Cases from cite.case.law:

MARTINEZ, Jr. M. D. v. GOLISTING. COM, INC. d b a, 233 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (2017) is titled, “Attachment or garnishment of amounts due for alimony . . . Section 61.12(2) provides as follows: The provisions of chapter 77 or any other provision of law to the . . . (2) to section 61.12(1). . . . In 1977, the existing section 61.12 was designated as subpart (1) and subpart (2) was added. . . . The current version of section 61.12 has not changed since 1991. . . .

SMITH, v. HILLSIDE VILLAGE,, 279 F. Supp. 3d 537 (D.N.J. 2017)

. . . See N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 to—61.12, the Anti-Eviction Act (Act). . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, v. O CONNOR, f k a, 155 So. 3d 479 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . the hearing that: O’Connor I was persuasive, even if dicta, as to O’Connor’s legal rights; section 61.12 . . . The Department contends that neither the garnishment statute, section 61.12, nor the unclaimed property . . . Alternatively, even if sovereign immunity were implicated, section 61.12 waives sovereign immunity for . . . basis for so long as the court may determine....” § 61.12(2), Fla. . . . For this reason, section 61.12 does not provide a basis for the relief O’Connor seeks. III. . . .

P. GIMENO, v. RIVERA,, 153 So. 3d 390 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 61.12(b), Fla. Stat. (2013); State, Dep’t of Revenue v. . . . See § 61.12(b), Fla. Stat. (2013); Pohlmann v. Pohlmann, 703 So.2d 1121,1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). . . .

In JOLAN, INC., 403 B.R. 866 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009)

. . . RCW 61.12 and 61.24. Likewise, a real property tax sale. See RCW 84.64.080. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SAN DIEGO GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, v., 319 F. App'x 628 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 61.12(e), the “Credible Evidence Rule.” . . .

In DUNN, 399 B.R. 909 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009)

. . . WnCR 12 and 55; RCW §§ 61.12; 6.21.030; and 6.23.020; see also Tegland, Rules Practice, 3A Wash. . . .

J. GUZMAN, M. D. v. SHEWRY,, 552 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 61.12(a). . . .

J. GUZMAN, M. D. v. SHEWRY,, 544 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 61.12(a). . . .

UNITED STATES v. AVIL S- COL N, J. n, 536 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008)

. . . Furthermore, the parties stipulated that 1.56 grams of heroin and 61.12 grams of cocaine were seized . . .

SIERRA CLUB, v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,, 430 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . . §§ 52.30, 60.11, and 61.12. Credible Evidence Revisions, 62 Fed.Reg. at 8328. . . . .

WORLDCOM, INC. v. GRAPHNET, INC., 343 F.3d 651 (3d Cir. 2003)

. . . or foreign communication, or both, which has not been classified as non-dominant pursuant to Section 61.12 . . . (e) of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 61.12(e), is not treated under the regulatory forbearance . . .

ACOSTA, v. MASTER MAINTENANCE, v., 192 F. Supp. 2d 577 (M.D. La. 2001)

. . . .2484-2536) 33.75 • State of Louisiana (B.3434-3436) 2.00 & Marcello • Talbot, Carmouche (B.3437-3438) 61.12 . . .

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY M., 194 F.3d 130 (D.C. Cir. 1999)

. . . . §§ 52.12(c); 60.11(g); 61.12(e). . . .

CLEAN AIR IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 150 F.3d 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1998)

. . . . §§ 51.212(c), 52.12(c), 52.33(a), and 61.12(e). . . .

In SHELDON. In s, 196 B.R. 551 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1996)

. . . Under RCW Chapter 61.12. RCW 61.24.100; Helbling Bros. Inc. v. . . .

RUDDER, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 890 F. Supp. 23 (D.D.C. 1995)

. . . the Lieutenant’s rank, African-Americans scored higher than whites (African-American: 61.57; White: 61.12 . . .

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

. . . thus may enjoin a party’s attempt to defeat court orders through alienation of property); see also § 61.12 . . . compensation claim will be subject to equitable distribution or to garnishment as provided in section 61.12 . . .

CENTRAL WESLEYAN COLLEGE, v. W. R. GRACE CO. AC S, A. P. GAF Co. D Du H A H. K. IPA J. W. a C. E. TAF CENTRAL WESLEYAN COLLEGE, v. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INCORPORATED, W. R. Co. AC S, A. P. GAF Co. D Du In- H A H. K. IPA J. W. a C. E. TAF, 6 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 1993)

. . . . §§ 61.12(e), 61.-145(c), 61.150. The complaint also seeks punitive damages. A. . . .

SACHS, v. SACHS,, 623 So. 2d 640 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . after final judgment granting a continuing writ of garnishment against his salary, pursuant to section 61.12 . . .

REYF, v. REYF,, 620 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The wife then sought to obtain a continuing writ of garnishment under Section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes . . . Section 61.12(1) provides for “garnishment to enforce and satisfy the orders and judgments of the courtfs . . . Therefore, we conclude that a con-tinning writ of garnishment is not available under Section 61.12 to . . . Schwarz, 504 So.2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (continuing writ of garnishment authorized by § 61.12(2) only . . . Although Section 61.12(1) was formerly held not to apply to final judgments, Sokolsky v. . . .

R. CUMMINS, v. L. CUMMINS,, 615 So. 2d 173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . . § 61.12, Fla.Stat. (1991). . § 61.1301(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). . . .

v., 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 114 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993)

. . . The Explanatory Notes (EN) involved in this action are EN 62.11 to heading 6211 and EN 61.12 to heading . . . EN 62.11 states: “The provisions of the Explanatory Note to heading 61.12 concerning track suits * * . . . And EN 61.12 provides, inter alia: (A) Track suits, i.e., knitted articles consisting of two pieces, . . . Thus, Customs concludes, by applying EN 61.12, mutatis mutandis, to HTSUS heading 6211, woven track suits . . .

McFADDEN, M. D. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 803 F. Supp. 1178 (N.D. Miss. 1992)

. . . Larson, supra, § 61.12(k). . . . But Cf. 2 Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, Section 61.12(k) (1989) (physician lacks independent . . .

CITY OF TAMPA, v. HINES,, 596 So. 2d 160 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . The city argues that such a writ may not be enforced against a municipality under section 61.12, Florida . . . Section 61.12(1) provides for garnishment to enforce and satisfy the orders and judgments of the court . . . Further, section 61.12(1), as quoted above, refers to garnishment to enforce “other orders in proceedings . . .

TEXPORTS STEVEDORES CO. v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, M., 931 F.2d 331 (5th Cir. 1991)

. . . Larson, supra, § 61.12(Z), at 10-852. This is consistent with the rule followed by the BRB. . . .

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

. . . are but a few: income deduction orders (§ 61.1301, Fla.Stat. (1989)); attachment or garnishment (§ 61.12 . . .

VETRICK, P. C. v. HOLLANDER, P. O, 566 So. 2d 844 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes This section does not provide for continuing writs of garnishment. . . . Section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes This section provides for continuing writs of garnishment, but only . . .

MILMAR ROOFING CO. INC. v. JONES,, 566 So. 2d 25 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Cf Section 61.12(h), and 83.20, Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law. Affirmed. . . .

D. WHITEHEAD M. C. Jr. M. D. v. J. DERWINSKI, U. S. F., 904 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1990)

. . . . §* 61.12.-040, 61.24.040 (1961 & Supp.1989); Donovick v. . . .

GIBSON a k a v. BENNETT,, 561 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1990)

. . . In Sokolsky, this Court was asked to determine whether section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes (1979), permitting . . . The Court held that the provisions of section 61.12(1) do not apply to create an exception to the exemption . . . of the court of this state for alimony, suit money, or child support” within the meaning of section 61.12 . . .

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

. . . . § 61.08-61.12, Fla.Stat. (1987); see, e.g., Bacardi v. . . .

K. COOPER, v. P. COOPER,, 546 So. 2d 107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Appellee responds that recent amendments to both section 61.12 and chapter 77 of the Florida Statutes . . . Section 61.12(2) referenced chapter 77 and any other law to the contrary and provided that the court . . . sections, several cases held that the continuing writ of garnishment was not available under section 61.12 . . . In 1984 the legislature amended section 61.12(1) to include “judgments” as well as “orders” within the . . . However, appellant points out that said amendment did not include section 61.12(2) as the word “judgments . . .

IN RE MARRIAGE OF ALVAREZ, 36 Fla. Supp. 2d 125 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . The former wife asserted that Section 61.12 of the Florida Statutes provided a means for her request . . . She further argued that Section 61.12 provided an exception to the exemption of Section 121.131. . . .

BURT v BURT, 32 Fla. Supp. 2d 93 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . The former wife asserted that Section 61.12 of the Florida Statutes provided a means for her request . . . She further argued that Section 61.12 provided an exception to the exemption of Section 121.131. . . .

NICHOLS, v. H. SCHWARZ,, 504 So. 2d 503 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . affirm the trial court’s holding that a continuing writ of garnishment is not available under section 61.12 . . .

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

. . . He argued that section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes (1981), which authorized continuing writs of garnishment . . .

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

. . . . §§ 2A:18-61.1 to 61.12 (West Supp.1983)). . . .

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

. . . He points out that section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes (1981), which authorizes continuing writs of garnishment . . .

B. WHITE, v. BACARDI,, 446 So. 2d 150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . DCA 1968) that Florida’s “public policy” for the enforceability of such orders, as reflected by Sec. 61.12 . . . The unique remedy of a continuing writ of garnishment is authorized by Section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes . . .

G J INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,, 429 So. 2d 391 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . garnishment proceedings against the state to enforce court-ordered alimony suit money or child support, see § 61.12 . . . More importantly, Section 61.12 is a perfect example of a clear and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, v. SWEETING,, 423 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . The order also granted a continuing writ of garnishment, pursuant to Section 61.12, Florida Statutes . . . The trial court found that the former husband was not exempt from garnishment due to Section 61.12. . . . Section 61.12 creates an exception to the head of family exemption from garnishment with respect to orders . . . exception to the head of the family exemption from garnishment of an ex-spouse’s wages created by section 61.12 . . .

H. SCHWARZ, v. WADDELL, Jr., 422 So. 2d 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . The three issues facing us are (1) whether garnishment under section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1979), . . . on June 28,1979; and (3) whether the trial court erred in garnishing relator’s wages under section 61.12 . . . .2d 975 (Fla.1981), which held that reducing arrearages to final judgment precludes resort to section 61.12 . . . The Legislature, in enacting section 61.12, recognized that orders entered in domestic matters should . . . Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1979), provides in relevant part: (1) So much as the court orders of . . .

A. SWEETEN, Sr. v. A. ANDERSON, 414 So. 2d 258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1981) carves out of the Section 222.11 exemption an exception where . . . supreme court that reducing arrearages to a final judgment precludes resort to the exception of Section 61.12 . . .

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

. . . We must next look at Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1979). . . .

SOKOLSKY, v. M. KUHN, M., 405 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1981)

. . . The determinative issue in Sokolsky is whether section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes (1979), permitting . . . We hold that where a money judgment has been obtained by the former wife, the provisions of section 61.12 . . . the garnishee and specifically stated that Sokolsky was not exempt from garnishment due to section 61.12 . . . support arrearages had been reduced to money judgment in no way altered the applicability of section 61.12 . . . Section 61.12, which creates an exception for this exemption for head of a family, provides: (1) So much . . .

WADDELL, Jr. v. H. SCHWARZ,, 405 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1981)

. . . garnishment to satisfy an order of the trial court for child support which was encompassed by section 61.12 . . . s order awarding support had not been reduced to final money judgment subject to execution, section 61.12 . . . The pertinent statutory provisions involved are section 61.12(1) which permits garnishment of the former . . . We hold that section 61.12(1) creates an exception to the exemption provided by section 222.11 and that . . . Kuhn, 405 So.2d 975 (Fla.1981), which recognized that section 61.12 is an exception to the exemption . . .

GOLDSTEIN f k a v. GINSBERG,, 399 So. 2d 415 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . In 1980, the appellant sought a continuing writ of garnishment, pursuant to Section 61.12(2), Florida . . .

SOKOLSKY, v. M. KUHN, f k a M., 386 So. 2d 806 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Air Force Finance Center, 344 So.2d 1340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); § 61.12(1), Florida Statutes. . . . to judgment at a time when the support obligation had terminated due to the children’s majority, § 61.12 . . . 222.12 affidavit, and neither § 222.12 nor Miami Herald precludes the court’s consideration of whether § 61.12 . . . . § 61.12(1), Florida Statutes. See also Schwarz v. . . .

H. SCHWARZ, v. WADDELL, Jr., 389 So. 2d 210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . ground that the amounts due fell within the statutory exception for support orders recited in Section 61.12 . . . That statute provided as follows and is identical to Section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes (1979): Attachment . . . made here by respondent that Section 222.12 did not apply to garnishments made pursuant to Section 61.12 . . . Attorneys’ fees and child support are treated equally under Section 61.12 in that the statute concerns . . .

CLARIDGE HOUSE ONE, INC. v. BOROUGH OF VERONA, a, 490 F. Supp. 706 (D.N.J. 1980)

. . . N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.12. . . .

MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY H. v. PAYNE,, 358 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1978)

. . . amounts due fell within the statutory exception to garnishment exemption for support orders, Section 61.12 . . .

BUSOT, v. BUSOT,, 354 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . enforceable by a writ of garnishment because they were not of the character of orders described in Section 61.12 . . . order for child support and alimony which is collectible by a writ of garnishment pursuant to Section 61.12 . . . final judgment of March 7, 1977, was for monies due on a court order of the type described in Section 61.12 . . . under a court order for the same is collectible by a writ of garnishment issued pursuant to Section 61.12 . . . Section 61.12 provides in pertinent part: So much as the court orders of the money or other thing due . . .

CLEMONS, v. MORRIS, 350 So. 2d 519 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . The question on appeal is whether Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975), applies to judgments for alimony . . . The husband defended by saying Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975), only applied to orders and not . . . We like the First District Court of Appeal in Hall, supra, hold that Section 61.12, Florida Statutes . . .

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

. . . further than the trial judge and has introduced, without benefit of briefs or argument, Florida Statute 61.12 . . . If, on the other hand, he construed Florida Statute 61.12 as being applicable to judgments as well as . . . . § 659 is compatible with Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975), which states in part: “So much as . . . 361, 152 So. 200 (1933), the Florida Supreme Court specifically held that the predecessor statute to 61.12 . . . Cooper, supra, the court concluded that the provisions of Section 61.12 do not apply “for collection . . . appeal that the trial court should not have allowed the collection of past due alimony under Section 61.12 . . . In the present case, the wife, Juanita Hall, did all that she was required to do under Section 61.12, . . .

MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, H. v. M. PAYNE,, 345 So. 2d 730 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . claimed to be due and owing were in fact child support, for which garnishment would lie under Section 61.12 . . . fees do not constitute an exception to Section 222.11, Florida Statutes (1975), as provided in Section 61.12 . . . It is not necessary to determine this question herein, as Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975) provides . . .

DE CASTRO, v. DE CASTRO,, 334 So. 2d 834 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . . § 61.12. The only law cited for appellant’s position is Noyes v. . . .

CITY OF MIAMI v. SPURRIER,, 320 So. 2d 397 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . As authority for her contention, appellee cites § 61.12 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; City of Jacksonville v. . . . Florida Legislature, being aware that it is the duty of a spouse to support his or her family, enacted § 61.12 . . . Jones, Fla.App., 213 So.2d 259, interpreting § 61.12, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., in a garnishment case involving . . .

H. B. v., 63 T.C. 149 (T.C. 1974)

. . . Pritchett’s cost basis in this property was $7,857 and his selling expenses were $61.12, leaving a gain . . .

P. COSTA, v. COSTA,, 285 So. 2d 665 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . The appellee argues that exemption claimed by defendant is not available because of § 61.12 Fla. . . . Under those decisions the provisions of § 61.12 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., overriding the exemptions m proceedings . . .

KIMBLE v. BENDIX CORPORATION, 33 Fla. Supp. 114 (Brevard Cty. Ct. 1970)

. . . .; §61.12 Fla. Stat. (1967). . . .

R. HEALEY, v. TOOLAN,, 227 So. 2d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

. . . to the affirmance solely because the wife did not proceed under the provisions of F.S.1967, Section 61.12 . . . Had the wife proceeded as directed by Section 61.12, by obtaining, first, an order for the writ, the . . . The question to be decided is whether on the undisputed facts of this case F.S.1967, Section 61.12, F.S.A . . . the appellant’s judgment was not within the purview of the exception provided by F.S.1967, Section 61.12 . . . garnishment by virtue of F.S.1967, Section 222.11, F.S.A., unless the exception provided by F.S.1967, Section 61.12 . . . F.S.1967, Section 61.12, F.S.A. Attachment or garnishment of amounts due for alimony. . . .

G. NOYES, v. L. COOPER,, 216 So. 2d 799 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . . § 61.12 (1967), F.S.A. . . . Fla.Stat. § 61.12 (1967), F.S.A., which is substantially the same as Fla.Stat. § 65.13 (1965) in this . . . The former wife cannot prevail under the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 65.13 (now § 61.12), F.S.A.; and is . . .

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, v. JONES,, 213 So. 2d 259 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . The sole point on appeal is: Does Section 61.12, Florida Statutes F.S.A., change the law of Florida which . . . Section 61.12, Florida Statutes, reads: “So much as the court orders of the money or other things due . . .

v., 45 T.C. 448 (T.C. 1966)

. . . respondent in his notice of deficiency subtracts a nonbusiness deduction for sales tax in the amount of $61.12 . . .

JOHNSON DRUG COMPANY v. W. THAXTON, E., 121 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1960)

. . . Larson in Vol. 2, Sec. 61.12, of course recognizes that the existence of an emergency may entitle the . . .

UNITED STATES, COLOR CRAFT CORPORATION, v. DICKSTEIN, d b a D H W. H., 157 F. Supp. 126 (E.D.N.C. 1957)

. . . Virginia Paint Law, Chapter 34 of the Acts of 1950, pp. 41-47, codified as sections 59-61.1 through 59-61.12 . . .

J. E. CHANDLER E. B. TEAGUE, 3 B.T.A. 146 (B.T.A. 1925)

. . . Chandler, and in the amounts of $6,878.81, $61.12, and $37.84, respectively, as to E. B. Teague. . . .