Cases from cite.case.law:

J. RIEDER, v. F. RIEDER,, 197 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . recognize that trial courts have the authority to enforce alimony payments with injunctions, see, e.g., § 61.11 . . .

HORTON, v. M. HORTON,, 179 So. 3d 459 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Franks, 469 So.2d 934, 934 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (citing in part section 61.11 and explaining that . . .

MAHAKALI KRUPA, LLC v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 619 F. App'x 98 (3d Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 61.11(b)-(c). . . . which would have made the new policy effective immediately upon the closing of the loan. 44 C.F.R. § 61.11 . . .

McCARTY, v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 758 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 61.11(b). . . .

M K RESTAURANT LLC, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. d b a, 29 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (E.D. Ark. 2014)

. . . . § 61.11(b) which provides: Where the initial purchase of flood insurance is in connection with the . . . Thus, the Court finds that the provisions of 44 C.F.R. § 61.11(b) apply in this case. . . . subject of the loan,” thus making the property ineligible for the 30-day waiting period under 44 C.F.R. § 61.11 . . . See 44 C.F.R. § 61.11(b); Dennis v. Fid. Nat. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3306879, *4 (W.D.La. . . .

ROTATABLE TECHNOLOGIES LLC, v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, LLC, INC., 567 F. App'x 941 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . col. 21. 31, col. 21. 47, col. 2 1. 58, col. 2 1. 66, col. 4 1. 56, col. 51. 8, col. 5 1. 25, col. 61.11 . . .

CITY OF BRISTOL PENSION FUND, v. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. Ph. D. M. D. Ph. D. Ph. D. J., 12 F. Supp. 3d 225 (D. Mass. 2014)

. . . Vertex’s stock price fell from a close of $61.11 on June 27, 2012, to a close of $51.18 on June 28. . . .

JOY MM DELAWARE, INC. v. CINCINNATI MINE MACHINERY, CO., 497 F. App'x 970 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . that said second flight head is spaced from its respective side plate. '932 patent col. 41. 48-col. 61.11 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORMS, 50 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2010)

. . . fills the need for a standard form in this area of the law and satisfies the requirements of section 61.11 . . . costs associated with service of this writ and transportation of the individual pursuant to Section 61.11 . . .

BIEDA, v. BIEDA, 42 So. 3d 859 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . The order does not state whether it was entered pursuant to section 61.11(1), Florida Statutes (2009) . . .

BURKS, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Co. a a By-, 388 F. App'x 387 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . liabilities of merging corporations are the responsibility of the surviving corporation.''). . 44 C.F.R. 61.11 . . .

BULL, Jr. F. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., 649 F. Supp. 2d 529 (W.D. La. 2009)

. . . . § 61.11(c). September 24, 2005 is exactly thirty days after Mr. . . . The Bulls acknowledge that, pursuant to 44 CFR § 61.11(c), the earliest date the 2431 SFIP could have . . . As to the 2431 Egret Street SFIP, Allstate notes that the clear language of 44 CFR § 61.11(c) states . . . The 2431 Egret Street SFIP Was Never Effective 44 CFR § 61.11 states in pertinent part: § 61.11 Effective . . . (b) and 61.11(c) from the body of the SFIP. . . .

S. CAMPO, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 562 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . claim and requested the NFIP to issue a check to Campo for the policy limit of $98,200. . 44 C.F.R. 61.11 . . .

RINKOR, v. BRBORICH, f k a, 957 So. 2d 661 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 61.11(1), Florida Statutes (2006) provides for the issuance of injunctions under certain circumstances . . . Section 61.11(1) makes no mention of attorney’s fees. . . . The Fourth District Court of Appeal has at least twice determined that section 61.11 does not empower . . .

PABON LUGO, s v. MONY LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, s, 465 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D.P.R. 2006)

. . . . § 61.11. . . .

OXENBERG, v. OXENBERG,, 937 So. 2d 166 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . The injunction was entered pursuant to Section 61.11, Florida Statutes (2005). . . .

M. GORDON, v. J. GORDON,, 932 So. 2d 393 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . We grant the petition as the language of section 61.11(2), Florida Statutes (2005), limits its application . . .

PARNAMA, v. PARNAMA,, 908 So. 2d 541 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . presented sufficient evidence at the first of two hearings on the issue to justify relief under section 61.11 . . .

H. SANDERS, II, v. LAIRD,, 865 So. 2d 649 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Therefore, we turn to an examination of the provisions of section 61.11(2) for additional guidance. . . . A review of section 61.11(2) reveals that it contains numerous Florida-specific references. . . . For this reason, we conclude that section 61.11(2) must be construed as limiting the authority of the . . . Therefore, section 61.11(2) should be construed to limit the authority of the circuit courts to issue . . . By contrast, section 61.11(2) does not intrude upon inherent judicial power to impose civil contempt . . .

CONTACTS, INC. v. WHENU. COM, 309 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . the website”, 59.98% of those respondents who had SaveNow on their computers responded "Agree,” while 61.11% . . .

UNITED STATES YONKERS BRANCH- NAACP, v., 123 F. Supp. 2d 694 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . undertook the most demanding curriculum (consisting of Century Honors, AP, or College link), and for 61.11% . . .

GINSBERG v. A. GINSBERG,, 757 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 61.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides as follows: When either party is about to remove . . .

DAVIS, v. DAVIS,, 736 So. 2d 123 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 61.11(1), Fla. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION, s TNRCC UNITED STATES v. HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION, s TNRCC, 128 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 1997)

. . . . §§ 61.10(b), 61.11 (1996); see also § 61.112(c) (1996) (setting out procedures for application for . . . standard for a period not exceeding two years after the effective date of the standard. 40 C.F.R. § 61.11 . . .

In LESLIE FAY COMPANIES, INC., 207 B.R. 764 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . King, Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 1129.02 at 1129-61.11 (15th ed. 1996). . . .

WIDOM, v. WIDOM,, 679 So. 2d 74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . We recognize that section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1995), provides authority for the trial court to enter . . . We also recognize that section 61.11 applies whether a spouse is attempting to dissipate marital assets . . . Section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1995), does not empower the trial court to enter an injunction to secure . . . See § 61.11, Fla. Stat. (1995); Rosasco, 641 So.2d at 494. . . .

LEONARD, v. LEONARD,, 678 So. 2d 497 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Injunctions in marital dissolution cases are provided for by section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1995), . . .

UNITED STATES v. HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION,, 964 F. Supp. 967 (D.S.C. 1996)

. . . . § 61.11. . . .

P. T. S. TRADING CORP. v. HABIE, L. P. d b a P. A. a P. A. a A. a, 673 So. 2d 498 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1991), grants broad authority to the courts for in-junctive relief or . . .

SIRAVO, Jr. v. SIRAVO, 670 So. 2d 983 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1995), states: When either party is about to remove himself or herself . . .

L. LAGSTROM, v. LAGSTROM,, 662 So. 2d 756 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Sandstrom, 565 So.2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); § 61.11, Fla.Stat. (1993); § 61.08(3), Fla.Stat. (1993) . . .

R. BADOUR, v. STATE L., 653 So. 2d 511 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Sandstrom, 565 So.2d 914, 914-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that trial courts, pursuant to § 61.11, . . .

NEAL a k a v. NEAL a k a, 636 So. 2d 810 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Injunctions in marital dissolution proceedings are authorized by section 61.11, Florida Statutes, which . . . While section 61.11 contains no express requirement for an injunction bond, entitlement to the extraordinary . . .

GOODING, v. GOODING,, 602 So. 2d 615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . In pertinent part, section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1991), provides: When either party is about to remove . . .

BURGESS, a III, a v. BURGESS,, 568 So. 2d 934 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . .-18, Fla.Stat. (1989)); and specific equitable remedies (§ 61.11, Fla.Stat. (1989)). . . .

SANDSTROM, v. SANDSTROM,, 565 So. 2d 914 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . We note that Section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1989) reads in relevant part: When either party is about . . . Section 61.11 is the wife’s authority to seek to enjoin the husband's removal, concealment or fraudulent . . .

M. SCHORB, v. L. SCHORB,, 547 So. 2d 985 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . .” § 61.11, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

MAUDSLEY, v. NAVARRO,, 510 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . being held in custody pursuant to a writ of ne exeat, entered pursuant to Florida Statutes sections 61.11 . . .

F. SMITH R. v. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, v. E. MARTIN,, 796 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 61.11(e), the liability of the Program under the policy for flood damage to the contents of the Smith . . . of the application date, coverage takes effect one day after the date of such receipt. 44 C.F.R. § 61.11 . . . Under 44 C.F.R. § 61.11(e), the new policy was in effect when the damage occurred on April 10 only if . . .

L. KENNEDY, v. KENNEDY,, 464 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1981), provides in part: When either party is about to remove himself . . .

BACARDI, v. B. WHITE,, 463 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1985)

. . . responding to this argument, held that the same result could be obtained under the provisions of section 61.11 . . . , Florida Statutes (1981), which reads as follows: 61.11 Effect of judgment of alimony. — A judgment . . .

BFC CHEMICALS, INC. v. SMITH- DOUGLASS, INC., 46 B.R. 1009 (E.D.N.C. 1985)

. . . . 645 (1943), reh’g denied, 318 U.S. 800, 63 S.Ct. 757, 87 L.Ed. 1163, 7 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 61.11 . . .

TROY LTD. a a v. P. RENNA, R. P. RENNA, I. No. COHEN, No., 727 F.2d 287 (3d Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 2A:18-61.11(d) (West Supp.1983)) (hereafter the “Tenancy Act”), violates the impairment of contracts . . . NJ.Stat.Ann. § 2A:18-61.11(a) (West Supp.1983). . . . N.J.Stat.Ann. § 2A: 18-61.11(c) (West Supp.1983). . . . NJ.Stat.Ann. § 2A:18-61.11(d) (West Supp. 1983) (emphasis added). . . .

L. GILBERT, v. J. GILBERT, SOUTHEAST BANK, N. A. v. J. GILBERT,, 447 So. 2d 299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . However, the same result could be obtained under the provisions of section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1981 . . . ), which reads as follows: 61.11 Effect of judgment of alimony. . . .

ANGLETON, v. R. PIERCE, Jr. U. S., 574 F. Supp. 719 (D.N.J. 1983)

. . . also request that the landlord provide him with “the rental of comparable housing,” N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.11 . . . N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.11 a. . . . N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.11 a, c. . . .

TROY, LTD. v. P. RENNA, N. J., 580 F. Supp. 69 (D.N.J. 1982)

. . . to acquire their own unit are also covered by what may be called the “3 plus 5” provision, NJS 2A:18-61.11 . . . This provision is paragraph d, added to NJS 2A:18-61.11, by sec. 14 of the 1981 law. . . . III As noted, sec. 14 of the 1981 Act adds par. d to N.J.S. 2A:18-61.11, which enables a court to grant . . .

D. CANCELLIER, W. v. FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES d b a I., 672 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir. 1982)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 61.11 & n.1a (2d ed. 1979). . . .

BUZZARD, v. BUZZARD, 412 So. 2d 388 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . The wife argues, however, that Section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1979), provides an exception to the exemption . . . Section 61.11 provides in pertinent part: “When either party is about to remove himself or his property . . . Moreover, section 61.11 is not applicable here, since the husband has already removed himself from the . . .

CITY OF PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS, v. UNITED STATES, 517 F. Supp. 987 (D.D.C. 1981)

. . . Total Black % Black 1 14,649 11,846 80.86% 2 15,855 3,141 19.81% 3 16,033 919 05.73% 4 14,457 8,835 61.11% . . . Finally, although there is some evidence that the blacks who make up 61.11% of the population of District . . . Defendant United States contends that the 61.11% majority held by the blacks in District 4 is insufficient . . . Although blacks comprise only 61.11% of the total population of District 4 and approximately 55% of the . . .

A. FRECHETTE, v. F. WELCH,, 621 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1980)

. . . Travelers Indemnity Co., 450 F.2d 542, 555 (5th Cir. 1971); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 61.11 (2d ed . . .

ADLER, v. ADLER,, 362 So. 2d 468 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . . §§ 61.11 and 61.13, Fla.Stat. (1977). Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions. . . .

DAVIS, Jr. v. B. DAVIS,, 358 So. 2d 126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1977). . . .

J. SCHATZ, v. K. SCHATZ,, 356 So. 2d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . See Section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1975). . . .

T. HALL, v. AIR FORCE FINANCE CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE OF UNITED STATES, 344 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . For similar changes compare § 65.08 to § 61.08; § 65.11 with § 61.11; § 65.15 with § 61.14 and § 65.20 . . .

W. LAMAR, v. LAMAR,, 323 So. 2d 43 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . . §61.11 (1973): “. . . . . .

L. ROUSE, v. B. ROUSE,, 313 So. 2d 458 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . . § 61.11, F.S. A. . . .

J. DOVER, v. D. DOVER, Jr., 241 So. 2d 740 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . Furthermore, in order for a wife to obtain the benefits of Section 61.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which . . .

W. BOX, v. C. SWINDLE,, 306 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1962)

. . . Vol. 7 § 61.11, p. 1030. For the reasons set out herein, the .judgment is Affirmed. . . . .

TOY FAIR, INC. P. J. v. P. KIMMEL, P. N., 177 F. Supp. 129 (D. Md. 1959)

. . . , $600 was applied to the rent, $115.82 to costs and expenses, and the balance of $30.68, plus the $61.11 . . . Miscellaneous — The corporate plaintiff is entitled to the $61.11 found in the cash register. . . .

EDWARD W. POORE v. THE UNITED STATES, 49 Ct. Cl. 192 (Ct. Cl. 1914)

. . . Under decisions of the accounting officers of the Treasury, $61.11 was disallowed and stopped against . . . claimant was entitled to receive his salary from March 27, 1911, and judgment in his favor in the sum of $61.11 . . .