Cases from cite.case.law:

DATA PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC. v. CASO,, 253 So. 3d 53 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . This provision reads, in its entirety, as follows: (1) Notwithstanding s. 542.18 and subsection (2), . . .

SPURLOCK, v. JONES D. C. S. P. R. P., 709 F. App'x 293 (5th Cir. 2018)

. . . . §§ 542.15(a), 542.18. . . . The thrust of Spurlock’s appellate argument is that the district court misconstrued § 542.18. . . . deadline for the General Counsel’s response to his BP-11 or otherwise supporting his construction of § 542.18 . . . His argument is refuted by the plain directive of § 542.18 and by this court’s precedent. . . .

A. GAMBINO, v. L. MEEKS, H. I, Mr. M. P. A. Dr. L. T. S. I. S., 712 F. App'x 128 (3d Cir. 2017)

. . . . §§ 542.13-542.18. . . .

WHITE, v. MEDERI CARETENDERS VISITING SERVICES OF SOUTHEAST FLORIDA, LLC, v., 226 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2017)

. . . See § 542.18, Fla. . . .

A. JOHNSON, v. WARDEN BIG SANDY USP, 708 F. App'x 745 (3d Cir. 2017)

. . . . §§ 542.14(d)(2); 542.18. . . . allotted for reply ...' the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level.” § 542.18 . . .

J. TRUBY, v. DENHAM, FCI FCI FCI, 693 F. App'x 777 (10th Cir. 2017)

. . . . §§ 542.15(a), 542.18, Mr. . . .

COLLIER HMA PHYSICIAN MANAGEMENT, LLC, d b a a v. MENICHELLO, M. D., 223 So. 3d 334 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . DISCUSSION Section 542.335(l)(f), provides as follows: (1) Notwithstanding s. 542.18 and subsection ( . . .

CHANDLER, Sr. v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,, 249 F. Supp. 3d 271 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . . § 542.18). . . .

HARRISON, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . . § 542.18. . . . Id. § 542.15(a); id. § 542.18. . . . Id. § 542.15(a); id. § 542.18. . . . See id. § 542.18. Harrison first made two informal attempts to remove his PSF. . . . See 28 C.F.R. § 542.18; Dkt. 1 at 27. . . .

ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORPORATION, v. B. GIVEN,, 223 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Section 542.335 Florida Statutes (2016) provides: (1) Notwithstanding s. 542.18 and subsection (2), enforcement . . .

C. DAY, Jr. v. A. DANIELS,, 673 F. App'x 582 (7th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 542.18 governs the consequences of the Bureau’s decision not to respond to an administrative appeal . . .

HILL DERMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ANTHEM, INC. v., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . . § 542.18. . . .

F. ABDULLAH, v. Lt. MILLER Lt. Lt., 673 F. App'x 135 (3d Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 542.18. . . .

MILLHOUSE, v. LEWISBURG USP, 666 F. App'x 98 (3d Cir. 2016)

. . . . §§ 542.14(d)(2); 542.18. . . . allotted for reply ... the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level.” § 542.18 . . .

CHANDLER, v. STOVER, Sr. v., 211 F. Supp. 3d 289 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . . §§ 542.15, 542.18. . . . The Office of General Counsel has 40 calendar days to respond, see 28 C.F.R. § 542.18, and “[a] final . . . Id.; see 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . .

R. SPENGLER, v. UNITED STATES, 127 Fed. Cl. 597 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . . § 542.18. . . . . §§ 542.15(a), 542.18; Pl.’s Resp. App. Ex. B at 24. . . . The Central Office then has forty days to respond to the appeal. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . . . § 542.18. . . . institution level, thirty days at the regional level, or twenty days at the Central Office level. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .

C. P. MOTION, INC. v. GOLDBLATT, 193 So. 3d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . limits on the enforcement of a restrictive covenant by an assignee or successor: (1) Notwithstanding s. 542.18 . . .

JIAU, v. L. TEWS,, 623 F. App'x 349 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 542.18 (General Counsel’s response is due within 40 calendar days). . . .

SMITH, v. OLIVER,, 615 F. App'x 905 (10th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 542.18. Mr. . . .

DeBREW, v. ATWOOD,, 792 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 542.18. . . .

ACOSTA, v. DANIELS,, 589 F. App'x 870 (10th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 542.18. . . . he never received it within the allotted time is equivalent to a denial at that level. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . . But in this case, the plain language of § 542.18 speaks for itself. . . .

A. WEST, v. C. PEOPLES,, 589 F. App'x 923 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 542.18. . . . .

FLORES, v. LAPPIN, T. C. FCI- USP USP USP DOES, USP, 580 F. App'x 248 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 542.18. Hector Flores could have filed his appeal within 20 days of November 24, 2007. . . .

T. ELDRIDGE, v. D. BERKEBILE,, 576 F. App'x 746 (10th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 542.18. Id. at 4. The BOP does not dispute that its response to Mr. . . . extension, the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .

MILLBROOK, v. UNITED STATES, 8 F. Supp. 3d 601 (M.D. Pa. 2014)

. . . . § 542.18. . . .

WALTMEYER, v. J. S. WALTON,, 471 F. App'x 488 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 542.18. . . . Waltmeyer, in accordance with § 542.18, treated the absence of a response as a denial of his appeal and . . . Waltmeyer was therefore entitled to “consider the absence of a response to be a denial,” § 542.18, at . . .

MYD MARINE DISTRIBUTOR, INC. a MYD a MYD a v. INTERNATIONAL PAINT LTD. LLC,, 76 So. 3d 42 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Pursuant to section 542.18, Florida Statutes, “[e]very contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint . . . combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce ... is declared to be illegal.’’); § 542.18 . . .

MDS CANADA INC. v. RAD SOURCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 822 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . . §§ 542.335 and 542.18. . . .

GONZALEZ, v. W. HASTY, Dr. Dr., 651 F.3d 318 (2d Cir. 2011)

. . . . §§ 542.11-542.18, requires that an inmate first attempt resolution of his or her grievance through . . . Id., §§ 542.15(a), 542.18. . . . Id., § 542.18. . . .

SMITH, v. UNITED STATES D. C. O. Dr. Co. Mr. C. O. R. Lt. Mr. C. O. J. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr., 432 F. App'x 113 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 542.18. . . . had extended by twenty days the time to respond to Smith's appeal, as is allowed under 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .

A. CAMPBELL, v. HOLT SIS, 432 F. App'x 49 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . habeas petition), that he receive no response within the allotted time for reply, and that under section 542.18 . . .

TERRELL, v. Lt. BENFER Lt. C. O., 429 F. App'x 74 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 542.18 (“if the inmate does not receive a response within the time allotted for reply, including . . .

PROTHERAPY ASSOCIATES, LLC, v. AFS OF BASTIAN, INC. d b a, 782 F. Supp. 2d 206 (W.D. Va. 2011)

. . . . § 542.18. . . .

AREF v. HOLDER, 774 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . . §§ 542.10 through 542.18, and corresponding policy.” Id. at 5. B. The Plaintiffs 1. . . .

RISHER, v. LAPPIN, A. FCI E. J. FCI FCI CMS FCI CMS FCI FCI, 639 F.3d 236 (6th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 542.18. . . . The regulations provide, in § 542.18, that “[i]f the inmate does not receive a response within the time . . . Regional Director signed a response as governing when an inmate’s appeal to the next level is due, § 542.18 . . . Director by September 12, 2007 — the time allotted for reply, including extension, under 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . . See 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . .

KRIST, v. EICHENLAUB,, 386 F. App'x 920 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . Id. at § 542.18. . . . into the Administrative Remedy Index, which in Krist’s case, was not until 2 June 2009. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .

F. MITCHELL, v. DODRILL,, 696 F. Supp. 2d 454 (M.D. Pa. 2010)

. . . Id. at §§ 542.15(a) and 542.18. . . .

QUINTANA- NAVARETTE, v. G. GARCIA,, 361 F. App'x 951 (10th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 542.18 which notes that at each level of BOP review, “[i]f the inmate does not receive a response . . .

TORRES, v. Ms. ANDERSON,, 674 F. Supp. 2d 394 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . . § 542.18. . . .

ROSENTHAL, v. J. M. KILLIAN, FCI, 667 F. Supp. 2d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . . § 542.18 requires each level of administrative review to be completed in no more than forty days. . . .

In WELLBUTRIN XL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 260 F.R.D. 143 (E.D. Pa. 2009)

. . . . §§ 542.18-542.19. . . .

FOURNIER, v. ZICKEFOOSE,, 620 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Conn. 2009)

. . . . § 542.18. . . . See id. § 542.18. . . . See id. § 542.18. . . .

W. MILLER, v. PREEFER, L., 1 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1993), generally prohibits any contract in restraint of trade or commerce . . .

HUFF, II, v. SANDERS, FCC,, 632 F. Supp. 2d 903 (E.D. Ark. 2008)

. . . . § 542.18. The Warden may extend the response time for an additional 20 days. Id. . . . Warden Sanders may have given herself an extension of time to respond under 28 C.F.R. § 542.18, thus, . . . This is questionable, however, as § 542.18 requires staff to inform the inmate of the extension in writing . . . . a copy of notice or data notation, that Petitioner was ever informed of an extension. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . . Petitioner’s BP-10 was dated September 23, 2005, but not "logged as received” under 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .

KAPILA, USA, a v. AT T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. a, 973 So. 2d 600 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Sherman Antitrust Act (the “Federal Antitrust Counts”) by both AT & T and ABC, violation of sections 542.18 . . .

WARWICK, v. C. MINER,, 257 F. App'x 475 (3d Cir. 2007)

. . . . §§ 542.15 & 542.18. . . .

CALIFORNIA, v. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG,, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . . §§ 542.18 and 542.22; see also FAC at ¶¶ 134-39. . . .

MARTIN, II, v. ZENK,, 244 F. App'x 974 (11th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 542.18 (emphasis added). B. . . .

UNITED STATES v. FROSCH, f k a, 496 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (S.D. Iowa 2007)

. . . . § 542.18. . . . See 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. KHAN,, 540 F. Supp. 2d 344 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . See 28 CFR § 542.18. . . .

HUMANE SOCIETY OF BROWARD COUNTY, INC. v. FLORIDA HUMANE SOCIETY,, 951 So. 2d 966 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Any person who shall be injured in her or his business or property by reason of any violation of s. 542.18 . . .

MARCO ISLAND CABLE, INC. a v. COMCAST CABLEVISION OF THE SOUTH, INC. a, 509 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 542.18. The Court previously dismissed plaintiff's anti-trust claim under Fla. . . . . § 542.18, and therefore finds that plaintiff is not entitled to a declaratory judgment under this statute . . .

F. SCHWEITZER, III, v. UNITED STATES PA, 215 F. App'x 120 (3d Cir. 2007)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.18. . . .

A. BAEZ, v. KAHANOWICZ,, 469 F. Supp. 2d 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . . § 542.18 (2006). . . .

L. BROWN, v. M. EARDLEY, USP- FNU USP- FNU USP- FNU USP- FNU UPS- FNU USP- G. USP- FNU USP- FNU USP- USP- FNU USP- FNU USP- FNU USP- FNU USP-, 184 F. App'x 689 (10th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 542.18 for emergencies, and he should be excused from complying with the filing deadlines because . . . Federal prisoners are required to follow a four-step grievance procedure. 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13 — 542.18 . . . Brown first asserts that his prison grievances were exhausted fully under 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . . He relies on the following language of § 542.18: “If the [Administrative Remedy] Request is determined . . . We need not address how § 542.18’s provision for treatment of an emergency grievance should be applied . . .

O. HENAO, v. PROFESSIONAL SHOE REPAIR, INC. A., 929 So. 2d 723 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Indeed, section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1983), stated (and continues to state) the general rule in . . . restraints of trade are illegal and unenforceable, section 542.335(1) provides: Notwithstanding s. 542.18 . . .

JES PROPERTIES, INC. d b a a W. v. USA EQUESTRIAN, INC., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2006)

. . . . §§ 542.18 and 542.19. . . . Stat. §§ 542.18 and 542.19. . . .

J. COLUCCI, v. EAR RARE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., 918 So. 2d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 542.18, Fla. . . .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALI,, 396 F. Supp. 2d 703 (E.D. Va. 2005)

. . . . § 542.18. . . .

ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ELAN CORPORATION, PLC,, 421 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . Stat. chs. 542.18 and 542.19. . . . Stat. chs. 542.18 and 542.19, closely track the language of the Sherman Act and are analyzed under the . . .

PEREZ OLIVO, v. Ed GONZALEZ,, 384 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D.P.R. 2005)

. . . . § 542.18. . . .

FEUER, v. B. McCOLLUM, MD, MD, N. USP L., 139 F. App'x 928 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 542.18, which provides, “[i]f the inmate does not receive a response within the time allotted for . . . maintains he was entitled to consider the absence of a response to be a denial, as permitted by 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, v. BOEING COMPANY,, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (M.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . . § 2 and § 542.18 eb seq., Florida Statutes, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. . . . Complaint (Doc. 286) alleging that Boeing attempted to monopolize in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2 and § 542.18 . . . Complaint (Doc. 286) alleging that Boeing conspired to monopolize in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2 and § 542.18 . . . Boeing conspired to restrain trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and § 542.18 . . .

In JET CENTER, INC. a v. v., 322 B.R. 182 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . In Count V, the Debtor’s claim is based on the Florida Antitrust Act, Section 542.18 of the Florida Statutes . . . relief and attorneys fees pursuant to Section 542.23 of the Florida Statutes for violation of Section 542.18 . . . Section 542.18, 542.19, and 542.23) both based on the Doctrine of State Action Immunity; and (3) It is . . . FLORIDA ANTITRUST ACT §§ 542.18, 542.19 AND 542.23 (Counts V and VI) The Debtor’s claim for injunctive . . . Stat. § 542.18) and VI (Florida Antitrust Act, Fla. . . .

In JET CENTER, INC. a v. v., 319 B.R. 11 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . . § 542.18, alleging that all contracts, combinations or conspiracy in restraint of trade is unlawful . . .

DUCK TOURS SEAFARI, INC. v. THE CITY OF KEY WEST,, 875 So. 2d 650 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See §§ 542.18-.19, § 542.235(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . See §§ 542.16, 542.18, 542.19, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. a v. TAMPA BAY DOWNS, INC. a, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . restrained competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Florida Statutes Section 542.18 . . . Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in interpreting what conduct violates Florida Statutes Section 542.18 . . .

HOWARD v. ASHCROFT, E. P. v., 248 F. Supp. 2d 518 (M.D. La. 2003)

. . . . § 542.18. . 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). . 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a). . 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .

FERGUSON v. ASHCROFT, G. v., 248 F. Supp. 2d 547 (M.D. La. 2003)

. . . . § 542.18. . 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). . 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a). . 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, v. A. BUTTERWORTH,, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . an official investigation to determine whether there is, has been or may be a violation of Sections 542.18 . . .

VACATION BREAK U. S. A. INC. v. MARKETING RESPONSE GROUP LASER COMPANY, INC., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (M.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . . § 542.18. . . .

CONCEPCION, v. MORTON,, 125 F. Supp. 2d 111 (D.N.J. 2000)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.18); Wolff v. . . .

Dr. M. GHANA, v. J. T. HOLLAND, 226 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 542.18, and may appeal within 30 days from the Regional Director’s decision to the BOP’s General . . . Counsel, see 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a), who must respond within 40 days, see 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . .

OC PRINTING SYSTEMS USA, INC. a Oc G. m. b. H. a L. P. a a a AG, a v. MAILERS DATA SERVICES, INC. a a ABOG, a d b a a NCR, 760 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1997), states: “Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint . . .

UNITED STATES v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, v. v., 97 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2000)

. . . Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.18, 542.19; 740 Ill. Comp. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, v., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)

. . . Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.18, 542.19; 740 Ill. Comp. . . . Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.18 (1999); 740 III. Comp. . . .

NYHUIS, v. RENO, BOP, 204 F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 542.18. . . . See id. § 542.18. . . . See id. § 542.18. All told, the process should take no longer than one hundred and eighty days. . . .

VACATION BREAK U. S. A. INC. v. MARKETING RESPONSE GROUP LASER COMPANY, INC., 189 F.R.D. 474 (M.D. Fla. 1999)

. . . . § 542.18. . . .

NOACK, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., 742 So. 2d 433 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . .” §§ 542.18, 542.19, Fla.Stat. (1997). . See 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1011-1015 (1997). . . .

VACATION BREAK U. S. A. INC. v. MARKETING RESPONSE GROUP LASER CO. INC. J. Jr. J. Sr. PJP L. C. s s, 28 F. Supp. 2d 651 (M.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . . § 542.18. See MRG & L Complaint. . . .

METZLER v. BEAR AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, SPX, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . of federal and state anti-trust laws, specifically sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and sections 542.18 . . . Counts 7 through 10 assert that the federal antitrust violations of Florida Statute sections 542.18 or . . .

C. FORTES, Jr. v. L. HARDING,, 19 F. Supp. 2d 323 (M.D. Pa. 1998)

. . . . § 542.18. . . . Id. § 542.18. . . .

SOUTHERN CARD NOVELTY, INC. v. LAWSON MARDON LABEL, INC. d. b. a. J., 138 F.3d 869 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 14, and Florida Statutes section 542.18; and (2) monopolization and attempted monopolization under . . . directed courts to rely on comparable federal antitrust statutes in construing [Florida Statutes section 542.18 . . .

ALL CARE NURSING SERVICE, INC. v. HIGH TECH STAFFING SERVICES, INC. ALL CARE NURSING SERVICE, INC. A v. BETHESDA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. NME, 135 F.3d 740 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . . §§ 1, 2, and under Florida Statutes §§ 542.18 and 542.19. . . . Palm Beach County PPP is a violation of the antitrust laws of the Sherman Act and Florida Statutes §§ 542.18 . . . Stat. §§ 542.16 (Florida antitrust laws complement federal antitrust laws), 542.18 (analogous to § 1 . . .

H. HAGER, M. D. v. VENICE HOSPITAL, INC. P. A. J. M., 944 F. Supp. 1530 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . restraint of trade and monopoly by Venice, Englewood, RAVE, Savoca, and Vihlen pursuant to sections 542.18 . . .

DAVIS Al v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, a, 670 So. 2d 136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Under § 542.18, Fla.Stat., every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce . . .

PARTS DEPOT COMPANY, L. P. By PARTS DEPOT COMPANY, INC. v. FLORIDA AUTO SUPPLY, INC. d b a J. C., 669 So. 2d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . While the appellee sued under section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1989), which prohibits conspiracies in . . .

HIALEAH, INC. a a v. FLORIDA HORSEMEN S BENEVOLENT PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. a H. R. P. J. C. O. S. R. J. Jr. s a, 899 F. Supp. 616 (S.D. Fla. 1995)

. . . Fla.Stat. ch. 542.18 (1995). . . .

D. LEVINE, M. D. v. CENTRAL FLORIDA MEDICAL AFFILIATES, INC. f k a, 864 F. Supp. 1175 (M.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . . § 542.18, and Count II asserts a violation of Fla.Stat. § 542.19. . . .

In BARRETT HOME CORP. f k a, 165 B.R. 50 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . . § 542.18; and, in Count III on an alleged violation of Fla.Stat. §§ 772.103, and 772.104, the Florida . . . Debtor resulted in restraint of trade in violation of the anti-trust statute of this State, Fla.Stat. § 542.18 . . . The test for whether or not the conduct of the Debtor offends Fla.Stat. § 542.18, Florida’s Antitrust . . . foregoing, this Court is satisfied that the Debtor is not hable to the Claimants under Fla.Stat. § 542.18 . . .

J. GREENBERG, M. D. v. MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER OF GREATER MIAMI, INC., 629 So. 2d 252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . complaint also included a claim that defendants conspired to restrain trade in violation of sections 542.18 . . . Section 542.18 provides that “[e]very contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce . . . to allege a multiplicity of economic actors; and 2) it alleged neither a per se violation of section 542.18 . . .

DAVIS, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a, 149 F.R.D. 666 (S.D. Fla. 1993)

. . . to recover on behalf of those persons threefold damages sustained by reason of any violation of s. 542.18 . . .

WINDMILL POINTE VILLAGE CLUB ASSOCIATION, INC. v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 779 F. Supp. 596 (M.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . . § 1, and Florida Statutes § 542.18 by virtue of the intentional, unlawful and discriminatory acts of . . .

LIME TREE VILLAGE COMMUNITY CLUB ASSOCIATION, INC. P. La T. v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 785 F. Supp. 962 (M.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . . § 1, and Florida Statutes § 542.18 by virtue of the intentional, unlawful and discriminatory acts of . . .

GOLTA, INC. a v. GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION AUTHORITY a, 761 F. Supp. 778 (M.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . Claims GOLTA has also brought state antitrust claims against GOAA and Mears under Florida Statutes §§ 542.18 . . .

ACCENT HOMES, INC. a v. NARCO REALTY, INC. a a R., 566 So. 2d 5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . .1980) the trial court’s dismissal of count five for unreasonable restraint of trade under Sections 542.18 . . .

M. BOCZAR, M. D. a v. MANATEE HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. a d b a L. M. D. N. M. D. M. D., 731 F. Supp. 1042 (M.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . 5) sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 6) violation of § 542.18 . . .

ALL CARE NURSING SERVICE, INC. v. BETHESDA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. P. D. Q. NURSE, INC. v. SOUTH FLORIDA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., 887 F.2d 1535 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . . §§ 542.16 (Florida antitrust laws complement federal antitrust laws), 542.18 (provision analogous to . . . . § 542.18 and 542.19. . . .

RESPIRATORY THERAPEUTICS, INC. a v. FOSTER MEDICAL CORPORATION, E. M. D., 542 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . that this conduct constituted a restraint of trade in violation of the Florida Antitrust Act, section 542.18 . . .