Cases from cite.case.law:

C. NELSON, v. PHARMERICA,, 180 So. 3d 130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . McLane, 690 So.2d 654, 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (quoting section 57.104, Florida Statutes (1991)). . . .

S. LANE, v. WORKFORCE BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. f k a, 151 So. 3d 537 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . In Demedrano, this Court held that section 57.104 — which provides that the time and labor of legal assistants . . . The holdings in both Demedrano and Dayco concern only section 57.104 and the means by which an attorney . . .

YOUNGBLOOD, Jr. v. YOUNGBLOOD,, 91 So. 3d 190 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Indeed, section 57.104, Florida Statutes (2010), provides that when awarding attorney’s fees the court . . . Madden, 865 So.2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (applying § 57.104 in a dissolution case and disallowing fees . . .

BIONETICS CORPORATION, v. W. KENNIASTY,, 69 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 2011)

. . . provision is substantive, we turn now to consider the prospective or retroactive application of section 57.104 . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. EDGE FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, P. A. a a o C. P. A. a a o, 41 So. 3d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . In response, Respondents cite section 57.104, Florida Statutes, which provides: In any action in which . . . Section 57.104 was enacted in 1987 in response to this court’s decision in Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc. . . . Judge Joanos’ observations and section 57.104 are consistent with the prevailing view that an attorney . . . none of these cases involved the application of a multiplier to paralegal fees, the cases (and section 57.104 . . . Nelson, 646 F.Supp. 1300 (S.D.Fla.1986) — pre-dat-ed Jenkins and section 57.104, and the other case — . . .

DEMEDRANO, v. LABOR FINDERS OF TREASURE COAST, 8 So. 3d 498 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . attorneys’ second argument, that paralegal time is a reimbursable cost, begins with a review of section 57.104 . . . Application of section 57.104, Florida Statutes, is mandatory when attorney fees are awarded. . . . 1055, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (holding the trial court “disregarded the mandatory language in section 57.104 . . . Here, the JCC reviewed sections 57.104 and 440.34(1), Florida Statutes, Loper, and Dayco Products, and . . . This court recently applied Dayco Products, 690 So.2d at 655, with its reliance on section 57.104, Florida . . .

BASEBALL AT TROTWOOD, LLC, v. DAYTON PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL CLUB, LLC,, 493 F. Supp. 2d 972 (S.D. Ohio 2005)

. . . Under Florida law (Florida Statutes § 57.104), the NAPBLI may not recover for clerical tasks performed . . . In support of that proposition, BAT relies upon Florida Statutes § 57.104, which provides: In any action . . . Under Florida law (Florida Statutes § 57.104), the NAPBLI is not entitled to recover, as part of an award . . .

MADDEN, v. H. MADDEN n k a H., 865 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . performed any “nonclerieal, meaningful legal support to the matter involved” as required by section 57.104 . . .

C S CHEMICALS, INC. v. D. McDOUGALD,, 754 So. 2d 795 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See § 57.104, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

MUNAO, MUNAO, MUNAO MUNAO, d b a La v. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF LA BUONA VITA MOBILE HOME PARK, INC., 740 So. 2d 73 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . expert witness testimony, the factors set forth in Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.5, section 57.104 . . .

F. PEREZ, v. CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. a, 721 So. 2d 409 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . depends upon whether pre-demand costs, to which a prevailing plaintiff is entitled pursuant to Section 57.104 . . .

MERCK- MEDCO MANAGED CARE, INC. v. RITE AID CORPORATION,, 22 F. Supp. 2d 447 (D. Md. 1998)

. . . Spray-Rite’s failure to comply with Monsanto’s new marketing practices, Monsanto contended. 465 U.S. at 756-57.104 . . .

HAMM, v. H. ECKLER,, 712 So. 2d 770 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . with respect to the initial complaint, and awarded him attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 57.104 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, v. ROBBINS AND ROBBINS, INC., 700 So. 2d 782 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . While the trial court is required by section 57.104 to consider time expended by legal assistants when . . .

BROWN, v. JUPITER HOSPITAL, 695 So. 2d 406 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The following year, however, the legislature enacted section 57.104, Florida Statutes (1987), which requires . . . By its adoption of section 57.104, it appears to me that the legislature has modified the Bill Rivers . . . .2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); (trial court failed to enter a judgment, as required by section 57.104 . . .

DAYCO PRODUCTS v. G. McLANE,, 690 So. 2d 654 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Section 57.104, Florida Statutes (1991), provides that in any action in which attorney’s fees are awarded . . .

D. WHITLOW, Sr. v. SOUTH GEORGIA NATURAL GAS CO. a, 650 So. 2d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . whether the court considered the time devoted by counsel’s legal assistants, as required under section 57.104 . . .

J. BARNBY, v. AN ADOPTION,, 640 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . also mentioned in its order that payment for legal assistant services was not authorized by section 57.104 . . .

SWORTZ, v. SOUTHERN RAINBOW CORPORATION, a, 621 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . See § 57.104, Fla.Stat. (1991); Country Manors Ass’n, Inc. v. . . .

MARTIN, v. LAIDLAW TREE SERVICE, INC. a, 619 So. 2d 435 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . review the affidavit of Laidlaw to determine if those fees and expenses are appropriate under section 57.104 . . .

LOPER, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. LOPER,, 616 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Section 57.104, Florida Statutes (1989), states in pertinent part: In any action in which attorneys’ . . . In apparent disregard of the mandatory language in section 57.104, the trial court entered an amended . . .

UNITED STATES v. N. HARDAGE, ADVANCE CHEMICAL COMPANY, v. ABCO, INC., 750 F. Supp. 1460 (W.D. Okla. 1990)

. . . Supplemental Joint Statement para. 57.104, at 23. 13. . . . from the Oklahoma State Department of Health completed an inspection of the fence at the Hardage site. 57.104 . . .

In ESTATE OF B. PAULK, A. v. LINDAMOOD, M. A. B., 529 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . applicable to the instant case, we are not asked to decide what effect, if any, the enactment of Section 57.104 . . . Section 57.104 provides: "In any action in which attorneys’ fees are to be determined ..., the court . . . Although it is uncertain from the explicit language of section 57.104 whether it was intended to modify . . .