Cases from cite.case.law:

CLASSY CYCLES, INC. v. BAY COUNTY, a a, 201 So. 3d 779 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 316.211 lists equipment required for motorcycle and moped riders. . . . Section 316.211(3)(b) imposes an insurance requirement for medical benefits on a motorcycle operator . . .

W. B. a v. STATE, 179 So. 3d 411 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . attempted stop was justified because W.B. was not wearing protective eyewear, as required by section 316.211 . . . Section 316.211(3)(a) exempts from the requirement of protective eyewear those op•erators who are at . . . powered by motors smaller than fifty cubic cehtime-ters or ratéd not in excess of two brake horsepower. § 316.211 . . .

STONE, v. STATE, 856 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Florida Statutes section 316.211 does provide that an individual may not ride a motorcycle without an . . . Stat., 316.211(3)(b). . . .

STATE v. L. RAYNAL, A. P., 712 So. 2d 797 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . The trial court dismissed each ease because it found section 316.211, Florida Statutes (1993), to be . . . affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss these cases,-but unlike the trial court, we find section 316.211 . . . See § 316.211(5), Fla. Stat. (1993). . . .

L. PICOU, v. GILLUM, T., 874 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 316.211, is unconstitutional. . . . that paternalistic legislation is necessarily invalid, this argument is inapplicable to Fla.Stat. § 316.211 . . .

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A. Jr. v. VOSBURGH, a L., 480 So. 2d 140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Appellants asserted the defense of comparative negligence based on an alleged violation of Section 316.211 . . .

LAFFERTY a k a v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, F., 425 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . See Section 316.211, Florida Statutes (1981). . . .

REX UTILITIES, INC. Co. v. L. GADDY, a s L. A., 413 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . plaintiff was not wearing protective headgear at the time the accident occurred in violation of Section 316.211 . . . plaintiffs’ decedent was not wearing protective headgear when the accident occurred in violation of Section 316.211 . . . headgear securely fastened upon his head which complies with standards estab-Iished by the department.” § 316.211 . . . The statute sought to be argued by Rex, Section 316.211(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: “No person . . . By enacting Section 316.211(1), our Legislature, in effect, determined that protective headgear “affords . . .

HAMM, v. STATE, 387 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1980)

. . . We expressly upheld the constitutionality of section 316.211 in State v. . . .