Cases from cite.case.law:

A. THORLTON D. v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,, 257 So. 3d 596 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . maintained that the issue was an evidentiary issue related to routine business practices under section 90.406 . . .

E. SOULE, v. U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, FOR BNC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE PASS- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 253 So. 3d 679 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . (citing § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2014) ). . . .

PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. ROBERTS, 246 So. 3d 482 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2009) ; Brown v. . . .

L. SPENCER L. v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC FSB, 242 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . (citing § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2014) ). . . .

C. EDMONDS N. v. U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION JP, 215 So. 3d 628 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Allen, slip op. at 4; see also § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2014); CitiMortgage, Inc. v. . . .

WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. v. AYERS, L. s, 219 So. 3d 89 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . This evidence was competent evidence of routine practice under Florida’s Evidence Code, see § 90.406, . . .

ALLEN, a k a T. v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N. A. N. A. f b o II, 216 So. 3d 685 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . EMC’s routine business practices, Evidence of a company’s routine business practices under section 90.406 . . .

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. v. A. HOSKINSON,, 200 So. 3d 191 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . . § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2014); see Brown v. Giffen Indus., Inc., 281 So.2d 897, 899-900 (Fla.1973). . . .

PEUGUERO v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. LP, LP,, 169 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . .” § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2013); People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. . . .

PEOPLE S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, v. N. RODDY,, 134 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

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

. . . experience in the corporation was too remote to be reliable is misplaced in the organizational context of § 90.406 . . . , 810 So.2d 901 (Fla.2002) ("this Court does not intentionally overrule itself sub silentio.”). . § 90.406 . . .

SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC. v. DUNN, 977 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 90.406, Florida Statutes states, Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether . . . conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice. § 90.406 . . . However, it is clear from the text of section 90.406 and the applicable cases that evidence of a routine . . .

MARION COUNTY, v. KIRK,, 965 So. 2d 330 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

TABB, TABB, a v. FLORIDA BIRTH- RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION M. D. d b a, 880 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See § 90.406, Fla. . . . In Lumbermens, the court explained the effect of section 90.406 and also explained that the evidence . . . , would support only an inference that the practice was followed in the case: The impact of Section 90.406 . . .

THURMAN, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION,, 881 So. 2d 89 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Section 90.406, Florida Statutes, states, Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether . . . routine method of performing a particular act, proof of that routine method is admissible under section 90.406 . . . Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 90.406 (2004 Edition). . . . the general business practice rule in unemployment compensation cases, they do not cite to section 90.406 . . .

McKEITHAN, a McKEITHAN v. HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. d b a, 879 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Although section 90.406, Florida Statutes (2003), does not apply to the routine practice of an individual . . .

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, v. B. HIGGINS, L. f k a L. f k a, 788 So. 2d 992 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Under section 90.406, Florida Statutes (2000), evidence of a business routine with regard to mailing . . .

BEST MERIDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, v. TUATY,, 752 So. 2d 733 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . .” § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. M. LEDFORD L., 691 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Jones, 414 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . .

SIMMONS, v. ROORDA d b a, 601 So. 2d 609 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . . § 90.406, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

MCNAMARA v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 39 Fla. Supp. 2d 70 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . In addition, § 90.406 F.S. allows the probation officer to testify as to the routine practice of the . . .

FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC. v. COASTAL CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, INC., 553 So. 2d 705 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . .” § 90.406, Fla.Stat. (1987); see Brown v. Giffen Indus., 281 So.2d 897, 900 (Fla.1973). . . .

ROBINSON, v. HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY,, 545 So. 2d 478 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . See § 90.406, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . .

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, v. L. KURTZ,, 518 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . See also section 90.406, Florida Statutes, which provides that evidence of a routine practice of an organization . . .

S. DUFFELL, v. SOUTH WALTON EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. a Co. A. A., 501 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . It was inadmissible under section 90.406, relating to routine practices of organizations, for the simple . . .

HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, III, v. B. OCHA,, 472 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 90.406, Florida Statutes (1979), states: “Routine practice. — Evidence of the routine practice . . .

GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. UTTAL, 14 Fla. Supp. 2d 131 (Palm Beach Cty. Ct. 1985)

. . . C & G Sporting Goods, 453 So.2d 121, 123 n. 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Section 90.406, Fla. . . .

FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SIMS,, 464 So. 2d 251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . The court quoted section 90.406, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides: Evidence of the routine practice . . .

EIG, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,, 447 So. 2d 377 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Appellee introduced the deposition of an employee who testified, pursuant to section 90.406, Florida . . . Alvarez, 443 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); section 90.406, Florida Statutes (1981), the party does have . . .

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. ALVAREZ,, 443 So. 2d 279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . case absent a contrary showing), was effectively done away with in 1979 with the enactment of Section 90.406 . . . The impact of Section 90.406 on the case at hand is that Almerico’s testimony as to the routine practice . . .

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. E. JONES,, 414 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Neither at the trial level nor on appeal did either party mention or rely on section 90.406, Florida . . .