Cases from cite.case.law:

D. BOND, v. STATE, 84 So. 3d 355 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . attorney, and trial judge did not comply with the filing of an oath of office as required by section 876.05 . . .

GRIFFIN, v. UNITED STATES,, 96 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

. . . Griffin requests that the court “[djeclare that Florida Statute § 876.05-§ 876.10 requirement is still . . .

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, v. DAVIS,, 18 So. 3d 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . He or she has taken the oath required by sections 876.05-.10, Florida Statutes; 4. . . . Statement of Party under section 99.021 and (not relevant here) the Loyalty Oath required by sections 876.05 . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. SIBLEY,, 995 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2008)

. . . Sib-ley relies on section 876.05, Florida Statutes. . . . earlier executed written, notarized oaths of office in full compliance with the dictates of section 876.05 . . . Section 876.05 does not relate to the jurisdiction or authority of judicial officers. . . . For these reasons, we examine the origins and purposes of section 876.05. . . . Section 876.05 was first enacted in 1949. See ch. 25046, § 1, at 104, Laws of Fla. (1949). . . .

R. SCHURR, v. R. SANCHEZ- GRONLIER, M., 937 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . The loyalty oath required by § 876.05, signed by the candidate and duly acknowledged. 4. . . .

E. DALACK, v. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA,, 434 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2006)

. . . . § 876.05). . . .

J. KELLY, a U. S. v. HARRIS,, 331 F.3d 817 (11th Cir. 2003)

. . . Stat. ch. 876.05. . . . .

MILLER, v. MENDEZ,, 804 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2001)

. . . elected or in which he or she desires to be retained; that he or she has taken the oath required by ss. 876.05 . . .

CONE CORPORATION, C. H. Co. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, G., 921 F.2d 1190 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 876.05 — requires him to avoid such unlawful conduct. . . .

CITY OF ORLANDO, C. C. v. STATE OF FLORIDA L., 751 F. Supp. 974 (M.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . file, the Court finds as follows: At issue in this case is the facial constitutionality of section 876.05 . . . Section 876.05(1) is a loyalty oath which is required of all State of Florida employees and officers. . . . The form of this oath, as set forth in section 876.05(1), is as follows: I, _, a citizen of the State . . . Section 876.09 provides that sections 876.05 through 876.10 apply to all employees and elected officers . . . Plaintiffs seek a judgment by this Court declaring sections 876.05 through 876.10 unconstitutional. . . .

FALCO, v. STATE, 407 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1981)

. . . action by a school teacher challenging the constitutionality of a loyalty oath required by section 876.05 . . .

W. TREIMAN, v. W. MALMQUIST A. SMATHERS v. W. TREIMAN, STATE W. MALMQUIST, v. W. TREIMAN, STATE W. TREIMAN v. L. R. HUFFSTETLER, Jr., 342 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977)

. . . relating to elections or registration of electors; (g) That he has taken the oath as required by §§ 876.05 . . .

STATE M. SIEGENDORF, v. B. STONE, Z., 266 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1972)

. . . . §§ 876.05-876.10, F.S.A. . . .

CONNELL v. HIGGINBOTHAM, 403 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1971)

. . . United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida challenging the constitutionality of §§ 876.05 . . . Stat. § 876.05. . . .

CONNELL, v. M. HIGGINBOTHAM, H. D. K. M. T., 305 F. Supp. 445 (M.D. Fla. 1969)

. . . concur also in the majority’s holding that the oath prescribed by the Florida statute (F.S.A., Section 876.05 . . . the United States or of Florida by force or violence”, which provisions are now contained in Section 876.05 . . . The corresponding provisions of Sec. 876.07 of course fall with the portions of Sec. 876.05 held unconstitutional . . . County, Florida, school system, seeks on behalf of herself and others similarly situated to have Section 876.05 . . . Plaintiff alleges that (1) the loyalty oath contained in Section 876.05 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A . . . that she sign a loyalty oath; it appears, however, that the plaintiff had some knowledge of Section 876.05 . . . The section reads in full: “876.05 State employees; oath “All persons who now or hereafter are employed . . . The following language of Section 876.05 of the Florida Statutes is constitutional, and the state may . . .

v., 51 T.C. 189 (T.C. 1968)

. . . In 1964 petitioner also purchased, at a cost of $876.05, an additional 5,340 feet of 2-inch down to 1 . . .

CRAMP, Jr. v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY,, 137 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1962)

. . . becomes our duty to eliminate the objectionable language from the loyalty oath prescribed by Section 876.05 . . . For the guidance of the appellee and others charged with the enforcement of Section 876.05, Florida Statutes . . .

CRAMP v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY, 368 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1961)

. . . . § 876.05. (Italics added.) . . . “If any person required by §§ 876.05-876.10 to take the oath herein provided for fails to execute the . . . permit any such employee to continue in employment after failing to comply with the provisions of §§ 876.05 . . . “If any person required by the provisions of §§ 876.05-876.10 to execute the oath herein required executes . . .

CRAMP, Jr. v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY,, 125 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1960)

. . . Cramp who was plaintiff below seeks reversal of a final decree sustaining the validity of Sections 876.05 . . . discovered that through an oversight, he had never been required to execute the oath required iby Section 876.05 . . . By Section 876.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., all persons employed by the State or any county or city, . . . Sections 876.05-876.06, supra, were Sections 1 and 2, Chapter 25046, Laws of Florida 1949. . . . Appellant contends further that the oath prescribed by Section 876.05, supra, is unconstitutional for . . .

CRAMP, Jr. v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY,, 118 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1960)

. . . the so-called loyalty or non-communist oath required of all public officials and employees by Section 876.05 . . . Cramp, in actuality, affirmed each and all of the statements required by Section 876.05, supra. . . . Appellant here contends that there is a reasonable probability that Section 876.05, Florida Statutes, . . . Also, it is presently unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of Section 876.05, supra. . . .

STATE v. DIEZ,, 97 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1957)

. . . Secs. 876.05 through 876.10, Florida Statutes 1953, and F.S.A. . . . We are immediately concerned with the first of the statutes, Sec. 876.05, supra, which provides, in brief . . . As we understand the record, the ruling constituted a decision that Sec. 876.05, supra, was unconstitutional . . . Chapter 25046, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1949, F.S.A. § 876.05 et seq. . . . Then followed the enactment of Chapter 25046, supra, one section of which, now 876.05, supra, we are . . .

SHEINER, v. STATE, 82 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1955)

. . . right” and a “privilege” is that shown by Chapter 25046, Laws of Florida, 1949, which is now Sections 876.05 . . .

N. TAPPY, v. STATE W. S. BYINGTON,, 82 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1955)

. . . office as County Judge of Vo-lusia County, a loyalty oath executed pursuant to the provisions of Section 876.05 . . .

STATE FELDMAN, v. J. KELLY, STATE SHLAFROCK, v. J. KELLY, STATE MARKS, v. J. KELLY, STATE LIPPERT, v. J. KELLY, STATE SMOLIKOFF, a k a v. J. KELLY, STATE MARKS, v. J. KELLY, STATE BIRNBERG, v. J. KELLY, STATE GRAFF, v. J. KELLY, STATE CARROLL, v. J. KELLY, STATE SORKIN, v. J. KELLY, STATE H. D. PRENSKY, DDS, v. J. KELLY, STATE SHANTZEK, v. J. KELLY, STATE ROHINSKY, v. J. KELLY, STATE CARBONELL, v. J. KELLY,, 76 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1954)

. . . . § 876.05 et seq., was enacted, imposing the loyalty oath for officers and employees of the State, there . . .

JOOPANENKO v. GAVAGAN, 67 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1953)

. . . Sections 876.05 through 876.10, F.S. A., were enacted in 1949 as Chapter 25046. . . .