The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLIII
DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Chapter 751
TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN BY EXTENDED FAMILY

View Entire Chapter

CHAPTER 751

TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN BY EXTENDED FAMILY

751.01 Purpose of act.

751.011 Definitions.

751.02 Temporary or concurrent custody proceedings; jurisdiction.

751.03 Petition for temporary or concurrent custody; contents.

751.04 Notice and opportunity to be heard.

751.05 Order granting temporary or concurrent custody.

751.01 Purpose of act.—The purposes of this chapter are to:

(1) Recognize that many minor children in this state live with and are well cared for by members of their extended families. The parents of these children have often provided for their care by placing them temporarily with another family member who is better able to care for them. Because of the care being provided the children by their extended families, they are not dependent children.

(2) Provide for the welfare of a minor child who is living with extended family members. At present, such family members are unable to give complete care to the child in their custody because they lack a legal document that explains and defines their relationship to the child, and they are unable effectively to consent to the care of the child by third parties.

(3) Provide temporary or concurrent custody of a minor child to a family member having physical custody of the minor child to enable the custodian to:

(a) Consent to all necessary and reasonable medical and dental care for the child, including nonemergency surgery and psychiatric care.

(b) Secure copies of the child’s records, held by third parties, that are necessary for the care of the child, including, but not limited to:

1. Medical, dental, and psychiatric records.

2. Birth certificates and other records.

3. Educational records.

(c) Enroll the child in school and grant or withhold consent for a child to be tested or placed in special school programs, including exceptional education.

(d) Do all other things necessary for the care of the child.

(4) Protect the welfare of minor children by allowing transitions of custody consistent with their best interest.

History.—s. 1, ch. 93-104; s. 1, ch. 2006-167; s. 2, ch. 2010-30; s. 1, ch. 2020-146.

751.011 Definitions.—As used in this chapter, the term:

(1) “Concurrent custody” means that an eligible extended family member is awarded custodial rights to care for a child concurrently with the child’s parent or parents.

(2) “Extended family member” means a person who is:

(a) A relative of a minor child within the third degree by blood or marriage to the parent;

(b) The stepparent of a minor child if the stepparent is currently married to the parent of the child and is not a party in a pending dissolution, separate maintenance, domestic violence, or other civil or criminal proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction involving one or both of the child’s parents as an adverse party; or

History.—s. 2, ch. 93-104; s. 4, ch. 96-305; s. 2, ch. 2006-167; s. 3, ch. 2010-30; s. 2, ch. 2020-146.

751.02 Temporary or concurrent custody proceedings; jurisdiction.—

(1) The following individuals may bring proceedings in the circuit court to determine the temporary or concurrent custody of a minor child:

(a) Any extended family member who has the signed, notarized consent of the child’s legal parents; or

(b) Any extended family member who is caring full time for the child in the role of a substitute parent and with whom the child is presently living.

(2) In addition to the requirements of subsection (1), an individual seeking concurrent custody must:

(a) Currently have physical custody of the child or have had physical custody of the child for at least 10 days in any 30-day period within the last 12 months; and

(b) Not have signed, written documentation from a parent which is sufficient to enable the custodian to do all of the things necessary to care for the child which are available to custodians who have an order issued under s. 751.05.

History.—s. 3, ch. 93-104; s. 3, ch. 2006-167; s. 4, ch. 2010-30; s. 3, ch. 2020-146.

751.03 Petition for temporary or concurrent custody; contents.—Each petition for temporary or concurrent custody of a minor child must be verified by the petitioner, who must be an extended family member, and must contain statements, to the best of the petitioner’s knowledge and belief, providing:

(1) The name, date of birth, and current address of the child.

(2) The names and current addresses of the child’s parents.

(3) The names and current addresses of the persons with whom the child has lived during the past 5 years.

(4) The places where the child has lived during the past 5 years.

(5) Information concerning any custody proceeding in this or any other state with respect to the child.

(6) The residence and post office address of the petitioner.

(7) The petitioner’s relationship to the child.

(8) If concurrent custody is being requested:

(a) The time periods during the last 12 months that the child resided with the petitioner;

(b) The type of document, if any, provided by the parent or parents to enable the petitioner to act on behalf of the child;

(d) Whether each parent has consented in writing to the entry of an order of concurrent custody.

A copy of the written consent and any documents provided by the parent to assist the petitioner in obtaining services must be attached to the petition.

(9) If temporary custody is being requested, the consent of the child’s parents, or the specific acts or omissions of the parents which demonstrate that the parents have abused, abandoned, or neglected the child as defined in chapter 39.

(10) Any temporary or permanent orders for child support, the court entering the order, and the case number.

(11) Any temporary or permanent order for protection entered on behalf of or against either parent, the petitioner, or the child; the court entering the order; and the case number.

(12) That it is in the best interest of the child for the petitioner to have custody of the child.

(13) The period of time for which the petitioner is requesting temporary custody, including a statement of the reasons supporting that request.

(14) Any other provisions that are related to the best interest of the child, including, but not limited to, a reasonable plan for transitioning custody.

History.—s. 4, ch. 93-104; s. 4, ch. 2006-167; s. 5, ch. 2010-30; s. 4, ch. 2020-146.

751.04 Notice and opportunity to be heard.—Before a decree is made under this chapter, reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard must be given to the parents of the minor child by service of process, either personal or constructive.

History.—s. 5, ch. 93-104; s. 6, ch. 2010-30.

751.05 Order granting temporary or concurrent custody.—

(1) At the hearing on the petition for temporary or concurrent custody, the court must hear the evidence concerning a minor child’s need for care by the petitioner, all other matters required to be set forth in the petition, and the objections or other testimony of the child’s parents, if present.

(2) Unless the minor child’s parents object, the court shall award temporary or concurrent custody of the child to the petitioner if it is in the best interest of the child.

(3) If one of the minor child’s parents objects to:

(a) The petition for concurrent custody, in writing, the court may not grant the petition even if the other parent consents, in writing, to the entry of the order. The court shall give the petitioner the option of converting the petition to a petition for temporary custody. If the petitioner so elects, the court shall set the matter for further hearing, provide notice to the parent or parents, and proceed pursuant to paragraph (b). If the petition is not converted into a petition for temporary custody, it shall be dismissed without prejudice.

(b) The petition for temporary custody, the court shall grant the petition only upon a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child’s parent or parents are unfit to provide for the care and control of the child. In determining that a parent is unfit, the court must find that the parent has abused, abandoned, or neglected the child, as defined in chapter 39.

(4) The order granting:

(a) Concurrent custody of the minor child may not eliminate or diminish the custodial rights of the child’s parent or parents. The order must expressly state that the grant of custody does not affect the ability of the child’s parent or parents to obtain physical custody of the child at any time, except that the court may approve provisions requested in the petition which are related to the best interest of the child, including a reasonable transition plan that provides for a return of custody back to the child’s parent or parents.

(b) Temporary custody of the minor child to the petitioner may include provisions requested in the petition which are related to the best interest of the child, including a reasonable transition plan that provides for a return of custody back to the parent or parents, and may also grant visitation rights to the child’s parent or parents, if it is in the best interest of the child.

(5) The order granting temporary or concurrent custody of the minor child to the petitioner:

(a) May not include an order for the support of the child unless the parent has received personal or substituted service of process, the petition requests an order for the support of the child, and there is evidence of the parent’s ability to pay the support ordered.

(b) May redirect all or part of an existing child support obligation to be paid to the extended family member who is granted temporary or concurrent custody of the child. If the court redirects an existing child support obligation, the order granting temporary or concurrent custody must include, if possible, the determination of arrearages owed to the obligee and the person awarded temporary or concurrent custody and must order payment of the arrearages. The clerk of the circuit court in which the order is entered shall transmit a certified copy to the court originally entering the child support order. The temporary or concurrent custody order shall be recorded and filed in the original action in which child support was determined and become a part thereof. A copy of the temporary or concurrent custody order shall also be filed with the depository that serves as the official recordkeeper for support payments due under the support order. The depository must maintain separate accounts and separate account numbers for individual obligees.

(6) At any time, either or both of the child’s parents may petition the court to modify or terminate the order granting temporary custody.

(a) The court may modify an order granting temporary custody if the parties consent or if modification is in the best interest of the child.

(b) The court shall terminate the order upon a finding that the parent is a fit parent, or by consent of the parties, except that the court may require the parties to comply with provisions approved in the order which are related to a reasonable plan for transitioning custody before terminating the order.

(c) If the order granting temporary custody was entered after a finding that the child’s parent or parents are unfit and the child has been in the temporary custody of an extended family member for a period of time the court determines to be significant, the court may, on its own motion, establish reasonable conditions, which are in the best interests of the child, for transitioning the child back to the custody of the child’s parent or parents. In determining such reasonable conditions, the court shall consider all of the following:

1. The length of time the child lived or resided with the extended family member.

2. The child’s developmental stage.

3. The length of time reasonably needed to complete the transition.

(7) At any time, the petitioner or either or both of the child’s parents may move the court to terminate the order granting concurrent custody.

(a) The court shall terminate the order upon a finding that either or both of the child’s parents object to the order, except that the court may require the parties to comply with provisions approved in the order which are related to a reasonable plan for transitioning custody before terminating the order.

(b) The fact that an order for concurrent custody has been terminated does not preclude any person who is otherwise eligible to petition for temporary custody from filing such petition.

(8) At any time, the petitioner or either or both of the child’s parents may move the court to modify the existing child support order pursuant to chapter 61. The court may modify an existing order granting child support if the parties consent and if modification is in the best interest of the child. Any order modifying child support in a concurrent custody proceeding shall be copied and placed in the related family court files.

History.—s. 6, ch. 93-104; s. 5, ch. 2006-167; s. 7, ch. 2010-30; s. 5, ch. 2020-146.

F.S. 751 on Google Scholar

F.S. 751 on Casetext

Amendments to 751

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 751

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 751.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

J. TRUMP, v. MAZARS USA, LLP, J. v. AG,, 140 S. Ct. 2019 (U.S. 2020)

. . . limited disclosures and testimony over a period of several months. 6 Op. of Office of Legal Counsel 751 . . .

J. TRUMP, v. R. VANCE, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 2412 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Id. , at 751-752, and n. 32, 102 S.Ct. 2690 (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 731, 751-753, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982). . . .

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC, LLC, III v. LLC, v. LLC, n De De La El Y v., 140 S. Ct. 1649 (U.S. 2020)

. . . 494 (Arkansas); Act of Mar. 30, 1822, § 5, 3 Stat. 655 (Florida); Act of Mar. 3, 1823, § 5, 3 Stat. 751 . . .

OPATI, v. REPUBLIC OF SUDAN,, 140 S. Ct. 1601 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Republic of Sudan , 864 F.3d 751, 814-817 (CADC 2017). . . .

ROBINSON v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 140 S. Ct. 1440 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Maine , 527 U.S. 706, 751, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999). . . . Id. , at 750-751, 119 S.Ct. 2240. . . .

CITGO ASPHALT REFINING COMPANY, v. FRESCATI SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., 140 S. Ct. 1081 (U.S. 2020)

. . . . & S. 751, 122 Eng. Rep. 281 (K. . . .

K. KAHLER, v. KANSAS, 140 S. Ct. 1021 (U.S. 2020)

. . . E. 2d 743, 751-752 (2016). . . .

C. HERNANDEZ, v. MESA, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 735 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See supra , at 751. . . .

GUTIERREZ, v. CALIFORNIA, 140 S. Ct. 938 (U.S. 2020)

. . . CALIFORNIA No. 19-751 Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. ROMERO, Jr., 935 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Garcia , 751 F.3d 1139, 1143 n.7 (10th Cir. 2014) (noting that "an officer's suspicion that an individual . . .

UNITED STATES v. BAPTISTE,, 935 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . district court had erroneously based its sentencing decision on "unreliable hearsay." 136 F.3d 747, 751 . . .

TIMS, v. LGE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION,, 935 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Coleman , 294 Ga. 170, 751 S.E.2d 337, 342 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Key v. . . .

RAY, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, v. As, 935 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Supp. 3d 751, 752 (D. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HAWKINS, a. k. a. D III, a. k. a., 934 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . concluding that error in allowance of dual-role testimony was not harmless); Grinage , 390 F.3d at 751 . . .

BACA v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, G. T. L. M., 935 F.3d 887 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Wright , 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) )). . . .

BURKE, v. REGALADO, v., 935 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Mata , 427 F.3d at 751. 2) Gatekeeping function We distinguish a medical professional's negligent failure . . .

UNITED STATES v. BEGAY,, 934 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . , 734 F.3d at 878, assault under Arizona Revised Statute sections 13-1203, 13-1204, Cabrera-Perez , 751 . . . Cabrera-Perez , 751 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir. 2014) (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1203, 13-1204 ). . . . when we suggested that a crime of violence required a "mens rea of at least extreme recklessness." 751 . . .

UNITED STATES v. STAHLMAN,, 934 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . King, 751 F.3d 1268, 1277-78 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating "where there is no error or only a single error . . .

SAM K. v. SAUL,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 874 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . (R. 751). . . . (R. 751). . . .

UNITED STATES v. F GARO- BENJAM N, 392 F. Supp. 3d 280 (D. P.R. 2019)

. . . Hurst, 228 F.3d 751, 756 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000) ("A ruling on a motion to suppress, however, is not simply . . .

UNITED STATES v. MERRITT,, 934 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753-54 (5th Cir. 2012) (same); with United States v. . . .

SENNE v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP. LLC LLC LP St. LLC LLC LLC LLC L. P. L. P. LLC LLC L. P. AZPB L. P. P LLC LLC LP LLP LLC LLC,, 934 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Casale, 83 Mass.App.Ct. 751, 989 N.E. 2d 909 (2013). . . .

HAWKINS v. I- TV DIGITALIS TAVKOZLESI ZRT. f k a DMCC Rt. DIGI RCS RDS S. A. RCS S. A. DIGI N. V. v. i- TV f k a DMCC Rt. DIGI RCS RDS S. A. RCS S. A. DIGI N. V., 935 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ct. 746, 751, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014). . . .

UNITED STATES v. NORMAN,, 935 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Rodriguez-Escareno , 700 F.3d 751, 754 (5th Cir. 2012). . . .

UNITED STATES v. G. WAGUESPACK,, 935 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Confrontation Clause by admitting into evidence a report detailing his movements from GPS tracking. 751 . . .

ESTATE OF ROMAIN, v. CITY OF GROSSE POINTE FARMS A. J., 935 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Hoover Co. , 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted). . . .

UNITED STATES v. MARCHAN,, 935 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Haldar , 751 F.3d 450, 454 fn.1 (7th Cir. 2014), here the district court carefully limited any controversial . . .

IN RE ASCOT FUND LIMITED, a, 603 B.R. 271 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Merkin (In re BLMIS ), 563 B.R. 737, 751-54 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017). . . .

PAUL G. a BY AND THROUGH STEVE G. v. MONTEREY PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 933 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 751. . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, INC. v. MANGAN, G. J., 933 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Barland , 751 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2014) (" Barland "), to support its contention that electioneering disclosure . . . Barland , 751 F.3d at 836-37. . . . Wisconsin regime invalidated in Barland , the Seventh Circuit case that NAGR cites to support its position. 751 . . .

UNITED STATES v. IN U. S. CURRENCY, 933 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Thompson , 560 F.3d 745, 751 (8th Cir. 2009). . . .

MARTINEAU, v. WIER, 934 F.3d 385 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . clear that Martineau "derive[d] an unfair advantage or impose[d] an unfair detriment," 532 U.S. at 751 . . .

IN RE MIAMI METALS I, INC., 603 B.R. 727 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . De Luca , 300 A.D.2d 342, 342, 751 N.Y.S.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2002). . . .

RILEY, v. FILSON D., 933 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . State , 383 P.3d 751 (Nev. 2016) (mem.), subsequently published at 386 P.3d 620, 620-21 (Nev. 2016) ( . . .

LANDMARK INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, v. R. E. D. INVESTMENTS, LLC, 933 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Good Samaritan Hosp. , 751 F.3d 947, 952-53 (8th Cir. 2014). . . .

BRENDA L. v. SAUL,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 858 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751, 753-754 (7th Cir. 2004). . . . Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751, 753-754 (7th Cir. 2004) ; Dixon v. . . . Barnhart , 360 F.3d 751, 754 (7th Cir. 2004) ("The issue in the case is not the existence of these various . . . out of a medical record that is over 1200 pages long and covers the decade from 2006 through 2016 (R. 751 . . .

A. LAVITE, v. J. DUNSTAN,, 932 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Trinity Hospital , 150 F.3d 747, 751 (7th Cir. 1998). . . .

ALONSO, LLP LLP S. v. J. WEISS, 932 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Litig. , 884 F.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir. 2018) (collecting authorities and explaining that a federal court's . . .

A. JALUDI, v. CITIGROUP, 933 F.3d 246 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Cigna Health Corp. , 751 F.3d 165, 172 (3d Cir. 2014). . . .

BERGAMATTO, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NYSA ILA PENSION FUND, 933 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . ICI Paints , 398 F.3d 751, 759 (6th Cir. 2005) ). . . .

SANDHU, LLC, a v. L. KANZLER, Jr. LLC, a, 932 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) ("Since there was no meaningful argument on this claim in . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. MIZUNO,, 933 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Olson , 69 Haw. 559, 751 P.2d 666 (1988), the Hawai'i Supreme Court considered several certified questions . . .

INGRAM v. UNITED STATES, 932 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . LaBonte , 520 U.S. 751, 761-62, 117 S.Ct. 1673, 137 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1997) (rejecting argument "that if . . .

GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, v. ISAACSON R. S. Mo. K. M. a, 932 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC , 751 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2014). . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. RIVERA- CARRASQUILLO, a k a KX, a k a a k a a k a n V a k a, 933 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Ayala-Vazquez, 751 F.3d 1, 24 (1st Cir. 2014) ; United States v. . . .

GRAY, v. STATE, 275 So. 3d 1293 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999). AFFIRMED. WALLIS, LAMBERT and SASSO, JJ., concur. . . .

UNITED STATES v. COLLIER,, 932 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Whitehill , 532 F.3d 746, 751 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. . . . Lalley , 257 F.3d 751, 755 (8th Cir. 2001) ) (alteration in original). . . .

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BEACH MART, INC. L L, 932 F.3d 268 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 702 F.3d 749, 751 (4th Cir. 2012). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CLARK, 932 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Melbie, 751 F.3d 586 (8th Cir. 2014). . . .

AYESTAS, v. DAVIS,, 933 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Barnes , 463 U.S. 745, 751-52, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983). . . .

UNITED STATES v. DANIEL A. v. H., 933 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Willett , 751 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2014) ("Direct evidence of a conspiracy is unnecessary; each element . . .

GREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WINDERMERE BAPTIST CONFERENCE CENTER, INC., 931 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Titan Contractors Serv., Inc. , 751 F.3d 880, 883 (8th Cir. 2014). II. . . .

CRYSTALLEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA De S. A. D. C. In De S. A., 932 F.3d 126 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Republic of Sudan , 864 F.3d 751, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ; Sachs v. . . .

MCCOTTRELL S. v. WHITE, 933 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Rectifier Corp ., 538 F.2d 180, 185 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied , 429 U.S. 1040, 97 S.Ct. 738, 50 L.Ed.2d 751 . . .

In MATTER OF WHISTLER ENERGY II, L. L. C. v. II, L. L. C. L. P. L. P. L. P. III AIV I LP ANS We, L. P. II, L. L. C., 931 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Brown , 391 U.S. 471, 483, 88 S.Ct. 1759, 20 L.Ed.2d 751 (1968). . . .

SMITH, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,, 932 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Tauch , 751 F.3d 394, 398 (5th Cir. 2014). . . .

TRACIE H. v. SAUL,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 990 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . Barnhart , 360 F.3d 751, 754 (7th Cir. 2004) ("The issue in the case is not the existence of these various . . .

FERRER, v. FERRER,, 275 So. 3d 853 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Spencer , 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999). ORFINGER, COHEN, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur. . . .

HUPP R. H. a v. COOK C. R., 931 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . A.B. , 234 W.Va. 492, 766 S.E.2d 751, 762 (2014) (citation omitted). . . .

LOVELACE v. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, 931 F.3d 698 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . City of Hot Springs , 751 F.3d 855, 858 n.1 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Pulczinski , 691 F.3d at 1006 ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. COONCE, Jr., 932 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Lalley , 257 F.3d 751, 755 (8th Cir. 2001) ). . . . Dowd , 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961) ). . . .

DAWSON- MURDOCK, v. NATIONAL COUNSELING GROUP, INC., 931 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Co. of Am. , 919 F.2d 747, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ). . . . See Griggs , 237 F.3d at 381-82 ; Eddy , 919 F.2d at 751. . . .

STATE BY AND THROUGH TENNESSEE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE,, 931 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Garner , 751 F.3d 752, 760 (6th Cir. 2014). . . .

EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT, v. BARR,, 385 F. Supp. 3d 922 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . United States , 751 F.2d 1239, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ); see also E. Bay I , 349 F. . . .

E. CHAMBERS, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . Co., 707 F.2d 748, 751 (3d Cir. 1983) ). . . .

WHITTINGHAM v. HSBC BANK USA, NA AS TRUSTEE FOR HOLDERS OF DEUTSCHE ALT- A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES, 275 So. 3d 850 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 751, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001) )). . . .

TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC v. PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR ACRES, PERMANENT OVERLAY EASEMENT FOR ACRES AND TEMPORARY EASEMENTS FOR ACRES IN MILFORD AND WESTFALL TOWNSHIPS, PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, TAX PARCEL NUMBERS a c o L. P., 931 F.3d 237 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Mahowald , 209 F.2d 751 (8th Cir. 1954) ). . . .

AIR EVAC EMS, INC. v. USABLE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 931 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Hirani, 824 F.3d 741, 751 (8th Cir. 2016) ("Ordinarily, we will not consider an argument raised for the . . .

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. R. LOUDERMILK, Sr. C. B. J. III, W. P. L., 930 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Wrigley , 221 Ga. 386, 144 S.E.2d 749, 751-52 (1965) )); id. . . .

TRUE HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, v. M. AZAR, II,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 666 (E.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . Supp. 3d 742, 751, n.3 (N.D. Tex. 2019). . . .

IN RE LICKING RIVER MINING, LLC, v. LLC,, 603 B.R. 336 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2019)

. . . AutoStyle , 269 F.3d at 751. . . . AutoStyle , 269 F.3d at 751 (citations omitted). Trustee offers no evidence that ECM owned any U.S. . . .

VASSEUR, v. F. SOWELL L. III, TEI, 930 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Gander Mountain Co. , 751 F.3d 935, 939 (8th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). . . .

UNITED STATES v. GUTIERREZ- RAMIREZ,, 930 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Holmes , 751 F.3d 846, 850 (8th Cir. 2014). Urbina controls this case. . . .

EXCEL PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 289 (E.D. Pa. 2019)

. . . Corp. , 751 F.3d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing State Auto Ins. Cos. v. . . . Reifer , 751 F.3d at 148 (citing Summy , 234 F.3d at 135-36 ). Reifer , 751 F.3d at 146. . . .

ADAME- HERNANDEZ, v. P. BARR,, 929 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008) ("Claims not raised in an opening brief are deemed waived." . . .

NAVAJO NATION, a a k a v. SAN JUAN COUNTY, a, 929 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Meier , 420 U.S. 1, 24-25, 95 S.Ct. 751, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975) (considering and rejecting proffered justifications . . . Chapman , 420 U.S. at 24, 95 S.Ct. 751. . . .

GRAVES, I. Y. M. Y. A. Y. v. A. LIOI L. Jr. I. Y. M. Y. A. Y. v. A. L. Jr., 930 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 751-52, 125 S.Ct. 2796 (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . Id. at 751, 125 S.Ct. 2796. . . . requests to enforce a restraining order against her husband who later killed her daughters. 545 U.S. at 751 . . .

AMERICAN HOMELAND TITLE AGENCY, INC. v. W. ROBERTSON,, 930 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ward , 470 U.S. 869, 880, 105 S.Ct. 1676, 84 L.Ed.2d 751 (1985) ; see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011 - 1015. . . .

INC. v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, IGT, DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE LLC,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 828 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . Whirlpool Corp. , 751 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). . . . See Plyler , 751 F.3d at 513. . . .

UNIVERSAL CABLE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a LLC, a v. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 929 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Supp. 2d 496, 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd , 751 F.3d 86, 90-91 (2d Cir. 2014), cautioned that its holding . . . In re Sept. 11 Litig. , 751 F.3d at 92-93. Similarly, Atlantic's reliance on Hamdan v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. STRUBBERG,, 929 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bender , 566 F.3d 748, 751 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing cases where we have "affirmed computer and internet . . .

UNITED STATES v. GURULE,, 929 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Garcia, 751 F.3d 1139, 1142 (10th Cir. 2014). . . . Garcia, 751 F.3d at 1141. . . . Garcia, 751 F.3d at 1143 n.7. . . .

CONROY, v. THOMPSON,, 929 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Foster , 727 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2013) ); see also Davis v. . . . See Obriecht , 727 F.3d at 751 (concluding that the petitioner failed to establish a basis for equitable . . .

UNITED STATES v. GURULE,, 935 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Garcia , 751 F.3d 1139, 1142 (10th Cir. 2014). . . . Garcia , 751 F.3d at 1141. . . . Garcia, 751 F.3d at 1143 n.7. . . .

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC, ARRIS INC. v. TQ LLC,, 928 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . In re Packard , 751 F.3d 1307, 1320 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2014). . . .

TQ DELTA, LLC, v. DISH NETWORK LLC,, 929 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . In re Packard , 751 F.3d 1307, 1320 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2014). . . .

UNITED STATES v. DANIELS,, 930 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Willett , 751 F.3d 335, 343 (5th Cir. 2014) ; cf. Fed. R. . . . Willett , 751 F.3d at 343 (quoting United States v. . . .

TWEED- NEW HAVEN AIRPORT AUTHORITY, v. TONG,, 930 F.3d 65 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Airlines, Inc. , 751 F. App'x 16, 19 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order). . . .

A. JAMES, v. STATE, 275 So. 3d 251 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999). AFFIRMED . Wetherell, Osterhaus, and Winokur, JJ., concur. . . .

IN RE PLATINUM- BEECHWOOD LITIGATION v. Re v. B L. P. v., 390 F. Supp. 3d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Citrin, 455 F.3d 749, 751 (7th Cir. 2006) ("[S]ince entitlement to advancement is independent of the . . .

ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. LTD. E. V. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC,, 927 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC , 915 F.3d 743, 751 (Fed. Cir. 2019). . . . See, e.g. , Athena , 915 F.3d at 751 ("The claims at issue here involve both the discovery of a natural . . . Athena , 915 F.3d at 751. . . . Id. at 751. . . .

KHAN, v. UNITED STATES, 928 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . First Nat'l Bank of Atlanta , 751 F.2d 1193, 1208 (11th Cir. 1985) (quoting United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. B. LEDBETTER A. A. L., 929 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Holt , 751 F. App'x 820, 826-27 (6th Cir. 2018), albeit unpublished, provides a useful contrast. . . . See Holt , 751 F. App'x at 827. . . . In fact, the defendant in Holt , 751 F. App'x at 821, was an outside associate as well. 3. . . .

ARRAZABAL, v. P. BARR,, 929 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ashcroft , 385 F.3d 748, 751 (7th Cir. 2004) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. SAGUTO,, 929 F.3d 519 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . . § 751(a). . . .

WILLIAMS, v. LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 387 F. Supp. 3d 1366 (M.D. Fla. 2019)

. . . Jan. 30, 2014) (citing Pretka , 608 F.3d at 751 ); see also S. Fla. Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SMITH,, 928 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . King, 751 F.3d 1268, 1277-78 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations omitted). . . .

UNITED STATES v. JONES, v., 930 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Salazar , 751 F.3d 326, 332 (5th Cir. 2014) ("Invited error applies, however, only where the error can . . .

CABAS, v. P. BARR,, 928 F.3d 177 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . App'x 748, 751-52 (10th Cir. 2010) (listing alternative means of authentication). . . .

ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC, v. MACK INDUSTRIES OF KALAMAZOO, LLC, f k a, 390 F. Supp. 3d 946 (E.D. Wis. 2019)

. . . Banco Panamericano, Inc. , 674 F.3d 743, 751 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. . . .