Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 772.17 (2025)
Limitation of actions.
✓ 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
772.17 Limitation of actions.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action or proceeding under this chapter may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the conduct in violation of a provision of this act terminates or the cause of action accrues. If a criminal prosecution or civil action or other proceeding is brought or intervened in by the state or by the United States to punish, prevent, or restrain any criminal activity or criminal conduct which forms the basis for a civil action under this chapter, the running of the period of limitations prescribed by this section shall be suspended during the pendency of such prosecution, action, or proceeding and for 2 years following its termination.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Bookworld Trade, Inc. v. Daughters of St. Paul, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (M.D. Fla. 2007).
Bookworld Trade, Inc. v. Daughters of St. Paul, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (M.D. Fla. 2007). “Bookworld argues that PBM failed to comply with the demand requirements under Fla. Stat. § 772.17 . However, unless the five year statute of limitations has expired, which it has not, summary judgment is not appropriate on that basis.”
Donald Kipnis v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank, etc., 202 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 2016). “See § 772.17, Fla. Stat. (2013) (Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act); § 95.”
Korman v. Iglesias, 825 F. Supp. 1010 (S.D. Fla. 1993). “Fla.Stat. § 772.17 (1991). The civil theft claim, is based on Iglesias’ wrongful deprivation of the royalties and not, as Iglesias contends, for the deprivation of Korman’s intellectual work product.”
Spadaro v. City of Miramar, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2012). “Fla. Stat. § 772.17 . Unless tolled, the statute of limitations for RICO actions runs from the date the plaintiff knew he was injured.”
Korman v. Iglesias, 736 F. Supp. 261 (S.D. Fla. 1990). “” Fla.Stat. § 772.17 (1989). Plaintiff has alléged that defendant’s wrongful conduct — depriving her of royalties derived from co-authorship — continues to this day.”
Seymour v. Adams, 638 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). “Unless it appears on the record that the statute was not complied with and that the five year statute of limitations established by section 772.17, Florida Statutes (1989) had expired so that Seymour would be unable to comply with the requirements of the statute, summary…”
Laterza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 221 F. Supp. 3d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 2016). “”) (footnote omitted); § 772.17, Fla. Stat. (providing a five-year statute of limitation for claims for civil theft).”
Ziccardi v. Strother, 570 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). “See § 772.17, Fla. Stat. (1987); § 895.05(10), Fla.”
Gordon Jones & Laura Jones v. John H. Childers & Talent Servs., Inc., 18 F.3d 899 (11th Cir. 1994). “See Fla.Stat. § 772.17. 11 . See, e.g., Miami v.”
Veltmann v. Walpole Pharmacy, Inc., 928 F. Supp. 1161 (M.D. Fla. 1996). “According to the allegations in Count I, the limitations period would have begun to run somewhere between January of 1987 and January 7,1990, the date of Mrs.”
Naturally Beautiful Nails, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (In Re Naturally Beautiful Nails, Inc.), 262 B.R. 131 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001). “In Nerbonne the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice and the Court should have allowed the plaintiff to amend its complaint because it had a viable claim.”
Mcconley (N.D. Fla. 2025). “§ 772.17);6 ECF No. 31 at 9. Further, the Defendant Bank argued that the “delayed discovery doctrine does not apply to a civil theft claim.”
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.