Cases from cite.case.law:

STATE v. WILSON,, 268 So. 3d 927 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ." § 316.089(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis added). . . .

PETERSON, v. STATE, 264 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes (2015), provides in relevant part that [w]henever any roadway has . . . See, e.g., Crooks, 710 So.2d at 1043 (explaining that a violation of section 316.089"does not occur in . . . reasonable safety concern, the deputy did not have probable cause to believe that Peterson violated section 316.089 . . . traffic stop was not supported by probable cause that Peterson had committed a violation of section 316.089 . . . For that reason, the legislature may want to consider whether section 316.089(1) should be clarified . . .

STATE v. BOSTON,, 267 So. 3d 463 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 316.089(1) ("A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane . . . .

E. PEEPLES, v. STATE, 173 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Peeples’ automobile for failure to maintain a single lane on a roadway in violation of section 316.089 . . . State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Section 316.089 is similar to section 316.155, Florida . . .

LOMAX, v. STATE, 148 So. 3d 119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . context, courts have found that a driver’s failure to maintain a single lane as required by section 316.089 . . . Because section 316.089 prohibits leaving a lane unless it can be done “with safety,” courts have reasoned . . .

HARRINGTON, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,, 136 So. 3d 691 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Crooks moved his car to the right, the officers stopped him for violating section 316.089(1), Florida . . .

JEANTY, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a a, 876 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 316.089, a civil infraction involving failure to maintain a single lane). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BAPTISTE, a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. O, 388 F. App'x 876 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 316.089. We need not construe the meaning of Florida’s Uniform Traffic Control Law. . . .

D. MORENO v. J. SALEM,, 993 So. 2d 588 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Although not argued, we note that section 316.089, Florida Statutes, provides: Whenever any roadway has . . .

UNITED STATES v. MCCALLA,, 286 F. App'x 610 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 316.089(1) (“A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and . . .

K. BALL, v. CITY OF CORAL GABLES, 548 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . if Plaintiffs driving on the night in question did not rise to the level of a violation of section 316.089 . . .

D. HURD, v. STATE, 958 So. 2d 600 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Appellant was stopped for violating sections 316.155 and 316.089, Florida Statutes (2005). . . . Section 316.089 provides in pertinent part: Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly . . . from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety. § 316.089 . . . of the vehicle’s width, provided sufficient evidence to stop the vehicle for a violation of section 316.089 . . .

R. WILLIAMSON, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,, 933 So. 2d 665 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . there was no probable cause to stop him for failing to maintain a single lane as required by section 316.089 . . . Crews pulled Williamson over for failing to remain driving in one lane in violation of section 316.089 . . . Eversole, and instead deny the petition because the evidence supported the stop for a violation of section 316.089 . . . imperiled operator took evasive action or was aware of his or her danger finds no support in section 316.089 . . . defendants’ lane changing or “take evasive action” in order for there to be a violation of section 316.089 . . .

ALFORD, v. COOL CARGO CARRIERS, INC. Ta, 936 So. 2d 646 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 316.089(1), Fla. . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, v. JONES,, 935 So. 2d 532 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . single lane standing alone did not establish probable cause to support a traffic stop under section 316.089 . . . report regarding Jones’s deviation from a single lane did not support a stop for violation of section 316.089 . . . Section 316.089, Florida Statutes (2005), in pertinent part provides: Whenever any roadway has been divided . . . Crooks involved a traffic stop for violation of section 316.089: premised on officers observations that . . . The court in that case found no probable cause to support a stop for violation of section 316.089(1) . . .

STATE v. RODRIGUEZ,, 904 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . He also mentioned section 316.089(1), which provides that a vehicle being driven on a road divided into . . .

YANES, v. STATE, 877 So. 2d 25 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . . § 316.089(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) (emphasis supplied). . . .

A. SUNBY, v. STATE, 845 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 316.089(1), Fla. Stat. (2002); Jordan v. State, 831 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). . . .

JORDAN, v. STATE, 831 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 316.089 is similar to section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1995), governing the use of turn signals . . . Section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes provides: "Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more . . .

HUNTER, v. A. WARD L., 812 So. 2d 601 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that when, as here, a road is divided into two . . . See § 316.089(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, v. FARR,, 757 So. 2d 550 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . . § 316.089, Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 562.111, Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 316.1936, Fla. . . .

ROBERTS, v. STATE, 732 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . The deputy then pulled her over for violation of § 316.089(1), Florida Statutes, failure to maintain . . . Under § 316.089(1), Florida Statutes, said the court, a violation for failure to stay within a single . . .

CROOKS, v. STATE, 710 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Crooks’ ear, following a traffic stop for violation of section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes (1995). . . . Crooks for violation of section 316.089(1). . . . Section 316.089 provides in pertinent part: Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly . . . Section 316.089 is similar to section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1995), governing the use of turn signals . . .

STATE v. KNOWLES,, 625 So. 2d 88 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . , Knowles received a traffic citation for failure to drive in a single lane in violation of section 316.089 . . . Failure to stay within a single lane, section 316.089, does not provide for either fine or imprisonment . . . DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion. . § 316.193, Fla.Stat. (1991). . § 316.089, Fla.Stat. (1991 . . . Section 316.089, Florida Statutes (1991) provides: 316.089 Driving on roadways laned for traffic.— Whenever . . .

RUSIN v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 49 Fla. Supp. 2d 33 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . Police for failure to observe a single lane and failure to drive with headlights, pursuant to F.S. 316.089 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SMITH,, 799 F.2d 704 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 316.089(1). . . . Section 316.089(1) provides that: A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within . . .

STATE v. POTTER,, 438 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Green’s observations of respondent’s vehicle within the city limits indicated a violation of section 316.089 . . . 316 of the Florida Statutes in its municipal ordinances, respondent’s apparent violation of section 316.089 . . .

W. R. LINDSEY, a v. E. JOHNSON, 415 So. 2d 778 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . no driver shall drive on the left side of the roadway within such no-passing zone; (4) that Section 316.089 . . .

STATE v. LEE, STATE v. G. JULIO,, 356 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1978)

. . . 316.0565, 316.057(9), 316.061, 316.081, 316.082, 316.083, 316.084, 316.085, 316.086, 316.087, 316.088, 316.089 . . .

H. COX, v. STATE, 334 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1976)

. . . Petitioner was charged with violations of §§ 316.089, 316.059 and 316.028, Florida Statutes. . . .