Cases from cite.case.law:

A. KNIGHT, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 642 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Consistent with that interest, sections 92.53 and 92.54, Florida Statutes, allow children to testify . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 200 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 2016)

. . . (amending section 92.53, Fla. Stat. (2015)). . . . See § 92.53, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

In A. B. a T. B. v. R. B., 186 So. 3d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . We recognize that pursuant to sections 92.53 and 92.55, the trial court was permitted to order on its . . . Section 92.53(3) expressly conditions the trial court’s power to order testimony by videotaped interview . . . A.B. properly conducted by a judge or special master, as it was statutorily obligated to do, see § 92.53 . . . See, e.g., § 92.53(4) (“The defendant and the defendant’s counsel must be present at the videotaping . . . The Father should have been allowed to attend the videotaped interview, as required by section 92.53( . . .

MONTEIRO, v. MONTEIRO,, 55 So. 3d 686 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . (c) The use of testimony taken outside of the courtroom, including proceedings under ss. 92.53 and 92.54 . . .

ROGERS, v. STATE, 40 So. 3d 888 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . 212 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3219, 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (Fla.1989); see also § 92.53 . . .

L. BLANTON, v. STATE, 978 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2008)

. . . Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (2006), details just how the defendant’s right to confront and the child . . . Section 92.53 provides for the use of videotape to perpetuate a child victim’s testimony. . . . presence of the defendant would cause the child at least moderate emotional or mental harm, section 92.53 . . . Rule 3.190(j) has been repealed insofar as it is inconsistent with section 92.53. . . . In addition to a child witness under age 16, section 92.53 applies to a person with mental retardation . . .

UNITED STATES v. YATES, F., 391 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 92.53. . . . .

DOE, C. B. a v. BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD YMCA,, 744 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1997)(Videotaping of testimony of victim or witness under the age of . . . A videotaped statement of a child taken pursuant to section 92.53 is admissible in court and satisfies . . . Section 92.53 delineates specific procedural requirements which must be met, including the filing of . . . See § 92.53, Fla. Stat.; Feller v. State, 637 So.2d 911, 914 (Fla.1994). . . . Section 92.53 does not convert ordinary depositions or other hearsay statements into admissible testimony . . .

RITCHIE, v. STATE, 720 So. 2d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 92.53(1), Florida Statutes (1997), allows the use of videotaped testimony of child victims of . . . Subsection (7) of section 92.53 requires that the court make specific findings of fact on the record . . . the evidence, the court would not only be ignoring the clear and unequivocal directive of subsection 92.53 . . . As stated by the court in Leggett, the failure of the trial court to comply with subsection 92.53(7) . . . also asserted a “staleness” objection, arguing that the evaluation of harm to the child under section 92.53 . . .

HARTFORD ACCIDENT INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. PRO- FOOTBALL, INC. d b a, 127 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 1997)

. . . Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 92.53-92.65 (1997) (describing assigned risk, retrospective . . .

BARTON, v. STATE, 704 So. 2d 569 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . presence if required to testify in open court; and that the state had not met its burden under section 92.53 . . . Section 92.53, Florida Statutes, provides that the testimony of a child under sixteen may be presented . . . defendant has waived the right to contest the adequacy of the trial court’s findings under section 92.53 . . . Although the defendant objected under section 92.53 during the hearing on the state’s motion to videotape . . . State, 637 So.2d 911, (Fla.1994), that the failure to make findings under section 92.53(7), Florida Statutes . . .

MATHIS, v. STATE, 682 So. 2d 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . trial court offered to support conclusion that child could testify by videotape, pursuant to section 92.53 . . .

SAVAGE, v. STATE, 643 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . The State agrees that the applicable standard is contained in section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1993), . . .

YOUNG, v. STATE, 645 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1994)

. . . . § 92.53, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

SIGMON, v. STATE, 641 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1994)

. . . trial court does not commit fundamental error when it fails to make the findings required by section 92.53 . . .

FELLER, v. STATE, 637 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1994)

. . . importance: DOES A TRIAL COURT COMMIT FUNDAMENTAL ERROR BY FAILING TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 92.53 . . . IF THE FAILURE TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 92.53(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), IS FUNDAMENTAL . . . The state attorney responded that this Court had upheld section 92.53 as constitutional and noted the . . . For the reasons expressed in Hopkins, we find that failure to make the findings required by section 92.53 . . . Failure to make the ease-specific findings mandated by section 92.53 constitutes an independent ground . . .

HOPKINS, v. STATE, 632 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1994)

. . . 212, 217 (Fla.1988) (finding no violation of guarantee of right to confrontation in applying section 92.53 . . . See § 92.53, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

R. R. a v. PORTESY, D., 629 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . court allowed a child who witnessed a murder to present her testimony by videotape, relying on sections 92.53 . . .

LEWIS, v. STATE, 626 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . earlier opinion, the Florida Supreme Court interpreted the similar statutory standard provided in Section 92.53 . . .

STATE v. FORD,, 626 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1993)

. . . The district court found that sections 92.53 and 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), did not allow the trial . . . We agree with the district court that sections 92.53 and 92.54 do not apply to the instant case because . . . victim's testimony by way of videotape or closed-circuit television, except in the context of sections 92.53 . . .

SIGMON, v. STATE, 622 So. 2d 57 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Prior to trial, the State filed a motion to allow the videotape testimony of the victim under section 92.53 . . . presented expert and lay testimony which would, if accepted, support the finding required by section 92.53 . . . s testimony, he did not object to the trial court’s failure to make specific findings under section 92.53 . . . WHETHER IT IS FUNDAMENTAL ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO FAIL TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 92.53 . . . Section 92.53, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: (1) On motion and hearing in camera and . . .

CUMBIE, v. K. SINGLETARY,, 991 F.2d 715 (11th Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 92.53, allowing videotaping of testimony of child witness, while defendant watched from behind two-way . . .

FELLER, v. STATE, 617 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . court did not make sufficient specific findings of fact to comply with the requirements of section 92.53 . . . opinion concludes that any error regarding the sufficiency of the findings of fact required by section 92.53 . . . Section 92.53 sets out the special statutory procedure that must be followed by the trial court in determining . . . Thereafter, the videotape testimony was taken in the presence of the judge as specified in section 92.53 . . . Section 92.53 contemplates that the decision to use videotape testimony in lieu of live testimony at . . . s decision to allow the victim, W.O., to give her trial testimony by videotape, pursuant to section 92.53 . . . In response, the prosecutor called the court’s attention to section 92.53, explaining the requirement . . . trial did the defense object to any lack of specificity in the judge’s findings made under section 92.53 . . . a record already exists upon which the trial court could consider the findings required by section 92.53 . . . Section 92.53(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: "On motion and hearing in camera and a finding that . . . the trial court is the failure of the trial court to make the specific findings required by section 92.53 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE, 608 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1992)

. . . Juvenile Court Rules Committee proposed rule 8.102, a new rule that tracks the language of section 92.53 . . . Section 92.53 clearly sets out the circumstances under which the videotaping of the victim or witness . . .

HOPKINS, Sr. v. STATE, 608 So. 2d 33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . State, 536 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), the state had filed a motion under section 92.53, Florida Statutes . . . Section 92.53 sanctions such a procedure, but, as in section 92.54(5) at issue here, the trial court . . . Section 92.53(7), Fla.Stat. . . . of the record reflects that the trial court did not make the required findings of fact under section 92.53 . . . Section 92.54, like its companion, section 92.53, impacts a defendant’s right to a “face-to-face meeting . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. STATE, 597 So. 2d 408 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . We note that the legislature recognized these important policy interests in enacting sections 92.53, . . .

FORD, v. STATE, 592 So. 2d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . The legislature restricted the procedures contained in sections 92.53 and 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989 . . . As opposed to sections 92.53 and 92.54, where the legislature acted, section 92.55 is a nonoperative . . .

FLANAGAN, v. STATE, 586 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Such testimony, taken before a trial pursuant to Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985), is essentially . . .

W. GAITHER, v. STATE, 581 So. 2d 922 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . moderate emotional or mental harm if she were required to testify at trial, as required by section 92.53 . . . In August 1987, when the child was almost nine years old, the state moved pursuant to section 92.53, . . . The trial court’s failure to make the finding required by section 92.53(1), Florida Statutes (1985), . . . The finding under section 92.53(1) is not merely a technical requirement. . . . Because we have determined that it was reversible error to omit the finding under 92.53(1), we do not . . .

DISINGER, v. STATE, 569 So. 2d 824 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985), allows videotaping of the testimony of a victim or witness who . . .

LEGGETT, v. STATE, 565 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1990)

. . . permitted to give videotaped testimony rather than personally appearing in court, pursuant to section 92.53 . . . Section 92.53 reads in pertinent part: (1) On motion and hearing in camera and a finding that there is . . . Further, there was a failure to comply with subsection 92.53(7) by making specific findings of fact on . . . It may be that the judge’s failure to pronounce the “magic words” called for by subsection 92.53(1) could . . . of the record reflects that the trial court did not make the required findings of fact under section 92.53 . . .

MARYLAND v. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990)

. . . . §92.53 (1989); Haw. Rev. Stat., ch. 626, Rule Evid. 616 (1985); Ill. Rev. . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 560 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes, when the three year old victim recanted during section 92.53 . . .

POUKNER, v. STATE, 556 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . First, Poukner contends that section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985), is unconstitutional. . . . testimony of one of the child victims without making an individualized finding, as required by section 92.53 . . .

STATE v. ASFOUR,, 555 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . or “direct testimony” and considered whether section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1987), or section 92.53 . . . The court held that the videotape was “direct testimony” rather than “hearsay,” and that section 92.53 . . . Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1987), provides a method whereby an out-of-court statement can be treated . . . Section 92.53 is not applicable, however, to an already existing hearsay statement such as the challenged . . . Because of its initial error regarding the applicability of sections 92.53 and 90.803(23), the trial . . .

WALLIS, v. STATE, 548 So. 2d 808 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . an anteroom to the courtroom outside the presence of the defendant under the authority of sections 92.53 . . .

I. CASTELLANOS, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Ad, 545 So. 2d 455 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . The mother, however, argues that certain sections of the Florida Evidence Code [§§ 92.53 and 92.54, Fla.Stat . . . present and a limited right to cross examine the child witness with assistance from an interpreter. §§ 92.53 . . . In support of this point, the mother urges at some length the applicability of Sections 92.53, 92.54, . . .

LEGGETT, v. STATE, 548 So. 2d 249 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . He alleges that the trial court erred in granting the state’s motion, pursuant to Section 92.53(1), Florida . . .

JAGGERS, v. STATE, 536 So. 2d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . on the ground that it was not supported by any specific findings of fact as required under section 92.53 . . . Recently, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 92.53, the Florida statute . . . It is this requirement of individualized findings under section 92.53, which the Florida Supreme Court . . . Although there is no constitutional infirmity with the procedures outlined under section 92.53, those . . . The relevant portions of the statute are as follows: 92.53 Sexual abuse or child abuse case; videotaping . . . reversal of the niece’s conviction because I also find error in the trial court’s application of section 92.53 . . . The record in this case is devoid of the specific findings of trauma required under section 92.53 to . . . Since I find that the trial court’s failure to abide by section 92.53 in the introduction of the video . . .

GLENDENING, v. STATE, 536 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1988)

. . . Section 92.53 provides that upon a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that a victim or witness . . . Section 92.53(1) provides that when the requisites of the statute are met, the trial court may order . . . Application of section 92.53 to permit videotaping the child’s testimony instead of requiring the child . . . In contrast to the statute at issue in Coy, section 92.53 requires an individual determination for each . . . Section 92.53(4) provides that [t]he court may require the defendant to view the testimony from outside . . .

STATE v. DIAMOND,, 553 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Section 92.53 — Sexual abuse or child abuse case; videotaping of testimony of victim or witness under . . .

L. YOUNG, v. STATE, 506 So. 2d 13 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes, the trial court permitted the State to videotape the victim . . .

CHAMBERS, v. STATE, 504 So. 2d 476 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985), previously section 90.90, specifically allowed for the videotaping . . . presence at the videotaped hearing to viewing the witnesses behind a two-way mirror, pursuant to section 92.53 . . . prosecutor and defense counsel discussed the State’s motion in terms of the procedure set forth in section 92.53 . . . Section 92.53(1) provides: On motion and hearing in camera and a finding that there is a substantial . . . Section 90.90, the predecessor to section 92.53, did not provide for the defendant’s presence to be limited . . .

GLENDENING, v. STATE, 503 So. 2d 335 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . state served a motion to video tape Jennifer’s testimony for introduction at trial pursuant to section 92.53 . . .

E. M. v., 77 T.C. 1096 (T.C. 1981)

. . . 1975, he determined an addition to tax under section 6653(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 of $92.53 . . .

P. SHULTZ, v. CANAL ZONE BUS SERVICE, INC. a a, 311 F. Supp. 978 (D.C.Z. 1970)

. . . De Beuville 92.53 D. Estable 53.20 Feliciano Galvez 100.73 D. Giron 81.00 D. P. Gordon 228.55 R. . . .

FINN v. EMPIRE TRUST CO., 121 F. Supp. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 1950)

. . . Tucker, Anthony & Company (hereinafter called “the Underwriting Syndicate”) purchased from Childs at 92.53% . . . Underwriting Syndicate whereby Empire committed itself to purchase $2,000,000 of said debentures at a price of 92.53% . . .

SAM M. BRABSON v. THE UNITED STATES, 95 Ct. Cl. 187 (Ct. Cl. 1941)

. . . On December 10, 1989, he submitted the instant claim in the amount of $92.53' ($127.50 less $34.97) to . . . the provisions of the Act of March 4,. 1921, and recommended that it be approved in the amount of $92.53 . . .