Cases from cite.case.law:

ROOP, DOC v. STATE, 228 So. 3d 633 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . the admission of an excited utterance, the procedures for preliminary questions outlined in section 90.105 . . .

LIVINGSTON, v. STATE, 219 So. 3d 911 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (2013); Morrison v. . . . Section 90.105(1) “imposes the responsibility of determining preliminary questions as to the admissibility . . .

ALLEN, v. STATE, 157 So. 3d 540 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . statement as an excited utterance is a preliminary fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.105 . . .

CITIZENS FOR APPROPRIATE RURAL ROADS, INC. v. FOXX,, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (S.D. Ind. 2014)

. . . . § 90.105(b). . . .

R. McDADE, v. STATE, 114 So. 3d 465 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . to suppress, but it was actually a preliminary hearing that should have been conducted under section 90.105 . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 108 So. 3d 707 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . fact to be determined by the trial judge based on a preponderance of the evidence, pursuant to section 90.105 . . . offer no analysis or authority to support such a proposition, which is clearly contrary to section 90.105 . . .

SHORTER, v. STATE, 98 So. 3d 685 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . . § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BUITRAGO, 100 So. 3d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . determine preliminary questions concerning the admissibility of the recommendation pursuant to section 90.105 . . .

A. REEVES, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, N. A. N. A. LP, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (D. Or. 2012)

. . . . § 90.105. Plaintiff has not alleged the property at issue is subject to Chapter 90. . . .

PARTIN, v. STATE, 82 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 2011)

. . . See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (2002); Charles W. . . .

MONCUS II, v. STATE, 69 So. 3d 341 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . . § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

AGROFOLLAJES, S. A. v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY, INC., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Consistent with section 90.105, Florida Statutes (2001), it was the plaintiffs’ burden to prove outside . . .

STATE v. R. HAMPTON,, 44 So. 3d 661 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . falls within the category of conditional relevancy and is governed by the procedure set forth in § 90.105 . . .

BOWERS, v. STATE, 23 So. 3d 767 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 90.105(1), Florida Statutes (2008), is similar to federal rule 104(a) but omits the one sentence . . . Section 90.105(1) provides that "[e]xcept as provided in subsection (2), the court shall determine preliminary . . .

TENGBERGEN, v. STATE, 9 So. 3d 729 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . form of an opinion, two preliminary factual determinations must be made by the court under section 90.105 . . .

THIGPEN, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC., 990 So. 2d 639 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 90.105, Fla. Stat. . . .

COX, v. STATE W. v. R., 966 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2007)

. . . form of an opinion, two preliminary factual determinations must be made by the court under section 90.105 . . .

ESSEX, v. STATE, 958 So. 2d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . former testimony is a preliminary question “concerning ... the admissibility of evidence” under section 90.105 . . .

R. MARIANO, Jr. v. STATE, 933 So. 2d 111 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . the statement as an excited utterance is a preliminary fact for the court to determine pursuant to § 90.105 . . .

TUCKER, v. STATE, 884 So. 2d 168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . the admission of an excited utterance, the procedures for preliminary questions outlined in section 90.105 . . . This is not a situation of conditional relevance governed by section 90.105(2), Florida Statutes (2002 . . . 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) (holding Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), upon which section 90.105 . . .

HUCK, v. STATE, 881 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . on facts outside the ordinary experience of the jury and were, therefore, admissible under section 90.105 . . . may render an opinion, two preliminary factual determinations must be made by the court under section 90.105 . . . Here, both requirements of section 90.105 were fully satisfied with respect to the testimony of the medical . . .

ANDERSON, Jr. v. STATE, 863 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 2003)

. . . form of an opinion, two preliminaiy factual determinations must be made by the court under section 90.105 . . .

L. ARNETT, v. STATE, 843 So. 2d 340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . must make a preliminary factual determination of the admissibility of evidence pursuant to section 90.105 . . .

FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK, v. J. TURNEY,, 824 So. 2d 172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 90.105(1), Fla. . . . ’s interpretation of Rule 104(a) is persuasive authority as to the proper interpretation of section 90.105 . . .

WESTERHEIDE, v. STATE, 767 So. 2d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

SUAREZ- BURGOS, v. MORHAIM,, 745 So. 2d 368 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See §§ 90.104(2); 90.105, Fla.Stat. (1997). . . .

GEORGES, v. STATE, 723 So. 2d 399 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

STATE v. A. ELLIS,, 723 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1998)

. . . .%., § 90.105(1), Fla. . . . .”); § 90.105(3), Fla. . . .

AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY R. J. RJR USA, v. STATE M. Jr. Co., 697 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . Section 90.105(1) provides that it is the trial court which determines preliminary issues, including . . . In Bourjaily, analyzing Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) (on which our Rule 90.105(1) is patterned), Chief . . . proof of the crime-fraud exception have discussed Rule 104(a), the federal counterpart of our Rule 90.105 . . .

M. PIERCE, v. STATE, 718 So. 2d 806 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . As a preliminary fact, pursuant to section 90.105, Florida Statutes (1995) (substantively identical to . . .

PERRY, v. STATE, 675 So. 2d 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . See generally, § 90.105, Florida Statutes. . . .

M. PIERCE, v. STATE, 671 So. 2d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . As a preliminary fact, pursuant to section 90.105, Florida Statutes (1991), the trial court found that . . .

TERRY, v. STATE, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1996)

. . . form of an opinion, two preliminary factual determinations must be made by the court under section 90.105 . . .

A. VAN DEN BORRE, v. STATE, 596 So. 2d 687 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . See § 90.105(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

PHILLIPS, v. STATE, 591 So. 2d 987 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . wherein the United States Supreme Court viewed the issue under Federal Rule 104(b)— similar to section 90.105 . . .

DEMPSEY, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, a J., 589 So. 2d 373 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Section 90.105 states that the trial court shall determine preliminary questions concerning the admissibility . . .

HUFFSTUTLER v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 48 Fla. Supp. 2d 39 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . Florida Statute 90.105 provides “(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), the court shall determine . . . It is reasonable to conclude when reading Florida Statute 90.702 and Florida Statute 90.105 in pari materia . . .

DONALDSON, v. STATE, 561 So. 2d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . . § 90.105 Fla. Stat. (1987). . . .

TULLIS, v. STATE, 556 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . .; see §§ 90.105(2), 90.702, Fla. Stat. (1987). See generally Holsworth v. . . .

BROCK v. G. D. SEARLE CO., 530 So. 2d 428 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Citing section 90.105(2), Florida Statutes, Searle requested the trial court to exercise its discretion . . . Section 90.105(2) provides: When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the existence of a preliminary . . .

LEONARD BROS. INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS Co. v. BURKE COMPANY,, 529 So. 2d 779 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Corp., 368 So.2d 91, 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); § 90.105(2) law revision council note, Fla.Stat.Ann. (1979 . . .

ROMANI, M. D. v. STATE, 528 So. 2d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . State, 421 So.2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), concluded that Florida Evidence Code section 90.105(1) was . . . The fourth district, in Saavedra, recognized that section 90.105(1) is patterned after Federal Evidence . . . authority to the contrary, we find the commentators’ arguments to be persuasive in construing section 90.105 . . . Section 90.105(1) provides in pertinent part that: "the court shall determine preliminary questions concerning . . .

ALVAREZ, v. LA ASSOCIACION I. N. E. D. INC. d b a I. N. E. D., 524 So. 2d 502 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Morris, 143 Fla. 189, 196 So. 472 (1940); § 90.105(1), Fla.Stat. (1987); 4 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence and Witnesses . . .

GOLDSTEIN, v. STATE, 447 So. 2d 903 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . See sections 90.105 and 90.603(2), Florida Statutes (1981). . . .

D. BOYD, v. STATE, 389 So. 2d 642 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Chapter 90, Florida Statutes, 1979) is similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence in many respects; Section 90.105 . . .