Cases from cite.case.law:

ORANGE COUNTY, v. SINGH,, 268 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 2019)

. . . ." § 105.011(2), Fla. Stat. (2018). . . .

DAVIS, E. T. v. CHILES, 139 F.3d 1414 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 105.011(2) (distinguishing between an “election” and a “retention” in defining a “judicial office . . .

GARRISON CORPORATION, INC. d b a v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,, 662 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . malls and (2) the invalidation of proposed rules 10D-105.009(4), 10D-105.009(8), 10D-105.009(11), 10D-105.011 . . . We agree with the hearing officer’s conclusion that proposed rule 10D-105.011 enlarges the specific provisions . . . Proposed rule 10D-105.011 reads in pertinent part: (1) The proprietor or other person in charge of a . . .

L. NIPPER A. D. D. W. v. SMITH R., 39 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 105.011(2) (West 1992), provided essentially that “[a] judicial office is a nonpartisan office, and . . .

W. LITTLE, B. C. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE,, 19 F.3d 4 (11th Cir. 1994)

. . . See Fla.Stat. chs. 105.011-.10 (1991). One of these conditions forms the basis of this suit. . . .