The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXIV
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO

Chapter 568
INTOXICATING LIQUORS IN COUNTIES WHERE PROHIBITED

View Entire Chapter

CHAPTER 568

INTOXICATING LIQUORS IN COUNTIES WHERE PROHIBITED

568.01 Alcoholic content of intoxicating liquors.

568.02 Selling intoxicating liquors in counties where prohibited.

568.03 Possessing intoxicating liquors in counties where prohibited with intent to sell.

568.04 Maintaining place of business for sale of liquors in counties where prohibited.

568.05 Penalty.

568.06 Proof necessary to convict.

568.07 Name sufficient proof; competency of witness.

568.08 Person required to testify; exemption from prosecution.

568.09 Holding federal license or tax stamp prima facie evidence.

568.10 Confiscation of liquors.

568.11 Right of property forfeited.

568.12 Record of confiscation required.

568.13 Form of information or indictment.

568.14 Division vested with enforcing powers.

568.01 Alcoholic content of intoxicating liquors.—For the purposes of this chapter, all liquors, wines, or beer containing more than 6.243 percent of alcohol by volume shall be deemed and held to be intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer and subject to the provisions of this chapter.

History.—s. 5, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(14); s. 1, ch. 84-299; s. 18, ch. 86-269.

568.02 Selling intoxicating liquors in counties where prohibited.—It is unlawful for anyone to sell, or cause to be sold, any intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer in any county that has voted against the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer.

History.—s. 1, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(10).

568.03 Possessing intoxicating liquors in counties where prohibited with intent to sell.—It is unlawful for anyone to keep, or possess, intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer in any county that has voted against the sale of such intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer with intent to sell or dispose of them unlawfully.

History.—s. 2, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(11).

568.04 Maintaining place of business for sale of liquors in counties where prohibited.—It is unlawful for anyone to keep or maintain a place where intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer are sold in any county that has voted against the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines or beer.

History.—s. 3, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(12).

568.05 Penalty.—Any person who sells, or causes to be sold, any intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer in any county that has voted against the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer, or who keeps or possesses in any such county any intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer with intent to sell or dispose of same unlawfully, or who keeps or maintains in any such county a place where intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer are sold, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.—s. 4, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(13); s. 578, ch. 71-136.

568.06 Proof necessary to convict.—In any trial of any person for violation of s. 568.02, it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused had any interest in the intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer delivered or sold by him or her, or any interest in the money received by the accused for such intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer delivered by him or her, but proof of the delivery of intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer by the accused and the receipt of money therefor by him or her, shall be prima facie evidence of the ownership of said intoxicating beverages by the accused and proof of the sale of a single quantity of intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer by such person shall be sufficient evidence upon which to base a conviction for violation of s. 568.02.

History.—s. 6, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(15); s. 880, ch. 97-103.

568.07 Name sufficient proof; competency of witness.—

(1) In every prosecution for a violation of this chapter, proof that the liquor in question was and is known as whiskey, moonshine whiskey, shine, rum, gin, or brandy or by any other similar name or names shall be prima facie evidence that such liquor is intoxicating and contains more than 6.243 percent of alcohol by volume and that such content is intoxicating. Any person who by experience in the past in the handling or use of intoxicating liquors, or who by taste, smell, or the drinking of such liquors, has knowledge as to the intoxicating nature of such liquors may testify as to this opinion, whether such beverage or liquor is or is not intoxicating; and a verdict based upon such testimony shall be valid.

(2) The alcoholic content of any liquor, wine, or beer, or other beverage, may be shown by hydrometer or gravity test made in or away from the presence of the jury by any person who has knowledge of the uses of such instruments, but the production of such evidence shall be optional. The alcoholic content of any liquor or beverage, or compound, which is the subject of any inquiry in any proceedings or prosecution may also be shown by chemical analysis or any other analysis made by and certified by any competent chemist. The sample analyzed may be identified by the sworn testimony of any peace officer or prosecuting officer, that he or she personally delivered to such chemist such sample for analysis and that it was personally taken by him or her from the receptacle containing the beverage, drink, or alcoholic liquor or compound which is the subject of inquiry.

(3) The mode of proof herein provided shall be considered cumulative and not exclusive.

History.—s. 7, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(16); s. 3, ch. 84-299; s. 19, ch. 86-269; s. 49, ch. 91-220; s. 100, ch. 92-291; s. 881, ch. 97-103.

568.08 Person required to testify; exemption from prosecution.—No person shall, upon any investigation before a grand jury or state attorney for an alleged violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, or before any court upon the trial of any person, association of persons, or corporation, charged with the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter herein made a criminal offense, refuse to testify or give evidence, or produce any document, record, book, papers, or any other personal property of any kind or description, upon the ground that by so doing he or she may thereby convict himself or herself of crime, or give evidence against himself or herself, or expose himself or herself to criminal prosecution, penalty or forfeiture; and any person who shall so testify or give such evidence, or produce any such document, record, book, paper, or any other personal property of any kind or description, shall not be prosecuted or held liable for any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any matter or thing concerning which he or she may so testify, or give evidence, or produce any such document, record, book, paper or any other personal property of any kind or description, and the same shall not be given in evidence or used against such person in anywise or in any manner in any prosecution or other proceeding in any of the courts of this state, or otherwise; provided, that nothing in this section contained shall protect any person against prosecution for perjury or false swearing.

History.—s. 8, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(17); s. 26, ch. 73-334; s. 882, ch. 97-103.

568.09 Holding federal license or tax stamp prima facie evidence.—The holding, owning, having in possession, or paying for a license or tax stamp issued by the internal revenue authorities of the United States showing the payment of a tax as a dealer in intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer, by the holder thereof to the United States Government shall be held in all the courts of this state as prima facie evidence against the holder thereof in prosecution of such holder for violation of this chapter and upon proof being made by the certificate of the collector of internal revenue, as provided for by the federal statute, in cases where the proper prosecuting officers shall produce said certificate or certified copy, the grand jury may indict the holder of such license or tax stamp or the proper prosecuting officer may file information against the holder of such license or tax stamp without further proof, charging such holder with the violation of this chapter, and upon the trial of persons charged with the violation of this chapter, upon information or indictment proof of the owning, holding, or possession of such license or tax stamp by the defendant may be made by two witnesses who have seen such license or tax stamp in the place of business or the holder thereof, or by the production of the original tax stamp or license with proof that said license or tax stamp is the property of the defendant by one or more witnesses, or by production by the prosecuting officer of a certified copy of said license, tax stamp or certificate of the Collector of Internal Revenue of the United States; and proof having been made as provided in this section, it shall be sufficient evidence, without explanation, to convict.

History.—s. 9, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(18).

568.10 Confiscation of liquors.—Upon the arrest of any person charged with a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, the arresting officer shall take into his or her custody all of the intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer found in the possession, custody or control of the person arrested, and safely keep and preserve the same and have it forthcoming at any investigation, prosecution or other proceeding for the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, and for the destruction of same as is in this section provided. Upon the conviction of the person arrested for the violation of any provision of this chapter, the judge of the court trying the case, after notice to the person convicted and any other person who the judge may be of the opinion is entitled to notice, as the judge may deem reasonable, shall issue to the sheriff of the county, division, or authorized municipality a written order adjudging and declaring such intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer forfeited and directing the sheriff, division, or authorized municipality to sell the liquors, wines, or beer to any licensed wholesaler in the state upon the condition that the intoxicating liquors, wines, and beer must be first inspected by an employee of the division to ascertain that all state taxes applicable have been paid. Sale shall be made, however, only upon submission by the sheriff, division, or authorized municipality of a request for bids to at least five wholesalers in the state, and the sale shall be made to the highest and best bidder; provided, however, if in the opinion of the sheriff, division, or authorized municipality no satisfactory bid from a wholesaler is received, bids may then be rejected and the intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer so seized and forfeited may be sold to any retailer licensed in this state to sell such beverages provided that the sale shall be made only upon submission by the sheriff, division, or authorized municipality of a request for bids to at least five retail dealers in the state and that the sale shall be made to the highest and best bidder therefor; the order shall further provide, in the event any forfeited liquors, wines, or beer cannot be sold, that the sheriff, division, or authorized municipality shall immediately destroy same or that the sheriff or authorized municipality shall deliver same to the division for the disposition as provided in s. 562.44. In the event that the liquors, wines, or beer are to be destroyed under the order, the destruction by the sheriff or authorized municipality shall be in the presence of the clerk of the circuit court of the county and at times, places and in the manner as the judge, in his or her order, directs.

History.—s. 10, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(19); s. 1, ch. 22024, 1943; s. 1, ch. 61-259; ss. 16, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 31, ch. 79-11; s. 883, ch. 97-103.

568.11 Right of property forfeited.—The right of property in and to intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer sold or possessed by any person, association of persons, or corporation in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is declared not to exist in any person, association of persons, or corporation and the same shall be forfeited.

History.—s. 11, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(20).

568.12 Record of confiscation required.—Any sheriff, who seizes intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer as provided for in this chapter, shall keep a permanent itemized record of all such liquors including a complete record of the destruction of such liquors, which record shall be verified by the signature of the sheriff in person, and such records shall be open to inspection at all times.

History.—s. 12, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(21).

568.13 Form of information or indictment.—

(1) An indictment or information framed substantially as follows shall be deemed sufficient in counties voting against the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer:

The grand jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of the County of , upon their oaths do present that , late of the County of , did, on, to wit: the day of , (year) , in the said County of , State of Florida, unlawfully sell intoxicating liquors, (or intoxicating wines or intoxicating beer as the case may be), which said county had voted against the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer, contrary to the statute made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.

(2) Said form of indictment or information may also be used in charging violation of ss. 568.03 and 568.04.

History.—s. 13, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(22); s. 26, ch. 99-6.

568.14 Division vested with enforcing powers.—For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this chapter the division shall exercise and perform all powers and duties vested in the several sheriffs and their deputies in the state under the provisions of this chapter.

History.—s. 13A, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(23); ss. 16, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 32, ch. 79-11.

F.S. 568 on Google Scholar

F.S. 568 on Casetext

Amendments to 568

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 568

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

S568.05 - LIQUOR-SELL - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE IN DRY COUNTY - M: S

S817.568 2 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - REMOVED - F: T

S817.568 2a - FRAUD-IMPERSON - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 3981 - F: T

S817.568 2a - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE POSS ID OF ANOTHER PERSON WO CONSENT - F: T

S817.568 2b - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE ID ANOTHER WO CONSENT 5K DOLS MORE - F: S

S817.568 2b - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE ID OF 10-20 OTHERS WO CONSENT - F: S

S817.568 2c - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE ID OF ANOTHER WO CONSENT 50K DOLS OR MORE - F: F

S817.568 2c - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE ID OF 20-30 OTHERS WO CONSENT - F: F

S817.568 3 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - RENUMBERED AS 817.568-4 - M: F

S817.568 4 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE POSS ID OF ANOTHER TO HARASS - M: F

S817.568 4a - FRAUD-IMPERSON - RENUMBERED AS 817.568-5a - F: T

S817.568 4b - FRAUD-IMPERSON - RENUMBERED AS 817.568-5b - F: S

S817.568 4c - FRAUD-IMPERSON - RENUMBERED AS 817.568-5c - F: F

S817.568 5a - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE PUBLIC REC PERSONAL ID INFO COMMIT M/F - F: T

S817.568 5b - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE PUBLIC REC PERSONAL ID INFO COMMIT F/T - F: S

S817.568 5c - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE PUBLIC REC PERSONAL ID INFO COMMIT F/S - F: F

S817.568 5c - FRAUD-IMPERSON - REVISED SEE REC# 5532 - F: F

S817.568 6 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7835 - F: S

S817.568 6 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE ID YOUNGER 18Y OR 60Y OR OLDER WO CONSENT - F: S

S817.568 7 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7836 - F: S

S817.568 7 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - PARENT GUARD USE ID YOUNGER 18Y OR 60Y OR OLDR - F: S

S817.568 8a - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE POSS PERSONAL ID DECEASE OR DISOLV BUS ENT - F: T

S817.568 8b - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE PERSNL ID DECEASED OR DISOLV BUS ENT 10-20 - F: S

S817.568 8b - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE PERSNL ID DECEASED DISOLV BUS ENT 5K DOLS - F: S

S817.568 8c - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE PERSNL ID DECEASED OR DISOLV BUS ENT 20-30 - F: F

S817.568 8c - FRAUD-IMPERSON - USE PERSNL ID DECEASED DISOLV BUS ENT 50K DOLS - F: F

S817.568 9 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - CREATE POSS USE FICTITIOUS PERSONAL ID INFO - F: T

S817.568 10a - FRAUD-IMPERSON - MISREPRESENT SELF COMMIT PERSONAL ID MISD - F: T

S817.568 10b - FRAUD-IMPERSON - MISREPRESENT SELF COMMIT PERSONAL ID F/T - F: S

S817.568 10c - FRAUD-IMPERSON - MISREPRESENT SELF COMMIT PERSONAL ID F/S - F: F

S817.568 10d - FRAUD-IMPERSON - MISREPRESENT SELF COMMIT PERSONAL ID F/F - F: L

S817.568 11 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - FRAUD USE ID WO CONSENT VIC 60 YOA OR OLDER - F: S

S817.568 11 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - FRAUD USE ID WO CONSENT VIC DISABLED ADULT - F: S

S817.568 11 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - FRAUD USE ID WO CONSENT VIC PUBLIC SERVANT - F: S

S817.568 11 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - FRAUD USE ID WO CONSENT VIC VETERAN - F: S

S817.568 11 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - FRAUD USE ID WO CONSENT VIC FIRST RESPONDER - F: S

S817.568 11 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - FRAUD USE ID WO CONSENT VIC ST FL EMPLOYEEE - F: S

S817.568 11 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - FRAUD USE ID WO CONSENT VIC FEDERAL EMPLOYEE - F: S

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

J. TRUMP, v. R. VANCE, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 2412 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Corp. , 333 U.S. 103, 111, 68 S.Ct. 431, 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948) ). . . .

MCGIRT, v. OKLAHOMA, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Hitchcock , 187 U.S. 553, 566-568, 23 S.Ct. 216, 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903). . . .

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER AND PAUL HOME, v. PENNSYLVANIA, J. v., 140 S. Ct. 2367 (U.S. 2020)

. . . President of United States , 930 F.3d 543, 568-569 (2019). . . .

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO, v. LLC., 140 S. Ct. 2103 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Amnesty Int'l USA , 568 U.S. 398, 409, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) ; Lujan v. . . .

J. THOLE, v. U. S. BANK N. A, 140 S. Ct. 1615 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Amnesty Int'l USA , 568 U.S. 398, 414, n. 5, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) ; Lee v. . . .

GE ENERGY POWER CONVERSION FRANCE SAS, CORP. SAS, v. OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC,, 140 S. Ct. 1637 (U.S. 2020)

. . . General Revenue Corp. , 568 U.S. 371, 380-384, 133 S.Ct. 1166, 185 L.Ed.2d 242 (2013). . . .

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC, LLC, III v. LLC, v. LLC, n De De La El Y v., 140 S. Ct. 1649 (U.S. 2020)

. . . . § 202(e)(3), id. , at 568. . . .

MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS, v. UNITED STATES v. v. v., 140 S. Ct. 1308 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Bormes , 568 U.S. 6, 15-16, 133 S.Ct. 12, 184 L.Ed.2d 317 (2012) ; United States v. . . . Bormes , 568 U.S. at 12, 133 S.Ct. 12. . . . Bormes , 568 U.S. 6, 16, 133 S.Ct. 12, 184 L.Ed.2d 317 (2012). . . . See Bormes , 568 U.S. at 13, 16, 133 S.Ct. 12 ; Bowen v. . . . Bormes , 568 U.S. at 12, 133 S.Ct. 12. . . . See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o , 1681p ; Bormes , 568 U.S. at 15, 133 S.Ct. 12. . . .

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK,, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Chafin , 568 U.S. 165, 172, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (emphasis added). " 'As long as the . . . " 'decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before [us].' " Chafin , 568 . . . concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.' " Chafin , 568 . . .

BARTON, v. P. BARR,, 140 S. Ct. 1442 (U.S. 2020)

. . . General Revenue Corp. , 568 U.S. 371, 385, 133 S.Ct. 1166, 185 L.Ed.2d 242 (2013) ; Lamie v. . . .

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, v. A. CHRISTIAN,, 140 S. Ct. 1335 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Minton , 568 U.S. 251, 258, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 185 L.Ed.2d 72 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). . . .

RAMOS, v. LOUISIANA, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020)

. . . United States , 810 F.3d 568, 577 (CA8 2016) ; United States v. . . . .5Cir. 12/28/11), 83 So.3d 178, 204, writ denied, 2012-0282 (La. 5/18/12), 89 So.3d 1191, cert. denied, 568 . . . .4Cir. 9/28/11), 73 So.3d 1033, 1092, writ denied, 2011-2567 (La. 4/9/12), 85 So.3d 692, cert. denied, 568 . . . Louisiana , 568 U. S. 1163, 133 S.Ct. 1237, 185 L.Ed.2d 188 (2013) ; Miller v. . . . Louisiana , 568 U.S. 1157, 133 S.Ct. 1238, 185 L.Ed.2d 177 (2013) ; Bowen v. . . .

BABB, v. WILKIE,, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Doyle , 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). . . . remedial scheme for constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 429 U.S. at 285-287, 97 S.Ct. 568 . . . Id. , at 286-287, 97 S.Ct. 568. . . . Doyle , 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). . . . Doyle , 429 U.S. 274, 285, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) (rejecting rule that "would require reinstatement . . .

KANSAS, v. GLOVER, 140 S. Ct. 1183 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Harris , 568 U.S. 237, 245, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013). But gaps may not go unfilled. . . . Harris , 568 U.S. 237, 243, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013), the gradation between the two is bound . . . Harris , 568 U.S. 237, 247, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013). . . .

KANSAS, v. GARCIA v. v., 140 S. Ct. 791 (U.S. 2020)

. . . A. , 568 U.S. 627, 637, 133 S.Ct. 1391, 185 L.Ed.2d 471 (2013). . . .

SHULAR, v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 779 (U.S. 2020)

. . . United States , 556 U.S. 568, 577, 129 S.Ct. 1849, 173 L.Ed.2d 785 (2009) ; Hayes , 555 U.S. at 429, . . .

MONASKY, v. TAGLIERI, 140 S. Ct. 719 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Chafin , 568 U.S. 165, 180, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (the return of a child under the Hague . . .

C. HERNANDEZ, v. MESA, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 735 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Corp. , 333 U.S. 103, 111, 68 S.Ct. 431, 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948) ). . . . Robbins , 551 U.S. 537, 568, 127 S.Ct. 2588, 168 L.Ed.2d 389 (2007) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (quoting . . .

AZANO MATSURA, v. UNITED STATES., 140 S. Ct. 991 (U.S. 2020)

. . . No. 19-568 Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

C. ROTKISKE, v. KLEMM,, 140 S. Ct. 355 (U.S. 2019)

. . . SEC , 568 U.S. 442, 448-449, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted . . . SEC , 568 U.S. 442, 447, n. 2, 449, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013) (addressing whether application . . . SEC , 568 U.S. 442, 450, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013) (referring to the "fraud discovery rule . . .

WATTS, v. WATTS,, 935 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Chafin , 568 U.S. 165, 180, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (Ginsburg, J., concurring). . . .

ELHADY, v. H. KABLE,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 562 (E.D. Va. 2019)

. . . Amnesty Int'l USA , 568 U.S. 398, 401, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (internal quotation marks . . .

ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 935 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Knowles , 568 U.S. 588, 595, 133 S.Ct. 1345, 185 L.Ed.2d 439 (2013), plaintiffs are free to seek relief . . .

IN RE ROTH, v. LLC,, 935 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . In re Roth , 568 B.R. 139, 145 (M.D. Fla. 2017). This appeal followed. II. . . .

L. SMITH, v. SHARP,, 935 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States, 568 U.S. 342, 348, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013). . . . Chaidez, 568 U.S. at 347, 133 S.Ct. 1103. . . . Chaidez, 568 U.S. at 348, 133 S.Ct. 1103. . . . Chaidez, 568 U.S. at 348, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (quotation omitted). . . . to "yield[ ] a result so novel that it forges a new rule, one not dictated by precedent", Chaidez, 568 . . .

U. S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. HUI FENG Of PC,, 935 F.3d 721 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Corp. , 568 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009). . . .

BIRD, v. i DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DHS, R., 935 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Tilton , 704 F.3d 568, 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that constitutional and statutory claims for religious . . .

EDMO, v. CORIZON, INC. Al v. Al, 935 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Tilton , 704 F.3d 568, 576 (9th Cir. 2012). . . .

RAY, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, v. As, 935 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Healthy , 429 U.S. at 280, 97 S.Ct. 568. . . . Healthy , 429 U.S. at 280, 97 S.Ct. 568. That citation suggests the former reading. . . . Doyle , 429 U.S. 274, 280, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) )). . . .

J. MURRAY, M. D. a v. MAYO CLINIC, a M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. a, 934 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Co. , 362 F.3d 564, 568 (9th Cir. 2004) ; Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. . . . determinative influence on the outcome.' " Head , 413 F.3d at 1065 (quoting Hernandez , 362 F.3d at 568 . . .

SEMPLE, a a k a a v. GRISWOLD, Be USA A., 934 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Sims , 377 U.S. 533, 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) (holding that "the Equal Protection Clause . . . Id. at 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HAWKINS, a. k. a. D III, a. k. a., 934 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Perez , 661 F.3d 568, 581 (11th Cir. 2011) ; accord United States v. . . .

DIVERSE POWER, INC. v. CITY OF LAGRANGE, GEORGIA,, 934 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc. , 568 U.S. 216, 226, 133 S. . . . Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. , 663 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2011), rev'd , 568 U.S. 216, 133 S. . . . otherwise and to operate projects [i.e. , hospitals and other public health facilities].' " Phoebe Putney , 568 . . .

SCRIMO, v. LEE,, 935 F.3d 103 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 568. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MCCLOUD, II,, 935 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Amerson , 886 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2018). . . .

BACA v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, G. T. L. M., 935 F.3d 887 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Chafin , 568 U.S. 165, 172, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) ). . . . circumstances, the "state is essentially suing itself," and "there is no 'case or controversy.' " Id. at 568 . . . Id. at 762 ; see also Donelon , 522 F.3d at 568 (determining official has no "personal stake" in the . . . Amnesty Int'l USA , 568 U.S. 398, 414 n.5, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CANO,, 934 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Cedano-Arellano , 332 F.3d 568, 570-71 (9th Cir. 2003). . . .

EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT Al v. P. BARR, K. U. S. T. U. S. P. U. S. U. S., 934 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Mendoza , 464 U.S. 154, 160, 104 S.Ct. 568, 78 L.Ed.2d 379 (1984) ("[O]nly one final adjudication would . . .

SENNE v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP. LLC LLC LP St. LLC LLC LLC LLC L. P. L. P. LLC LLC L. P. AZPB L. P. P LLC LLC LP LLP LLC LLC,, 934 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Rptr. 564, 568 (1980) ("It is true that the place of the wrong is no longer treated as a controlling . . .

FORREST, v. UNITED STATES, 934 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . See id. at 568. . . .

UNITED STATES v. NORMAN,, 935 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 568 U.S. 266, 272, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013) (alterations and internal quotation . . . Henderson , 568 U.S. at 279, 133 S.Ct. 1121 (internal quotation marks omitted). . . .

ZEHENTBAUER FAMILY LAND, LP LP v. CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L. L. C. L. L. C. E P USA,, 935 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Funds , 568 U.S. 455, 466, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 185 L.Ed.2d 308 (2013). C. . . . Funds , 568 U.S. 455, 466, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 185 L.Ed.2d 308 (2013) ("Merits questions may be considered . . .

UNITED STATES v. CLARK,, 935 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 568 U.S. 266, 279, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013). . . .

ROMO, v. P. BARR,, 933 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Revenue Corp. , 568 U.S. 371, 385, 133 S. Ct. 1166, 1177, 185 L. Ed. 2d 242 (2013). . . .

CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF LITCHFIELD COUNTY, INC. v. LITCHFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION,, 934 F.3d 238 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Wideman , 568 U.S. 1, 4, 133 S.Ct. 9, 184 L.Ed.2d 313 (2012) (internal citation omitted). . . .

DOCTOR S ASSOCIATES, INC. v. ALEMAYEHU,, 934 F.3d 245 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Cendant Corp. , 293 F.3d 563, 568 (2d Cir. 2002). . . .

W. C. ENGLISH, INC. v. RUMMEL, KLEPPER KAHL, LLP CDM, 934 F.3d 398 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . City of Philadelphia , 568 Pa. 244, 795 A.2d 376, 378 (2002) ; Mautz v. J.P. . . .

IN RE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE S SUNDAY TICKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Jr. v. LLC LLC NFL LLC LLC LP LLC LLC NFL LP LLC LP LLC LP Co. LLC LP LLC, 933 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Lockyer , 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BLAIR,, 933 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Barwig , 568 F.3d 852, 855 (10th Cir. 2009) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BRAZIER,, 933 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 568 U.S. 266, 279, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013). In United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. IN U. S. CURRENCY, 933 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Nike, Inc. , 568 U.S. 85, 91, 133 S.Ct. 721, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013). . . .

NAUMOVSKI, v. NORRIS, 934 F.3d 200 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) (rejecting a pure "motivating factor" test and requiring but-for causation . . .

UNITED STATES v. NG LAP SENG, Ng, Ng W. C., 934 F.3d 110 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Revenue Corp. , 568 U.S. 371, 386, 133 S.Ct. 1166, 185 L.Ed.2d 242 (2013) ; United States v. . . . Revenue Corp. , 568 U.S. at 386, 133 S.Ct. 1166 (observing that canon against surplusage is strongest . . . Revenue Corp. , 568 U.S. at 386, 133 S.Ct. 1166 (discussing presumption against statutory superfluousness . . .

UNITED STATES v. WALKER,, 934 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 568 U.S. 266, 279, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013) (holding "whether a legal question . . .

REYES, v. FISCHER, J. X., 934 F.3d 97 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Coughlin, 905 F.2d 564, 568 (2d Cir. 1990) ("It is clear that where there has been a denial of due process . . .

UNITED STATES v. TREVINO,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 901 (W.D. Mich. 2019)

. . . App. 2d 559, 568, 20 P.3d 74 (Kan. Ct. . . .

PILLAR DYNASTY LLC, v. NEW YORK COMPANY, INC., 933 F.3d 202 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Fox , 568 F. . . .

UNITED STATES v. C. HODGE, 933 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Hibbs , 568 F.2d 347, 352 (3d Cir. 1977) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. HARPER,, 934 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 397 F.3d 564, 568-69 (7th Cir. 2005). . . .

CHAVEZ, De E. De De De v. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a, 933 F.3d 186 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Supp. 2d 556, 568-74 (E.D. La. 2012). . . . Supp. 2d 556, 568-69 (E.D. La. 2012), aff'd , 546 F. App'x 409 (5th Cir. 2013). . . .

TEXAS, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION EEOC P. U. S., 933 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Amnesty Int'l USA , 568 U.S. 398, 409, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) ). . . .

SANDKNOP v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS O, 932 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Raymond, 476 F.3d 565, 568 (8th Cir. 2007). . . .

C. CORDARO, v. UNITED STATES, 933 F.3d 232 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . United States, 568 U.S. 342, 347, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013) (quoting Lambrix v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BANYAN, 933 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Allapattah Servs., Inc. , 545 U.S. 546, 568, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) (emphasis added); . . .

COFFEY, v. CARROLL, 933 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Harwood , 852 F.3d 568, 582-83 (6th Cir. 2017). . . .

WARREN, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,, 932 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . McLemore , 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998). . . .

BREDA, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d b a, 934 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . App'x 563, 568-69 (6th Cir. 2017) (finding no presumption of arbitrability where plaintiff based her . . .

STEWARD HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL, INC. v. MASSACHUSETTS NURSES ASSOCIATION,, 932 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . See, e.g., id. at 568-69, 133 S.Ct. 2064 ; N. New England Tel. Operations LLC v. . . .

ORDUNO, v. PIETRZAK, v., 932 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Funds , 568 U.S. 455, 460, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 185 L.Ed.2d 308 (2013). . . .

IN RE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, v. Iv n Ra l A. B. n III G. M. a J. R. J. A. Jr., 931 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) ("Extrinsic materials . . . Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 568, 115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995) ). . . . Howard, 568 U.S. 17, 21, 133 S.Ct. 500, 184 L.Ed.2d 328 (2012) (per curiam) (recognizing the "the ancient . . . Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005), this section gives . . .

DALTON, v. NPC INTERNATIONAL, INC., 932 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Nike, Inc. , 568 U.S. 85, 91, 133 S.Ct. 721, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013), quoting Murphy v. . . . Morris-Walker, LTD , 922 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2019), quoting Already, LLC , 568 U.S. at 91, 133 S.Ct . . .

ATLAS BREW WORKS, LLC, v. P. BARR,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 6 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . NRC, 628 F.3d 568, 576 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ). . . . Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91, 133 S.Ct. 721, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013) (quoting Murphy v. . . .

AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION, v. ROSS, 391 F. Supp. 3d 98 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . Amnesty Int'l USA , 568 U.S. 398, 408, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (quoting U.S. . . .

CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS, a v. WELLS FARGO CO. N. A., 931 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Amnesty Int'l , 568 U.S. 398, 409, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (citations and internal quotation . . .

ALEXIS BAILLY VINEYARD, INC. a LLC, a v. HARRINGTON, s, 931 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . USA , 568 U.S. 398, 409, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013), the Farm Wineries cannot demonstrate . . .

CRYSTALLEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA De S. A. D. C. In De S. A., 932 F.3d 126 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Devon IT, Inc. , 894 F.3d 568, 575 (3d Cir. 2018). III. . . .

UNITED STATES v. DEL CARPIO FRESCAS,, 932 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 568 U.S. 266, 286, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting). . . . Henderson , 568 U.S. at 269, 133 S.Ct. 1121. . . . Henderson , 568 U.S. at 278, 133 S.Ct. 1121. 3. . . . See Henderson , 568 U.S. at 283 n.1, 133 S.Ct. 1121 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (noting hurdle 4 pertains . . .

NOVAK, v. CITY OF PARMA, 932 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Doyle , 429 U.S. 274, 285, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) ). . . . Sullivan , 418 F.3d 561, 568-69 (6th Cir. 2005). Not so here. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BAILEY,, 931 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 579, 581 (6th Cir. 2007). III. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SHELDON TREE TOP,, 931 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States, 568 U.S. 266, 278, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013). . . .

DIXON, v. L. RYAN,, 932 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Flynn , 475 U.S. 560, 568-69, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986) ). . . .

DEXTER, a k a v. DEALOGIC, LLC,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 233 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . MBTA, 437 Mass. 396, 772 N.E.2d 552, 568 (2002). . . .

CARABALLO, v. STATE, 275 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . State, 267 So.3d 567, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), the material did not meet the statutory definition of . . .

HUPP R. H. a v. COOK C. R., 931 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Arnold , 214 F.3d 535, 541 (4th Cir. 2000) ), cert. denied , 568 U.S. 1068, 133 S.Ct. 789, 184 L.Ed.2d . . .

PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTHWEST OHIO REGION v. DEWINE, 931 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Rivera , 477 U.S. at 568, 106 S.Ct. 2686 (citation omitted). . . .

PETERSON, v. HEYMES,, 931 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897) ). . . . Connecticut , 367 U.S. 568, 620, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961) (finding a cognitively impaired . . .

PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., 392 F. Supp. 3d 313 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Orkin Exterminating Co., 165 A.D.2d 415, 418, 568 N.Y.S.2d 466, 468 (3d Dep't 1991) ; see also McCostis . . . See Moreau, 568 N.Y.S.2d at 468 ; Avondale Indus., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 774 F. . . . Moreau, 568 N.Y.S.2d at 468. . . . See Moreau, 568 N.Y.S.2d at 468. . . .

GEMINI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SMITH WESSON CORP. a a, 931 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id . at 60, 134 S.Ct. 568. . . . Id . at 62, 134 S.Ct. 568. . . . Id . at 63, 134 S.Ct. 568. . . . Id . at 63-64, 134 S.Ct. 568. . . . Id . at 52, 134 S.Ct. 568. . . .

KHRAPUNOV, v. PROSYANKIN, 931 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Chafin , 568 U.S. 165, 172, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (quoting Already, LLC v. . . . Nike, Inc. , 568 U.S. 85, 91, 133 S.Ct. 721, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CORRALES- VAZQUEZ,, 931 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Revenue Corp. , 568 U.S. 371, 385, 133 S. Ct. 1166, 1177, 185 L. Ed. 2d 242 (2013). . . .

DOE, v. TRUMP CORPORATION,, 385 F. Supp. 3d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Supp. 3d 568, 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). . . .

EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT, v. BARR,, 385 F. Supp. 3d 922 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . Sessions , 889 F.3d 564, 568 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Chevron , 467 U.S. at 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778 ). . . .

COMMANDER v. AMERICAN CRUISE LINES, INC., 389 F. Supp. 3d 180 (N.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Marine, 571 U.S. at 60, 134 S.Ct. 568. B. . . . Marine, 571 U.S. at 62, 134 S.Ct. 568. . . . Marine, 571 U.S. at 62-63, 134 S.Ct. 568. . . . Id. at 63-64, 134 S.Ct. 568. . . . Id at 64, 134 S.Ct. 568. . . .

THOMPSON Z. T. G. T. III, S. T. T. T. v. DILL, 930 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Hoch , 907 F.3d 568, 577 (8th Cir. 2018). . . .

RODRIGUEZ v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, 930 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Amnesty Int'l USA , 568 U.S. 398, 410-16, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) ); see also Fair Hous . . .

HARTMAN v. THOMPSON, 931 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Harwood , 852 F.3d 568, 582 (6th Cir. 2017) (noting that, when conducting a qualified-immunity analysis . . .

IN RE J. LONG A., 603 B.R. 812 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2019)

. . . General Revenue Corp. , 568 U.S. 371, 385, 133 S.Ct. 1166, 185 L.Ed.2d 242 (2013). . . .

WEEKS, a. k. a. v. UNITED STATES, 930 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States, 915 F.3d 564, 568 (8th Cir. 2019) ; Lofton v. . . .

BRAEBURN INC. v. UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . Amnesty International USA , 568 U.S. 398, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013), see Intervenor-Def. . . . Clapper , 568 U.S. at 412-13, 133 S.Ct. 1138. . . .

NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY P. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Supp. 552, 568 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ) (additional citation omitted). . . .