Cases from cite.case.law:

LIVINGSTON, v. SHERMAN, 714 F. App'x 106 (3d Cir. 2017)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

GONZALEZ, v. W. HASTY,, 269 F. Supp. 3d 45 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19, and this actually confirms the availability of both non-judicial, administrative . . .

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

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS,, 249 F. Supp. 3d 466 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19 (collectively known as the “Administrative Remedy Program Regulations”). . . .

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

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

UNITED STATES v. M. BRAGG,, 619 F. App'x 532 (7th Cir. 2015)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

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

. . . . § 542.19. . . .

McGOWAN, v. UNITED STATES, 94 F. Supp. 3d 382 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19, but this merely confirms that the administrative remedy can be effective in relieving . . .

TERESHCHUK, v. BUREAU OF PRISONS,, 67 F. Supp. 3d 441 (D.D.C. 2014)

. . . . § 542.19. . . . pursuant to its own regulations forbidding disclosure of inmate names and register numbers. 28 C.F.R. § 542.19 . . . responses identified by index number at each institution, regional office, or central office. 28 C.F.R. 542.19 . . . BOP regulation 28 C.F.R. § 542.19 requires that responses sought “must be identified by Remedy ID number . . .

SOBOROFF, v. DOE, FNU A. v. FNU FTC s, 569 F. App'x 606 (10th Cir. 2014)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19 (containing BOP grievance regulations). . . .

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

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

T. ELDRIDGE, v. D. BERKEBILE,, 526 F. App'x 897 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

SUNBEAM TELEVISION CORP. v. NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH, INC., 711 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 542.19, for treble damages under Section Four of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15. . . .

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

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

G. RYAN, v. UNITED STATES, 415 F. App'x 345 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

SMITH, v. DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS B B Z Z Z USP, 412 F. App'x 427 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

RAHMAN, v. S. WINGATE, 740 F. Supp. 2d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19 and cited in Chief Judge Preska’s Order. . . .

DEROO, v. HOLINKA,, 373 F. App'x 617 (7th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 542.19 (explaining process for taking administrative appeal from adverse disciplinary decision where . . .

WHITE, v. B. A. BLEDSLOE, 368 F. App'x 273 (3d Cir. 2010)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

TORRES- VILLA, v. DAVIS,, 354 F. App'x 311 (10th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § § 542.10-542.19, but argued that he shouldn’t be required to do so because doing so would be futile . . .

D. SAMPLES, v. WILEY,, 349 F. App'x 267 (10th Cir. 2009)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19, governs the BOP administrative process. . . .

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)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

HEALTH FIRST, INC. v. A. HYNES, M. D. FACS,, 988 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Specifically, in Counts I through VI, Hynes alleged violations of section 542.19 of the Florida Statutes . . . which provides: 542.19. . . . conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of trade or commerce in this state. § 542.19 . . .

UNITED STATES v. COLEMAN,, 276 F. App'x 766 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19 (providing administrative remedy procedure for BOP inmates). Mr. . . .

SHAHID, v. M. SCHULTZ, FCI, 272 F. App'x 150 (3d Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 542.10-542.19 (2006). . . .

REED, v. UNITED STATES, 262 F. App'x 114 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . . §§ 542.10 to 542.19 (setting forth the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program). . . .

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

. . . Antitrust Act (the “Federal Antitrust Counts”) by both AT & T and ABC, violation of sections 542.18, and 542.19 . . .

O BRIEN, v. SEAY, FCI Dr. FCI Mr. FCI Mr. FCI P. A., 263 F. App'x 5 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § § 542.10-542.19. . . .

CARDONA, v. R TUITE,, 258 F. App'x 643 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

SCHIPKE, v. VAN BUREN,, 239 F. App'x 85 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. . . .

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

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19 (2007); see also Thomas v. . . .

ACE PRO SOUND AND RECORDING, LLC, v. P. ALBERTSON a k a, 512 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 542.19. • Count 8 against Defendant Guitar Center and the Supplier Defendants for unconscionable . . . Stat. § 542.19. • Count 22 filed as a class action claims against Defendant Guitar Center for monopolizing . . . Stat. § 542.19.. • Count 23 filed as a class action claim against Defendant Guitar Center and the Supplier . . . Stat. § 542.19. • Count 24 filed as a class action claim for price discrimination and predatory pricing . . .

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

. . . who shall be injured in her or his business or property by reason of any violation of s. 542.18 or s. 542.19 . . .

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. . . .

AVALON CARRIAGE SERVICE INC. v. CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, a a a St. a, 417 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (M.D. Fla. 2006)

. . . . § 2 (Count II) and Florida antitrust violations of Chapter 542.19, Florida Statutes (Count III). . . .

PALOMINO, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,, 408 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . . §§ 542.10—542.19 (2003). . . .

ERINMEDIA, LLC, LLC, v. NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH, INC., 401 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (M.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . suit asserting a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Monopolization, and a violation of Section 542.19 . . .

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 . . .

CLAYTON III, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FMC- FMC- M. FMC-, 136 F. App'x 840 (6th Cir. 2005)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19: Clayton initially complained to an institution staff member, see § 542.14(c)(4), . . .

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

. . . 542.23 of the Florida Statutes for violations of the Florida Antitrust Act, Florida Statute, Section 542.19 . . . Section 542.18, 542.19, and 542.23) both based on the Doctrine of State Action Immunity; and (3) It is . . . violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act or the corresponding Florida Statutes, Sections 542.18 and 542.19 . . . United States Code, Sections 1 and 2; (2) Florida Antitrust Act, Florida Statutes, Sections 542.18 and 542.19 . . . FLORIDA ANTITRUST ACT §§ 542.18, 542.19 AND 542.23 (Counts V and VI) The Debtor’s claim for injunctive . . .

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

. . . . § 542.19, alleging that the NAA is attempting to monopolize a part of trade or commerce, which is a . . .

SANUSI, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,, 100 F. App'x 49 (2d Cir. 2004)

. . . . §§ 542.10— 542.19, dismissed the claim for failure to demonstrate that the petitioner had exhausted . . .

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, v. BOEING COMPANY,, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . . § 2 (2001), and of the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, § 542.19, Florida Statutes (2003). . . . . § 2 and § 542.19, Florida Statutes. . . . . § 2 and § 542.19, Florida Statutes. . . . the claims in Counts VI and VIII alleging conspiracy to monopolize under 15 U.S.C. § 2 and section 542.19 . . .

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

. . . See §§ 542.16, 542.18, 542.19, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

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

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. The administrative appeals process has three steps. . . .

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

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19. The administrative appeals process has three steps. . . .

MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a v. PGA TOUR, INC., 235 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (M.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . § 542.19, and the Floridá Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. . . .

UNITED STATES v. C. LEWIS, B. E., 23 F. App'x 642 (8th Cir. 2002)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19 (2001). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. . . .

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

. . . official investigation to determine whether there is, has been or may be a violation of Sections 542.18 or 542.19 . . .

McCOY, v. R. GILBERT, H. S., 270 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2001)

. . . verified by staff, that a response to the inmate’s request for copies of dispositions requested under § 542.19 . . .

NAGY, v. CLEMENZ M., 20 F. App'x 211 (4th Cir. 2001)

. . . . §§ 542.10 to 542.19 (2001). . . .

E. MOECKER, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. f k a a, 144 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . . § 542.19. . . .

BATES, v. DAY Al, 12 F. App'x 625 (10th Cir. 2001)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19 do not include monetary relief. See Garrett v. . . .

MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a v. PGA TOUR, INC., 117 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (M.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . . § 542.19, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.Stat. § 501.201 et seq. . . . Fla.Stat. § 542.19. . . .

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 542.19, Florida Statutes (1997), states: “It is unlawful for any person to monopolize, attempt . . .

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

OKEELANTA POWER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. FLORIDA POWER LIGHT COMPANY, FPL FPL, 766 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . IV of Okeelanta’s amended counterclaim asserted an anti-trust claim against FPL pursuant to section 542.19 . . . the trial court’s dismissal of counterclaims that named only FPL Co. as counterdefendant. .Section 542.19 . . . , Florida Statutes (1997), provides: 542.19 Monopolization; attempts, combinations, or conspiracies to . . .

MASSEY M. D. v. HELMAN,, 196 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 1999)

. . . . §§ 542.10—542.19, will only direct Massey’s medical concerns to the FCI Pe-kin staff, the BOP Regional . . .

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). . . .

UNITED STATES v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES, CORP. SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT DIVISION,, 51 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D. Conn. 1999)

. . . $23,466.24 co $526.54 04/01/87 06/30/87 9.00% $23,466.24 co $8.14 5098 04/16/87 06/30/87 9.00% $434.56 -q $542.19 . . .

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

. . . and state anti-trust laws, specifically sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and sections 542.18 and 542.19 . . . Counts 7 through 10 assert that the federal antitrust violations of Florida Statute sections 542.18 or 542.19 . . .

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

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19 (1997). . . .

UNITED STATES v. B. HARMON,, 999 F. Supp. 467 (W.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19, and there is no evidence that Harmon has pursued such relief. . . .

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

. . . . § 2, and Florida Statutes section 542.19. . . .

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. . . . County PPP is a violation of the antitrust laws of the Sherman Act and Florida Statutes §§ 542.18 and 542.19 . . .

CAMPER, v. BENOV,, 966 F. Supp. 951 (C.D. Cal. 1997)

. . . . §§ 542.10-542.19; See also Nigro v. . . .

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, 542.19 . . .

H. HAHN, O. J. v. RIFKIN NARRAGANSETT SOUTH FLORIDA CATV LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d b a, 941 F. Supp. 1196 (S.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . the Federal Cable Act, 47 U.S.C., § 543(d); and the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Florida Statute § 542.19 . . .

AVENTURA CABLE CORPORATION, a v. RIFKIN NARRAGANSETT SOUTH FLORIDA CATV LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d b a a R N a CA a a, 941 F. Supp. 1189 (S.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . Title 47, United States Code, Section 543(d) (“the Federal Cable Act”), of Florida Statute Chapter 542.19 . . .

OASIS PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. v. WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY,, 924 F. Supp. 918 (D. Minn. 1996)

. . . . § 2; in Count III that West’s alleged monopoly also violates Florida Statute § 542.19; in Count TV . . .

W. ROSS, v. W. J. THOMPSON, F. C. I., 927 F. Supp. 956 (N.D.W. Va. 1996)

. . . . §§ 542.10 through 542.19. . . .

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

. . . . § 542.19. . . .

AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS PLC, v. TILTON ENGINEERING, INC., 855 F. Supp. 1101 (C.D. Cal. 1994)

. . . 2,242.18 (5) secretarial overtime: $ 36,527.75 (6) trial supply .expenses: $ 20,958.64 (7) postage: $ 542.19 . . .

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

. . . recover on behalf of those persons threefold damages sustained by reason of any violation of s. 542.18 or 542.19 . . .

JACKSONVILLE PORT AUTHORITY, a v. ALAMO RENT- A- CAR, INC. a, 600 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . The remaining two sub-issues related to alleged violations of section 542.19, Florida Statutes (1989) . . .

DAVIS, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a, 755 F. Supp. 1532 (S.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . . § 542.19 (1987), treble damages for violations of the Florida RICO laws, and treble damages for violations . . .

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)

. . . the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 6) violation of § 542.18 of Florida’s Antitrust Act, 7) violation of § 542.19 . . .

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)

. . . . § 542.18 and 542.19. . . .

CENTRAL FLORIDA CLINIC FOR REHABILITATION, INC. v. CITRUS COUNTY HOSPITAL BOARD a d b a, 738 F. Supp. 459 (M.D. Fla. 1989)

. . . . §§ 542.18 and 542.19. . . . .

BELLSOUTH ADVERTISING PUBLISHING CORPORATION, v. DONNELLEY INFORMATION PUBLISHING, INC. v. BELLSOUTH CORPORATION, 719 F. Supp. 1551 (S.D. Fla. 1988)

. . . . § 2, and Florida Statutes, § 542.19. . . . Count three alleges this same conduct is in violation of Florida Statutes Section 542.19. . . .

FINA OIL AND CHEMICAL CO. a v. L. D. BOYETTE, A. D. Jr. B M, 530 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . A section two violation under Section 542.19, Florida Statutes, need not affect interstate commerce. . . .

M. REITZ, v. CANON U. S. A. INC. X., 695 F. Supp. 552 (S.D. Fla. 1988)

. . . person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of § 542.18 or § 542.19 . . .

AD- VANTAGE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY CONSULTANTS, INC. v. GTE DIRECTORIES CORPORATION,, 849 F.2d 1336 (11th Cir. 1987)

. . . . § 542.19 provides: Monopolization; attempts, combinations, or conspiracies to monopolize.— It is unlawful . . .

NORTON TIRE CO. INC. a v. TIRE KINGDOM CO. INC. a Jr., 116 F.R.D. 236 (S.D. Fla. 1987)

. . . to monopolize commerce in violation of the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Florida Statutes, Section 542.19 . . .

F. LAWLER, M. D. F. M. D. P. A. v. EUGENE WUESTHOFF MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,, 497 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . . §§ 542.19 & 542.22, Fla.Stat. (1981). . 42 U.S.C. § 1983. . Compare Buckner v. . . .

El SHAHAWY, M. D. v. T. HARRISON, Jr., 778 F.2d 636 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . . §§ 542.18 and 542.19 (Supp.1984). . . .

NORTON TIRE CO. INC. a v. TIRE KINGDOM CO. INC. a Jr., 108 F.R.D. 371 (S.D. Fla. 1985)

. . . plaintiffs’ complaint was based on Section 2 of the Sherman Act while count III was based upon Section 542.19 . . .

CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC. v. CITY GAS COMPANY OF FLORIDA,, 623 F. Supp. 1357 (S.D. Fla. 1985)

. . . Florida Statutes 542.18 and 542.19 parallel Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act l’espeetively. . . . under Section 3 of the Clayton Act is fully and effectively subsumed by Florida Statutes 542.18 and 542.19 . . .

ST. PETERSBURG YACHT CHARTERS, INC. a St. Ft. a v. MORGAN YACHT, INC. a a L., 457 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . . § 1), and section 542.19, Florida Statutes (1981) (the counterpart of section 2 of the Sherman Act, . . . We do not consider the bare allegations of a violation of section 542.19, Florida Statutes (section 2 . . . Section 542.19 provides: Monopolization; attempts, combinations or conspiracies to monopolize. — It is . . .

W. v., 26 T.C. 1055 (T.C. 1956)

. . . Bice, Judge: This proceeding involves the following deficiencies in income tax: Year Deficiency 1945_$542.19 . . .

In BASKIND, 43 F. Supp. 602 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)

. . . The merchandise was then sold by lots, the highest bids aggregating $542.19, and upon a similar sale . . .

ALLIANCE MACH. CO. v. UNITED STATES, 54 F.2d 99 (N.D. Ohio 1931)

. . . A net additional assessment of $8,-542.19 for 1917 was made on January 15, 1921, and paid on January . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)