Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 770.02 (2025)
Correction, apology, or retraction by newspaper or broadcast station.
✓ 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
770.02 Correction, apology, or retraction by newspaper or broadcast station.—
(1) If it appears upon the trial that said article or broadcast was published in good faith; that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts; that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article or broadcast were true; and that, within the period of time specified in subsection (2), a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction was, in the case of a newspaper or periodical, published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical in which said article appeared and in as conspicuous place and type as said original article or, in the case of a broadcast, the correction, apology, or retraction was broadcast at a comparable time, then the plaintiff in such case shall recover only actual damages.
(2) Full and fair correction, apology, or retraction shall be made:
(a) In the case of a broadcast or a daily or weekly newspaper or periodical, within 10 days after service of notice;
(b) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published semimonthly, within 20 days after service of notice;
(c) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published monthly, within 45 days after service of notice; and
(d) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published less frequently than monthly, in the next issue, provided notice is served no later than 45 days prior to such publication.
History.—s. 2, ch. 16070, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 7064(2); s. 1, ch. 76-123; s. 233, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 80-34.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1950–2023 · leading case: Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2008).
Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2008). “Further, section 770.02, Florida Statutes (2007), limits the amount of damages a plaintiff may recover where: (1) the statements were published in good faith; (2) the statements were false due to an honest mistake of facts; (3) there were reasonable grounds for believing the…”
Mancini v. Personalized Air Conditioning, 702 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). “Code § 48a (emphasis supplied) with § 770.02, Fla. Stat. (1995). [3] Defendant claims that because the docket sheet in Orlando Sports Stadium v.”
Dorestin v. Hollywood Imports, Inc., 45 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “§ 770.02(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (providing that a plaintiff "shall recover only actual damages”).”
Mazur v. Ospina Baraya, 275 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). “Correction, apology, or retraction by newspaper or broadcast station (1) If it appears upon the trial that said article or broadcast was published in good faith; that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts; that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the…”
Firestone v. Time, Inc., 271 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1972). “In recognition of this fact, our state legislature has provided in Section 770.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., for correction, apology, or retraction by newspaper.”
Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “Therefore, we find the trial court erred in requiring appellant to comply with section 770.”
Davies v. Bossert, 449 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). “In discussing Ross' equal protection argument with respect to Section 770.02, which in 1950 referred only to newspapers and periodicals, the court reiterated that "[t]he provision for retraction is peculiarly appropriate to newspapers and periodicals, as distinguished from…”
MacGregor v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 119 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). “01 and § 770.02. The facts in Layne v. Tribune Company were that the plaintiff brought an action against the publisher of the Tampa Morning Tribune for the alleged publication of two press dispatches from Washington, D.”
O'NEAL v. Tribune Co., 176 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). “The ultimate determination of the matter was accidental injury.”
Laney v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 910 (S.D. Fla. 1982). “Fla.Stat. § 770.02. Notice, therefore, is preferable because, at a slight cost, it may lead to a considerable reduction in the expenditure of time and money by potential litigants and may afford the parties the opportunity to work out their differences prior to formal battle…”
Ross v. Gore, 48 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1950). “Is Section 770.02 unconstitutional in that it (a) denies punitive damages to a plaintiff under the circumstances therein specified and (b) limits the recovery under such circumstances to "actual damages"? *414 2.”
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Brown, 66 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1953). “The question inherent in the controversy is the presence or lack of testimony supporting the judgment for the amount the jury fixed in view of the corrective statement the newspaper published and its efficacy under Section 770.02, Florida Statutes 1951, and F.”
— 770.02(1) — 2 cases
Dorestin v. Hollywood Imports, Inc., 45 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “§ 770.02(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (providing that a plaintiff "shall recover only actual damages”).”
Mancini v. Personalized Air Conditioning, 702 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). “Code § 48a (emphasis supplied) with § 770.02, Fla. Stat. (1995). [3] Defendant claims that because the docket sheet in Orlando Sports Stadium v.”
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.