Cases from cite.case.law:

DOE NO. v. NUR- UL- ISLAM ACADEMY, INC. a Ul- a, 217 So. 3d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . limitations: (1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 . . .

In TRIBUNE COMPANY,, 464 B.R. 126 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011)

. . . other claims against the Tribune Parent—supported the DCL Plan, with 226 out of 237 voting creditors (95.36% . . .

B. BROWN, J. L. v. NATIONSCREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, N. A., 32 So. 3d 661 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . provides: (1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 . . .

SOUTH MOTOR COMPANY OF DADE COUNTY, a d b a v. DOKTORCZYK,, 957 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . pertinent part: (1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 . . .

CADLE COMPANY, v. McCARTHA,, 920 So. 2d 144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Statutes: (1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 . . .

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

. . . provides: (1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35 and 95.36 . . .

S. A. S. A. AG H AG AG, v. U. S. a USX, 26 Ct. Int'l Trade 467 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)

. . . During roughly the same period, German capacity utilization rates increased from 69.18% (1993) to 95.36% . . .

S. CUILLO, v. McCOY, E., 810 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . provides: (1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 . . .

E. WALKER, v. CASH FLOW CONSULTANTS, INC., 200 F.R.D. 613 (N.D. Ill. 2001)

. . . check date as June 2, 1996, the check amount as $70.36, a service charge of $25.00, and a total due of $95.36 . . .

HANKEY, v. YARIAN, M. D., 755 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2000)

. . . periods: (1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 . . .

PUTNAM BERKLEY GROUP, INC. a a v. DININ, 734 So. 2d 532 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . provides that: (1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 . . .

L. MORSANI, a v. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL V. M. T. Jr. S. D. S. Jr. W. M. D. a d b a d b a d b a a d b a d b a d b a O d b a L. P. d b a d b a d b a D. F. St. d b a St. L. d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a M. Co. d b a d b a d b a d b a H. d b a MTI Co. d b a R. P. A. d b a M. d b a d b a d b a d b a, 739 So. 2d 610 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . .— (1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except §§ 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 is . . .

In MUSHROOM TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., 90 B.R. 718 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1988)

. . . Cutaiar, III 8% 0 .74% Total 91.83% 95.36% 86.43% Applying the “controlling interest” test, the four . . .

WATERFIELD MORTGAGE CO. INC. v. J. CLARK, C. In J. CLARK, C., 31 B.R. 502 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1983)

. . . Plaintiff also asserts a claim for $95.36 for “unpaid late charges” which, by terms of contract, is 4% . . .

K. W. QUAINTANCE, v. M. FOGG, 392 So. 2d 360 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . .— (1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 is . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, GILLESPIE, v. WEST,, 378 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1979)

. . . e) provides, “The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281,95.35, and 95.36 . . .

P. SKIDMORE, P. III, v. H. GRUENINGER, 506 F.2d 716 (5th Cir. 1975)

. . . . § 95.36 (1974) by failing to have a lantern placed on the outermost upstream corner of OR—937. . . . To determine whether lights were required, we turn to the controlling regulations, 33 C.F.R. §§ 95.36 . . . fact, cause the collision but that the violation could not have caused the collision. . 33 C.F.R. § 95.36 . . .

CITY OF MIAMI, v. EASTERN REALTY COMPANY,, 202 So. 2d 760 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . The appellant’s second contention, which is that under § 95.36, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the continued existence . . .

KELLEY v. CITY OF COCOA, a, 188 So. 2d 71 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

. . . . § 95.36 was applicable so that the appellants’ rights were terminated and void. . . . . § 95.36 provides: “Dedications for park purposes. . . . They then asserted that the foregoing quoted F.S.A. § 95.36 as applied in this cause on these facts unconstitutionally . . . We therefore determine without applying F.S.A. § 95.36 that the appellants do not have any enforceable . . .

ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 62 Ct. Cl. 449 (Ct. Cl. 1926)

. . . C-4371, claiming thereon the sum of $95.36 (later corrected to $89.24 to adjust charges to per capita . . .