Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 95.10 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 95.10 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 95.10

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VIII
LIMITATIONS
Chapter 95
LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS; ADVERSE POSSESSION
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 95.10
95.10 Cause of action arising in another state.When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state.
History.s. 18, ch. 1869, 1872; RS 1295; GS 1726; RGS 2940; CGL 4664; s. 5, ch. 74-382.

F.S. 95.10 on Google Scholar

F.S. 95.10 on Casetext

Amendments to 95.10


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 95.10
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 95.10.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

JEFFERS, v. KERZNER INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LIMITED, a a a a a a a LLC, a a a a, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1267 (S.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes, provides that "[w]hen the cause of action arose in another state or . . . maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state." § 95.10 . . .

ALVAREZ, v. U. S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U. S. U. S. S., 818 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 95.10 (“When the cause of action arose in another state ’or territory of the United States, ... and . . .

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HUMAN RESOURCES, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 899 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

. . . The Department’s regulations make clear that: The time limits in §§ 95.7 and 95.10 [prescribing 2-year . . .

KAYSER v. McCLARY,, 875 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Idaho 2012)

. . . Rule 54.1(c)(8) for certain “other items” of costs, including $1,100.00 in expert witness fees/costs, $95.10 . . .

In COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP. MORTGAGE- BACKED SECURITIES LITIGATION. v. v. F. S. B. v. v. v., 860 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (C.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . . § 95.10 (2011). The parties dispute whether the cause of action arose in California or Florida. . . .

J. PAGAN, v. FRUCHEY, 492 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 2007)

. . . Ordinances § 72.11 Warsaw, Code of Ordinances § 72.11 Michigan Bingham Farms, Code of Ordinances § 95.10 . . .

LANGONE, v. USCO DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. a k a USCO, 389 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D. Mass. 2005)

. . . The first part of the audit determined that USCO owed the Fund $14,264.67 (plus interest of $95.10 per . . .

ELLIS, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,, 909 So. 2d 593 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . . § 95.10, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . . ALTENBERND and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. . § 95.10, Fla. Stat. (1999). . Ellis gave a St. . . .

NEW YORK STATE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, v. A. FRIONA,, 902 So. 2d 864 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Stat. (2002); § 95.10, Fla. . . .

COMBS, II, C. T. A. II, v. INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 354 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 95.10. Plaintiff first cites Bates v. . . .

C. McNEIL, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 832 So. 2d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . CSX argued that section 95.10, Florida Statutes (2000), requires the Florida court to “borrow” the three-year . . .

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, v. J. PATAFIO, JR., 829 So. 2d 314 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . To guard against that eventuality, section 95.10, Florida Statutes, provides: When the cause of action . . .

JENKINS, v. S. ROCKWOOD,, 820 So. 2d 426 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (2001), provides that: When the cause of action arose in another state . . . By enactment of section 95.10, our legislature has expressed a public policy of protecting Florida defendants . . . Section 95.10, which requires borrowing of a shorter statute of limitations, is Florida law barring the . . . intended for claims such as this one to be maintainable in this state, it would have repealed section 95.10 . . .

BDO SEIDMAN, LLP, f k a BDO a v. BRITISH CAR AUCTIONS, INC. a ADT a, 802 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Florida's borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1999), provides that a cause of action . . .

DEAN v. K. JOHNS, M. D. K. M. D. P. A. G. M. D. G. M. D. P. A. J. Oh, M. D., 789 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Florida Law Applies Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1997), the borrowing statute, states: “When the . . . Accordingly, the cause of action arose in Florida so that section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1997)(the . . .

M. TUNE, v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED,, 766 So. 2d 350 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See Bishop, 389 So.2d at 1001; § 95.10, Fla. Stat. (1997); see also Merkle v. . . . See § 95.10, Fla. Stat. (1997); Bates, 509 So.2d 1112. . . .

SYLK, v. ROSENBERG,, 754 So. 2d 836 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Florida’s “borrowing statute,” section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1997), provides that "When the cause . . .

O. MUKA, v. HORIZON FINANCIAL CORPORATION, D., 766 So. 2d 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 95.11(2)(a) is, of course, associated with section 95.10, which bars causes of action arising . . .

FULTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, v. SULLIVAN,, 753 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1999)

. . . a certified question and held that the “significant relationship” test for use in applying section 95.10 . . .

H. MERKLE, Jr. v. H. ROBINSON,, 737 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1999)

. . . Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, section 142 (Supp.1989), and which renders meaningless section 95.10 . . . the issue which was before the Court was the applicability of the borrowing statute, which is section 95.10 . . . Moreover, the majority decision renders section 95.10 meaningless. . . . It is patent that the reason that section 95.10 exists is to alter the long-standing precedent from this . . . See § 95.10, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . COOK, 509 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1987), FOR USE IN APPLYING FLORIDA’S BORROWING STATUTE, SECTION 95.10, FLORIDA . . . COOK, 509 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1987), FOR USE IN APPLYING FLORIDA’S BORROWING STATUTE, SECTION 95.10, FLORIDA . . . The borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1997), provides: "When the cause of action arose . . .

BARTON, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, a a ASP, f k a, 35 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (M.D. Fla. 1999)

. . . According to Florida Statute, Section 95.10 “when the cause of action arose in another state or territory . . .

CAMPO a k a v. L. TAFUR,, 704 So. 2d 730 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Specifically, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1995) bars actions brought in Florida which would have . . . As such, he concludes that Colombian law should govern pursuant to section 95.10. . . . complaint to survive the motion to dismiss on the paternity and child support counts pursuant to section 95.10 . . .

MEZROUB, v. F. CAPELLA,, 702 So. 2d 562 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The trial court reluctantly dismissed the action because it concluded that section 95.10, Florida Statutes . . . the above-described facts, and then dismissed the complaint with prejudice on the basis of section 95.10 . . . Section 95.10 was first enacted in 1872 and was last amended in 1974. . . . Meehan, 523 So.2d 141, 143 (Fla.1988), section 95.10 is intended to prevent forum shopping. . . . There is no clear statutory choice-of-law directive in section 95.10, ■ as interpreted in Bates, that . . .

ROBINSON, HARGIS, v. H. MERKLE, Jr. L. M. D., 700 So. 2d 723 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The defendant relied on Florida’s borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1985). . . . Although Bates involved the application of Florida’s borrowing statute, section 95.10, we read the language . . . COOK, 509 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1987), FOR USE IN APPLYING FLORIDA’S BORROWING STATUTE, SECTION 95.10, FLORIDA . . .

JAISINGHANI, v. CAPITAL CITIES ABC, INC., 973 F. Supp. 1450 (S.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . . § 95.10. The purpose of the borrowing statute is to prevent forum shopping. Madera v. . . .

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA No. v. JOHNSON CONTROLS WORLD SERVICES, INC., 100 F.3d 903 (11th Cir. 1996)

. . . brief the question, and the union has not argued that the Florida borrowing statute, Fla.Stat. ch. 95.10 . . .

P. MERMAN, v. OTIS ELEVATOR CO. a, 855 F. Supp. 361 (S.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . Cook, Inc., 509 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1987); § 95.10, Fla.Stats. . . .

RESTREPO, Jr. v. COLGATE UNIVERSITY,, 149 F.R.D. 17 (N.D.N.Y. 1993)

. . . . § 95.10 (1982) ("When the cause of action arose in another state ... and its laws forbid the maintenance . . .

A. ROSENBLUM H. v. WARNER SONS, INC., 819 F. Supp. 767 (N.D. Ind. 1993)

. . . Instead, Warner and Reith-Riley rely upon Florida’s “borrowing statute,” Fla.Stat.Ann § 95.10 (West 1982 . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 95.10 (West 1982) provides: "When the cause of action arose in another state or territory . . .

CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY, v. PUERTO RICO MARITIME SHIPPING AUTHORITY,, 972 F.2d 426 (1st Cir. 1992)

. . . .-10-10, 95.10-15, 95.15-5. . . .

WESCH, v. HUNT,, 785 F. Supp. 1491 (S.D. Ala. 1992)

. . . 0.00% Block 209 25 0 25 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Block 210 102 5 97 100.00% 4.90% 95.10% . . .

DIGIOIA, v. H. KOCH SONS, DIVISION OF WICKES MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A, 944 F.2d 809 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 95.10 (West 1982). . . . Stat.Ann. § 95.10 (West 1982). . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 95.10 (West 1982) commonly known as Florida’s borrowing statute is entitled Causes of . . .

M. JONES, v. COOK Co., 587 So. 2d 570 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1989) provides that: When the cause of action arose in another state . . . In view of Bates, the application of section 95.10 is now clearly dependent on whether there are significant . . .

PORT OF PORTLAND, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS SAIF CORPORATION Or v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS R. Sr., 932 F.2d 836 (9th Cir. 1991)

. . . Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation §§ 95.10, 95.24 (1989). . . . .

LARRY v. Dr. YAMAUCHI,, 753 F. Supp. 784 (E.D. Ark. 1990)

. . . specified months: January 1989 = $ 93.85 April 1989 = f 69.90 September 1989 = $103.98 December 1989 = $ 95.10 . . .

ESTATE OF D. PITRE, v. WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., 735 F. Supp. 994 (D. Kan. 1990)

. . . calculations of amounts distributed annually and the defendant’s total liability of $651,148.93 is $95.10 . . .

NANCE, v. EAGLE PICHER INDUSTRIES,, 559 So. 2d 93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . most significant relationship with the cause of action and that, through the application of section 95.10 . . . Accordingly, the trial court’s determination that section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), barred Mrs. . . .

LEAL, v. L. VILLAVERDE,, 556 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . We concur with the trial court that the suit is barred by section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1987). . . .

MADERA, v. HALL,, 717 F. Supp. 812 (S.D. Fla. 1989)

. . . . § 95.10 (1987). . . .

C. KRAMER W. v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a, 868 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 95.10. The Supreme Court of Florida has now answered both questions. Kramer v. . . .

RODRIGUEZ v. PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, a a, 536 So. 2d 270 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . In Bates the question was whether the borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1985), bars . . . Section 95.10 causes of action arising out of the state: When the cause of action arose in another state . . .

B. SANTOS, v. SACKS,, 697 F. Supp. 275 (E.D. La. 1988)

. . . . § 95.10 (1986). . . .

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO. v. AUGUST,, 530 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1988)

. . . the accident occurred in Florida the instant cause of action arose in this state and hence section 95.10 . . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: “When the cause of action arose in another state or . . .

H. BATES, Dr. O. v. COOK, INC., 840 F.2d 871 (11th Cir. 1988)

. . . . § 95.10 (West 1982), is the determination whether a cause of action for theft of trade secrets has . . .

CELOTEX CORP. v. MEEHAN, CELOTEX CORP. v. NANCE, CELOTEX CORP. v. COLON,, 523 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1988)

. . . These cases involve the application of section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), Florida’s borrowing statute . . . The Florida borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), reads as follows: When the cause . . . In construing section 95.10, the district court reasoned that a cause of action in tort arises in the . . . He reasoned that “to vindicate the very basis of section 95.10 —we must look to the law of the place . . . We find that is not the intent and purpose of section 95.10. . . .

C. KRAMER W. v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION,, 520 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1988)

. . . Florida adheres to the doctrine of lex loci delicti and under Florida’s borrowing statute, section 95.10 . . .

A. FORZLEY, v. AVCO CORPORATION ELECTRONICS DIVISION, a A. FORZLEY, v. AVCO CORPORATION ELECTRONICS DIVISION, a, 826 F.2d 974 (11th Cir. 1987)

. . . . § 95.10 (1975)). . . .

H. BATES, v. COOK, INC., 509 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1987)

. . . . § 95.10 (West 1982), is the determination whether a cause of action for theft of trade secrets has . . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1985), the so-called borrowing statute, reads as follows: Causes of . . .

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. AUGUST,, 509 So. 2d 352 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . As I understand the “borrowing statute” [section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979) ], we would only apply . . .

C. KRAMER W. v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a, 801 F.2d 1279 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 95.10, the causes of action “arose” in Virginia, where the crash and injuries occurred. . . .

H. BATES, Dr. O. v. COOK, INC., 791 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 95.10 (West 1982), to determine which state statute of limitations to apply. . . . Florida For the purpose of applying Florida’s limitation of actions “borrowing” statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 95.10 . . .

DENIS, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 791 F.2d 846 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 95.10. . . .

A. STEPANIAN, II, v. R. ADDIS,, 782 F.2d 902 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 95.10. The District of Columbia has a one-year limitations period for slander actions. . . .

BANK OF BOSTON INTERNATIONAL OF MIAMI, v. ARGUELLO TEFEL, 626 F. Supp. 314 (E.D.N.Y. 1986)

. . . . § 95.10. . . .

COHEN, v. TRASK,, 471 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . The trial court properly applied section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1983), and the relevant leading case . . .

A. STEINER, v. MT. VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A. STEINER, v. REGENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT COMPANY, s, 470 So. 2d 3 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . 4th DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 446 So.2d 99 (Fla.1984), insofar as it pertains to section 95.10 . . .

NANCE, E. S. v. JOHNS- MANVILLE SALES CORP. a GAF, 466 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), which is commonly referred to as the borrowing statute, provides . . . of action in Florida, then the Florida limitations provision applies; if in Virginia, then section 95.10 . . .

MEEHAN, v. CELOTEX CORPORATION, a GAF a a H. K., 466 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (Fla.1980), I believe that — to vindicate the very basis of section 95.10 . . . This language plainly permits the conclusion that a cause of action “arises” under section 95.10 at some . . . But section 95.10 makes the New York, not the Florida, statute of limitations determinative. . . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: When the cause of action arose in another state or . . . Pursuant to the provisions of Section 95.10 of the Florida Statutes this Court applies the appropriate . . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), referred to in the trial court’s judgment, is commonly known . . . 450 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the legislature, in 1975, revised Chapter 95, including Section 95.10 . . . Florida court has specifically rejected the application of the significant relationship test to Section 95.10 . . .

HUSTED, C. v. UNITED STATES, 667 F. Supp. 831 (S.D. Fla. 1985)

. . . . § 95.10. . . .

H. BATES, Dr. O. v. COOK, INC., 615 F. Supp. 662 (M.D. Fla. 1984)

. . . Fla.Stat. § 95.10 (1982) (§ 95.10). . . . Having decided that Florida law dictates the application under § 95.10 of lex loci delicti, the Court . . . The phrase lex loci delicti has been variously construed under § 95.10 to require application of the . . . Therefore, for purposes of § 95.10 the cause of action arose in Indiana where the wrong occurred, and . . . the Indiana statute of limitations should be applied under § 95.10. . . .

In FINE PAPER ANTITRUST LITIGATION. WALTER E. RIORDAN, P. A. LAWRENCE WALNER AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. PHILLIP C. GOLDSTICK ASSOCIATES, LTD. FREEMAN, ATKINS COLEMAN, LTD. SAVERI SAVERI, O BRIEN AND HALLISEY, P. C. MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG AMENT EIGER, P. C. SACHNOFF WEAVER RUBENSTEIN, LTD. SPECKS GOLDBERG, LTD. ROGERS, RUDE, CANDLIN, FAULKNER SJOSTROM, SLOAN AND ASSOCIATES, P. C. P. C., 751 F.2d 562 (3d Cir. 1984)

. . . Atkins 95.10 47.60 App. J 175 Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Eiger P.C. Lawrence H. . . .

HADDEN, v. HOWARD,, 713 F.2d 1003 (3d Cir. 1983)

. . . provides that “no inmate shall be disciplined for making a complaint against another inmate----” Section 95.10 . . .

MARANO v. CELOTEX CORPORATION, H. K., 433 So. 2d 592 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Sec. 95.10 Fla.Stat. (1979) Causes of action arising out of the state. — When the cause of action arose . . .

R. PLEDGER, v. BURNUP SIMS, INC. a A., 432 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Florida law governing limitations of actions in-eludes Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1981): When the . . . Although Bishop adopts a conflicts rule which governs choice of substantive law, and Section 95.10 is . . . If the cause of action arose in Florida, then Section 95.10 does not apply, and appellant timely asserted . . . The Legislature has not amended Section 95.10 since the Supreme Court opinion in Bishop. . . . The language of Section 95.10 is as clear today as it was in 1968 or in 1872. . . .

A. JANUSE, v. U- HAUL COMPANY, INC., 399 So. 2d 402 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1975) bars an action which is forbidden by the law of the state in which . . .

CENTRAL HOME TRUST COMPANY OF ELIZABETH, v. T. LIPPINCOTT L., 392 So. 2d 931 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes, which provides an exception to this general rule, is not applicable. . . .

In SOUTH, OTASCO, INC. v. UNITED STATES In KLINGMAN, OTASCO, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 6 B.R. 645 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1980)

. . . Relevant items sold to debtor South included one .38 caliber special pistol and shells for $95.10 and . . .

FURY IMPORTS, INC. v. SHAKESPEARE COMPANY,, 554 F.2d 1376 (5th Cir. 1977)

. . . . § 95.10, in deciding to apply the four year statute of limitations of F.S.A. § 95.11. . . .

EASTERN AIR LINES, INC. v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION,, 532 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . . § 95.10 provides as follows: Limitation upon causes of actions arising out of the state When the cause . . .

MICHELSON v. AEROVIAS NACIONALES EQUADOR,, 37 Fla. Supp. 155 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1972)

. . . . §95.10). . . .

COLHOUN, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC. a C., 265 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1972)

. . . The chapter contains two possibly applicable provisions, Sections 95.11 and 95.10. . . . Section 95.10, F.S.A., however, there are times when Florida courts will not apply a Florida statute . . . Section 95.10, F.S.A., is not applicable and Petitioner’s cause can be maintained since it was begun . . . Section 95.10, F.S.A., requires Florida courts to conclude the tort claims are barred in this state. . . . Section 95.10, F.S.A., is- not applicable; F.S. Section 95.11, F.S.A., is controlling. . . .

K. HEATH, v. MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY,, 333 F. Supp. 131 (D. Haw. 1971)

. . . States Coast Guard Rules and Regulations for Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels Subchapter I, 46 CFR §§ 95.10 . . . -10(g), (h) and (j), 1971, which read as follows: “ § 95.10-10(g) Each fire hydrant shall be provided . . . readily seen, the enclosure shall be marked in accordance with Section 97.37-15 of this subchapter.” “ § 95.10 . . . hose may be temporarily removed from the hydrant and stowed in an accessible nearby location.” “ § 95.10 . . . Since § 95.10-10(g) lists only three permissible uses for firehose — none of which is pumping molasses . . .

UNITED STATES v. EVANS, 436 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1971)

. . . Criminal Law § 1085, n. 95.10 at p. 98. . . .

GRIFFIN, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a, 307 F. Supp. 741 (S.D. Fla. 1969)

. . . . § 95.10, F.S.A. . . .

HAROLD H. GEARINGER, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROYAL BARRY SHAW v. THE UNITED STATES, 188 Ct. Cl. 512 (Ct. Cl. 1969)

. . . month_ 1,804. 50 5-1-52 through 12-31-62 at $77.10 per month_ 9, 868. 80 1-1-63 through 6-30-63 at $95.10 . . .

W. BEASLEY, v. FAIRCHILD HILLER CORPORATION,, 401 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1968)

. . . As was the District Court, we are confronted, at the outset, with § 95.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., . . . It is sufficient to point out that Florida Statutes § 95.10 was enacted sixteen years after Perry was . . . him because in that case Texas, the forum state, had no statute like that found in Florida Statutes § 95.10 . . . Again, for the reasons already stated, we must hold that Florida Statutes § 95.10 is decisive. . . .

LESCARD v. KEEL,, 211 So. 2d 868 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . Section 95.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., reads as follows: “Limitation Upon Causes of Action Arising . . .

UNITED STATES v. C. GATES, Jr. S. W. UNITED STATES v. W. CANNON, 376 F.2d 65 (10th Cir. 1967)

. . . 723,440 Earnings retained in business $ 6,156,830 $ 2,970,486 Per share of Common Stock Net income $ 95.10 . . .

In PIONEER SAMPLE BOOK CO., 374 F.2d 953 (3d Cir. 1967)

. . . Curtin, Referee, Costs— i 95.10 “ Clerk, U. S. . . .

W. DE VANE, v. UNITED STATES Co. Co. P. R. Co., 259 F. Supp. 18 (D.P.R. 1966)

. . . . § 95.10. . . . applicable the statute of limitation from the jurisdiction where the cause of action arises — 8 F.S.A. § 95.10 . . .

AVIATION CREDIT CORPORATION, v. E. BATCHELOR,, 190 So. 2d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

. . . See Fla.Stat.1963, § 95.10 F.S.A.* Attached to the defense is a copy of a portion of the California Code . . . The Florida “borrowing statute” is section 95.10, Fla. . . . Section 95.10, Fla.Stat.1963, F.S.A., which is our borrowing statute, was applied by the trial judge . . . Therefore, the borrowing statute, Fla.Stat. 1963, § 95.10, F.S.A., is not applicable because the cause . . .

J. M. BLYTHE MOTOR LINES CORPORATION, v. BLALOCK,, 310 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1962)

. . . . § 95.10. . . .

G. HEILMANN B. v. HERTZ CORPORATION,, 306 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1962)

. . . relies on the Statute of Limitations of Georgia, Section 3-1004, Code of Georgia, which, by Section 95.10 . . .

VEGA, v. THE MALULA, G., 291 F.2d 415 (5th Cir. 1961)

. . . one must take the bitter with the sweet and under the borrowing provision of the Florida statute, § 95.10 . . .

F. BASKIN G. v. GRIFFITH, G. G., 127 So. 2d 467 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)

. . . See Section 95.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. . . .

COURTLANDT CORPORATION, v. G. WHITMER,, 121 So. 2d 57 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)

. . . Since Sec. 95.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that “when the cause of action has arisen * * * . . . If this is not a cause of action arising in a foreign country, Sec. 95.10 has no application; and the . . . If it never arose then our Sec. 95.10 is inapplicable and the Florida 5 year limitation applies. . . . The California court, construing its statute similar to our Sec. 95.10, held that the cause of action . . . interrupted the running of the foreign statute of limitations and that it is not, by virtue of Sec. 95.10 . . . , invoked under Articles 179 and 185 of the French Commercial Code pursuant to authority of section 95.10 . . .

KINCAID v. SMITH AND BUCKEYE UNION CASUALTY COMPANY,, 83 Ohio Law Abs. 336 (N.D. Ohio 1958)

. . . court’s decision on this point in Randall is stated as follows: “It must be held that by virtue of §95.10 . . .

PARK AVE. CORP. v. SMYTH, 106 F. Supp. 305 (N.D. Fla. 1952)

. . . The Florida Statute reads as follows: “95.10 Limitations upon causes of actions arising out of the state . . . When Section 19 of the New York Civil Practice Act is read in conjunction with Section 95.10, F.S.A. . . .

CALDWELL v. HAZELTON APARTMENT HOTEL CORPORATION, 88 F. Supp. 1012 (N.D. Ill. 1949)

. . . wk. 4-21-48 to 10-13-48 10.35 per wk. 10.00 per wk. 10-13-48 to 2-9-49 15.00 per wk. 10.00 per wk. 95.10 . . .

IDEAL FARMS DRAINAGE DISTRICT, a L. D. v. CERTAIN LANDS IN SAID DISTRICT MAURICE MOUNTZ, L. J. MOUNTZ,, 154 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1944)

. . . Stats., Section 95.10, sub-section 5, Fla. . . .

HOLDERNESS v. HAMILTON FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK, 54 F. Supp. 145 (S.D. Fla. 1944)

. . . Sec. 95.10, Fla.Stat.1941, F.S.A. . . . The effect of Sec. 95.10 is that if the action is barred in the state where the cause of action arose . . .

HELIS v. VALLEE, 34 F. Supp. 467 (E.D. La. 1940)

. . . January 9, 1939, and costs incurred in these proceedings in the amount of Ninety-five and 10/100 ($95.10 . . . of eight per cent, per annum from January 9th, 1939, and the further sum of ninety-five and 10/100 ($95.10 . . .

T. G. a v. T. W., 61 Fla. 131 (Fla. 1911)

. . . The exact amount of discounts is $367.10, the bill of November 19, 1908, $95.10, added, making a total . . .