First Coast Cardiovascular Inst., P.A., 252 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Don King Prods., Inc. v. Chavez, 717 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Hausinger, 927 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, 795 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

JonJuan Salon, Inc. v. Acosta, 922 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

— 542.335(1)(k) — 3 cases

Sun Grp. Enter., Inc. v. DeWitte, 890 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Simmons v. USI Ins. Servs. LLC (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Blue-Grace Logistics LLC v. Fahey (M.D. Fla. 2022).

— 542.335(3) — 3 cases

Cooper v. Thomas Craig & Co., LLP, 906 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Tri-Cnty. Sweeping Servs., Inc. v. Lawson, 757 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

— 542.335(b)(2) — 1 case

Blue-Grace Logistics LLC v. Fahey (M.D. Fla. 2023).

— 542.335(c) — 2 cases

Usi Ins. Servs. of Florida, Inc. v. Pettineo, 987 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Simmons v. USI Ins. Servs. LLC (M.D. Fla. 2023).

— 542.335(d) — 1 case

Head Kandy LLC v. McNeill (S.D. Fla. 2023).

— 542.335(f) — 2 cases

Marx v. Clear Channel Broad., Inc., 887 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Uro-Care, P.A. v. Montford, 767 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

— 542.335(f)(1) — 2 cases

Tusa v. Ralph Roffe & Kka, Inc., 791 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

— 542.335(g) — 2 cases

Supinski v. Omni Healthcare, Pa, 853 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Usi Ins. Servs. of Florida, Inc. v. Pettineo, 987 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

— 542.335(g)(1) — 1 case

Vital Pharm., Inc. v. Alfieri (S.D. Fla. 2022).

— 542.335(g)(3) — 1 case

Autonation, Inc. v. O'BRIEN, 347 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2004). “The Threat of Irreparable Injury If the Injunction Is Not Granted Once the party seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant establishes one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restriction, irreparable injury is “presumed” by the Court and the burden then…”

— 542.335(j) — 5 cases

Am. II Elec. Inc. v. Smith, 830 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

JonJuan Salon, Inc. v. Acosta, 922 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 223 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Simmons v. USI Ins. Servs. LLC (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Vital Pharm., Inc. v. Alfieri (S.D. Fla. 2022).

— 542.335(l)(a) — 4 cases

Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). “§ 542.335, Fla. Stat. (2005); Henao, 929 So.”

Bauer v. Dilib, Inc., 16 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “335 as a whole, we must read subsection (l)(k) in context with subsection (l)(a), which states, “A court shall not enforce a restrictive covenant unless it is set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought.”

Milner Voice & Data, Inc. v. Tassy, 377 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2005). “1989); Fla Stat. § 542.335. The existence of irreparable harm is presumed if intentional breach of an enforceable restrictive covenant is shown.”

Avalon Legal Info. Servs., Inc. v. Keating, 110 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

— 542.335(l)(b) — 14 cases

Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). “§ 542.335, Fla. Stat. (2005); Henao, 929 So.”

Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. & Sylvie Forjet v. Amedisys Holding, LLC, 180 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 223 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”

— 542.335(l)(c) — 14 cases

Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). “§ 542.335, Fla. Stat. (2005); Henao, 929 So.”

Anakarli Boutique, Inc. v. Nahomi Ortiz, 152 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Lucky Cousins Trucking, Inc. v. QC Energy Resources Texas, LLC, 223 F. Supp. 3d 1221 (M.D. Fla. 2016).

Hilb Rogal & Hobbs of Florida, Inc. v. Grimmel, 48 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

— 542.335(l)(d) — 5 cases

Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). “§ 542.335, Fla. Stat. (2005); Henao, 929 So.”

Avalon Legal Info. Servs., Inc. v. Keating, 110 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

Zodiac Records Inc. v. Choice Env't Servs., 112 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Tri-Cnty. Sweeping Servs., Inc. v. Lawson, 757 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

— 542.335(l)(d)(2) — 1 case

Winmark Corp. v. Brenoby Sports, Inc., 32 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (S.D. Fla. 2014).

— 542.335(l)(e) — 1 case

Zodiac Records Inc. v. Choice Env't Servs., 112 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

— 542.335(l)(f) — 5 cases

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”

Collier HMA Physician Mgmt., LLC v. Brian Menichello, M.D., 223 So. 3d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

C.P. Motion, Inc. v. Goldblatt, 193 So. 3d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Patel v. Boers, 68 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Cellco P'ship v. Kimbler, 68 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

— 542.335(l)(f)(2) — 1 case

Patel v. Boers, 68 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

— 542.335(l)(f)(l) — 1 case

Cellco P'ship v. Kimbler, 68 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

— 542.335(l)(g) — 4 cases

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”

Avalon Legal Info. Servs., Inc. v. Keating, 110 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

Florida Digestive Health Specialists, LLP v. Ramon E. Colina, M.D., 192 So. 3d 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

Florida Digestive Health Specialists, LLP v. Ramon E. Colina, M.D., 170 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

— 542.335(l)(g)(2) — 1 case

Cellco P'ship v. Kimbler, 68 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

— 542.335(l)(g)(4) — 1 case

Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 223 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

— 542.335(l)(g)(l) — 3 cases

Atomic Tattoos, LLC v. Morgan, 45 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Florida Digestive Health Specialists, LLP v. Ramon E. Colina, M.D., 192 So. 3d 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

Florida Digestive Health Specialists, LLP v. Ramon E. Colina, M.D., 170 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

— 542.335(l)(h) — 9 cases

Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). “§ 542.335, Fla. Stat. (2005); Henao, 929 So.”

Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

In re Stand. Jury Instructions—Contract & Bus. Cases, 116 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2013).

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”

— 542.335(l)(i) — 4 cases

Smart Pharmacy, Inc. v. Viccari, 213 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”

Avalon Legal Info. Servs., Inc. v. Keating, 110 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

Gps Indus., LLC v. Lewis, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (M.D. Fla. 2010).

— 542.335(l)(j) — 10 cases

Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). “§ 542.335, Fla. Stat. (2005); Henao, 929 So.”

Smart Pharmacy, Inc. v. Viccari, 213 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

Atomic Tattoos, LLC v. Morgan, 45 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”

Medco Data, LLC v. Bailey, 152 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

— 542.335(l)(k) — 5 cases

Puleo v. Morris, 98 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Tesla Elec., Armature & Mach., Inc. v. JLM Advanced Technical Servs., Inc., 128 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Rogers v. Vulcan Mfg. Co., 93 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Kohlmeier v. Diversified Drilling Corp., 898 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

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.