772.104
Civil cause of action.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
772.104 Civil cause of action.—
(1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts.
(2) As an alternative to recovery under subsection (1), any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 due to sex trafficking or human trafficking shall have a cause of action for threefold the amount gained from the sex trafficking or human trafficking and in any such action is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200 and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts.
(3) In no event shall punitive damages be awarded under this section. The defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without substantial fact or legal support. In awarding attorney’s fees and costs under this section, the court shall not consider the ability of the opposing party to pay such fees and costs. Nothing under this section shall be interpreted as limiting any right to recover attorney’s fees or costs provided under other provisions of law.
History.—s. 3, ch. 86-277; s. 1180, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2006-168.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 114
cases (51 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Rollins, Inc. v. Butland
Rollins, Inc. v. Butland (2006)
“(misleading advertising); § 772.104, Fla. Stat. (Florida RICO). In addition, the Contract contains a provision for the award of attorney's fees in favor of Orkin.”
Allstate Insurance v. Palterovich (2009)
“(Count VII); common law fraud (Count VIII); as well as the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 772.104 and 772.11 (Counts IX-X); and, Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief (Count XI) and declaratory judgments (Counts XII-XIV) in addition to monetary…”
Bambu v. EI Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc. (2004)
“" § 772.104, Fla. Stat. (2003). Thus, to recover, the nurseries had to prove that they were injured "by reason of" DuPont's alleged criminal activities.”
Burgese v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (2015)
“Fla. Stat. § 772.104 (1) (emphasis added).”
Foreman v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc. (1990)
“This is an appeal of an attorney's fee award to a defendant pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989).”
RLS BUS. VENTURES v. Second Chance Wholesale, Inc. (2001)
“§ 1964 (c); § 772.104, Fla. Stat., we believe federal cases interpreting the federal civil damages remedy are also persuasive in interpreting section 772.”
Ziccardi v. Strother (1990)
“The basis of the complaint, filed in 1987 under section 772.104 Florida Statutes, was alleged criminal acts perpetrated against her by the appellees in 1979.”
Terminix International Co. LP v. Palmer Ranch Ltd. Partnership (2005)
“, Florida RICO), Fla. Stat. § 772.104 ; criminal false advertising, Fla.”
Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. (2004)
“Plaintiff-Growers argue that they are alleging “negative fraud” such as concealment and destruction of evidence, which do not require a showing of reasonable reliance.”
Spadaro v. City of Miramar (2012)
“City Response at 27 (citing Fla. Stat. § 772.104 (1)). However, the City Defendants only argue that Caravella's claims brought pursuant to 18 U.”
Remova Pool Fence Co. v. Roth (1994)
“Section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the defendant in a civil action brought under that statute "shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and *1025 costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim that was…”
STUART L. STEIN, PA v. Miller Industries, Inc. (1990)
“035 conferring the ability of "any person" to pursue a civil theft claim to section 772.104 and elevated the standard of proof to the "clear and convincing" level.”
— 772.104(1) — 8 cases
— 772.104(3) — 4 cases
Bahrakis v. Zimmerman (2020)
— 772.104(8) — 1 case
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.