The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLIII
DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Chapter 752
GRANDPARENTAL VISITATION RIGHTS

View Entire Chapter

CHAPTER 752

GRANDPARENTAL VISITATION RIGHTS

752.001 Definitions.

752.011 Petition for grandparent visitation with a minor child.

752.015 Mediation of visitation disputes.

752.02 Persons who must be served notice of petition; manner of service.

752.071 Effect of adoption by stepparent or close relative.

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

(1) “Grandparent” shall include great-grandparent.

(2) “Missing” means having whereabouts which are unknown for a period of at least 90 days and not being able to be located after a diligent search and inquiry. Such search and inquiry for a missing person must include, at a minimum, inquiries of all relatives of the person who can reasonably be identified by the petitioner, inquiries of hospitals in the areas where the person last resided, inquiries of the person’s recent employers, inquiries of state and federal agencies likely to have information about the person, inquiries of appropriate utility and postal providers, a thorough search of at least one electronic database specifically designed for locating persons, and inquiries of appropriate law enforcement agencies.

(3) “Persistent vegetative state” has the same meaning as provided in s. 765.101(15).

History.—s. 5, ch. 90-273; s. 1, ch. 2015-134; s. 84, ch. 2016-10.

752.011 Petition for grandparent visitation with a minor child.—A grandparent of a minor child whose parents are deceased, missing, or in a persistent vegetative state, or whose one parent is deceased, missing, or in a persistent vegetative state and whose other parent has been convicted of a felony or an offense of violence evincing behavior that poses a substantial threat of harm to the minor child’s health or welfare, may petition the court for court-ordered visitation with the grandchild under this section.

(1) Upon the filing of a petition by a grandparent for visitation, the court shall hold a preliminary hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing of parental unfitness or significant harm to the child. Absent such a showing, the court shall dismiss the petition and may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), if the court finds that one parent of a child has been held criminally liable for the death of the other parent of the child or civilly liable for an intentional tort causing the death of the other parent of the child, there is a presumption for granting reasonable visitation with the petitioning grandparent or stepgrandparent if he or she is the parent of the child’s deceased parent. This presumption may only be overcome if the court finds that granting such visitation is not in the best interests of the child.

(3) If the court finds that there is prima facie evidence that a parent is unfit or that there is significant harm to the child, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem and shall refer the matter to family mediation as provided in s. 752.015. If family mediation does not successfully resolve the issue of grandparent visitation, the court shall proceed with a final hearing.

(4) After conducting a final hearing on the issue of visitation, the court may award reasonable visitation to the grandparent with respect to the minor child if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit or that there is significant harm to the child, that visitation is in the best interest of the minor child, and that the visitation will not materially harm the parent-child relationship.

(5) In assessing the best interests of the child under subsection (4), the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances affecting the mental and emotional well-being of the minor child, including:

(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the minor child and the grandparent, including those resulting from the relationship that had been previously allowed by the child’s parent.

(b) The length and quality of the previous relationship between the minor child and the grandparent, including the extent to which the grandparent was involved in providing regular care and support for the child.

(c) Whether the grandparent established ongoing personal contact with the minor child before the death of the parent, before the onset of the parent’s persistent vegetative state, or before the parent was missing.

(d) The reasons cited by the respondent parent in ending contact or visitation between the minor child and the grandparent.

(e) Whether there has been significant and demonstrable mental or emotional harm to the minor child as a result of the disruption in the family unit, whether the child derived support and stability from the grandparent, and whether the continuation of such support and stability is likely to prevent further harm.

(f) The existence or threat to the minor child of mental injury as defined in s. 39.01.

(g) The present mental, physical, and emotional health of the minor child.

(h) The present mental, physical, and emotional health of the grandparent.

(i) The recommendations of the minor child’s guardian ad litem, if one is appointed.

(j) The result of any psychological evaluation of the minor child.

(k) The preference of the minor child if the child is determined to be of sufficient maturity to express a preference.

(l) A written testamentary statement by the deceased parent regarding visitation with the grandparent. The absence of a testamentary statement is not deemed to provide evidence that the deceased or missing parent or parent in a persistent vegetative state would have objected to the requested visitation.

(m) Other factors that the court considers necessary to making its determination.

(6) In assessing material harm to the parent-child relationship under subsection (4), the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances affecting the parent-child relationship, including:

(a) Whether there have been previous disputes between the grandparent and the parent over childrearing or other matters related to the care and upbringing of the minor child.

(b) Whether visitation would materially interfere with or compromise parental authority.

(c) Whether visitation can be arranged in a manner that does not materially detract from the parent-child relationship, including the quantity of time available for enjoyment of the parent-child relationship and any other consideration related to disruption of the schedule and routine of the parent and the minor child.

(d) Whether visitation is being sought for the primary purpose of continuing or establishing a relationship with the minor child with the intent that the child benefit from the relationship.

(e) Whether the requested visitation would expose the minor child to conduct, moral standards, experiences, or other factors that are inconsistent with influences provided by the parent.

(f) The nature of the relationship between the child’s parent and the grandparent.

(g) The reasons cited by the parent in ending contact or visitation between the minor child and the grandparent which was previously allowed by the parent.

(h) The psychological toll of visitation disputes on the minor child.

(i) Other factors that the court considers necessary in making its determination.

(7) Part II of chapter 61 applies to actions brought under this section.

(8) If actions under this section and s. 61.13 are pending concurrently, the courts are strongly encouraged to consolidate the actions in order to minimize the burden of litigation on the minor child and the other parties.

(9) An order for grandparent visitation may be modified upon a showing by the person petitioning for modification that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred and that modification of visitation is in the best interest of the minor child.

(10) An original action requesting visitation under this section may be filed by a grandparent only once during any 2-year period, except on good cause shown that the minor child is suffering, or may suffer, significant and demonstrable mental or emotional harm caused by a parental decision to deny visitation between a minor child and the grandparent, which was not known to the grandparent at the time of filing an earlier action.

(11) This section does not provide for grandparent visitation with a minor child placed for adoption under chapter 63 except as provided in s. 752.071 with respect to adoption by a stepparent or close relative.

(12) Venue shall be in the county where the minor child primarily resides, unless venue is otherwise governed by chapter 39, chapter 61, or chapter 63.

History.—s. 3, ch. 2015-134; s. 1, ch. 2022-217.

752.015 Mediation of visitation disputes.—It is the public policy of this state that families resolve differences over grandparent visitation within the family. It is the further public policy of this state that, when families are unable to resolve differences relating to grandparent visitation, the family participate in any formal or informal mediation services that may be available. If families are unable to resolve differences relating to grandparent visitation and a petition is filed pursuant to s. 752.011, the court shall, if such services are available in the circuit, refer the case to family mediation in accordance with the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure.

History.—s. 7, ch. 90-273; s. 6, ch. 2015-134.

752.02 Persons who must be served notice of petition; manner of service.—Notice of the filing of, and a copy of, the petition for grandparental visitation rights shall be served on the parents of the minor child in the manner prescribed by chapter 48.

History.—s. 1, ch. 84-64; s. 64, ch. 85-62.

752.071 Effect of adoption by stepparent or close relative.—After the adoption of a minor child by a stepparent or close relative, the stepparent or close relative may petition the court to terminate an order granting grandparent visitation under this chapter which was entered before the adoption. The court may terminate the order unless the grandparent is able to show that the criteria of s. 752.011 authorizing the visitation continue to be satisfied.

History.—s. 5, ch. 2015-134.

F.S. 752 on Google Scholar

F.S. 752 on Casetext

Amendments to 752

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 752

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 752.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

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. at 752, 102 S.Ct. 2690 (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. at 752-753, 102 S.Ct. 2690. . . .

B. CHIAFALO, v. WASHINGTON, 140 S. Ct. 2316 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1900, p. 752 (1833); see also Alden v. . . .

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, v. ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, INC., 140 S. Ct. 2082 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Maynard , 430 U.S. 705, 717, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. THURAISSIGIAM, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Id. , at 746, 752, 128 S.Ct. 2229. . . . Id. , at 752, 128 S.Ct. 2229. . . . Id. , at 748-752, 128 S.Ct. 2229. There is no squaring the Court's methodology today with St. . . .

J. THOLE, v. U. S. BANK N. A, 140 S. Ct. 1615 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 489, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed . . .

THRYV, INC. v. CLICK- TO- CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP,, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (U.S. 2020)

. . . No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 26 (1945)). . . .

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

. . . Id. , at 749, 752, 126 S.Ct. 2709. . . . Clark , 548 U.S. at 752, 126 S.Ct. 2709. . . . See 548 U.S. at 749-752, 126 S.Ct. 2709. . . . Clark , 548 U.S. at 752-753, 126 S.Ct. 2709. . . . E. 2d 743, 751-752 (2016). . . .

KANSAS, v. GARCIA v. v., 140 S. Ct. 791 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm'n , 461 U.S. 190, 203, 103 S.Ct. 1713, 75 L.Ed.2d 752 . . .

MCKINNEY, v. ARIZONA, 140 S. Ct. 702 (U.S. 2020)

. . . analysis" when the factfinder "relied in part on an invalid aggravating circumstance." 494 U.S. 738, 744, 752 . . .

HAWAII MANAGEMENT ALLIANCE ASSOCIATION, v. RUDEL., 140 S. Ct. 1114 (U.S. 2020)

. . . No. 19-752 Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

F. SHARPE, v. UNITED STATES,, 935 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Hoppock , 73 U.S. 94, 99, 6 Wall. 94, 18 L.Ed. 752 (1867) ; see also Pirkl v. . . .

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

. . . E.P.A. , 683 F.2d 752, 762 (3d Cir. 1982) (holding that a final rule's effective date is an "essential . . . Supp. 3d 751, 752 (D. . . .

F. DORMAN, a a v. CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION Co. W. III R. R. C., 934 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Reade , 198 F.3d 752, 760 (9th Cir. 1999) ) (holding that a plan participant cannot settle an ERISA § . . . equitable character of [ERISA] plans" that could not be satisfied by arbitral proceedings. 724 F.2d at 752 . . .

SEMPLE, a a k a a v. GRISWOLD, Be USA A., 934 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Maynard , 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). . . .

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

. . . Danilo Garcia , 752 F.3d 382, 391-92 (4th Cir. 2014). . . . Grinage , 390 F.3d 746, 752 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); accord Yuri Garcia , 413 F.3d at 215 ( . . . that error in allowance of dual-role testimony was not harmless); Grinage , 390 F.3d at 751, 752 (vacating . . . ground the question in either fact or expertise while asking the question" (quoting Danilo Garcia , 752 . . . App'x 744, 752 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Dukagjini , 326 F.3d at 56 ). . . .

COLE v. CARSON, v., 935 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Carson, 802 F.3d 752, 755-56, 758 (5th Cir. 2015), vacated sub nom. Hunter v. . . . Carson ("Cole I "), 802 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2015), vacated sub nom. Hunter v. . . .

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

. . . Ryan , 752 F.3d 768, 775, 790 (9th Cir. 2014), the judge had filed a brief in her own name opposing a . . .

BOWLES, v. DESANTIS,, 934 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) ("There is no constitutional right . . .

GUPTA, v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC,, 934 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Burge , 752 F.3d 1079, 1091 (7th Cir. 2014). . . .

NOBRE, ON BEHALF OF K. M. C. L. G. v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 935 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice , 239 F.3d 752, 754-55 (5th Cir. 2001). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Hines v. . . .

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

. . . (R. 752). . . . (R. 752). See Cullinan v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CANO,, 934 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Stever , 603 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2010) ). . . . Stever , 603 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2010). . . . Although discovery rulings are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, Stever , 603 F.3d at 752, . . .

NEW YORK STATE CITIZENS COALITION FOR CHILDREN, v. J. POOLE,, 935 F.3d 56 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Taylor , 752 F.3d 254, 255-57 (2d Cir. 2014) (Cabranes, J ., dissenting from order denying rehearing . . .

BAUGHMAN, v. HICKMAN K. M., 935 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Dep't of Criminal Justice , 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). . . .

SANOFI- AVENTIS U. S. LLC, IP, v. DR. REDDY S LABORATORIES, INC. Dr. s USA, LLC, LLC, LLC,, 933 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . USA, Inc. , 752 F.3d 967, 974-75 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ). . . . Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. , 752 F.3d at 975-76 (quoting In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Patent Litig . . .

GOLDEN v. NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v., 934 F.3d 302 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Div. of Youth & Family Servs. , 387 N.J.Super. 423, 904 A.2d 747, 752 (App. . . .

IN RE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE S SUNDAY TICKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Jr. v. LLC LLC NFL LLC LLC LP LLC LLC NFL LP LLC LP LLC LP Co. LLC LP LLC, 933 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 752. . . . exception "only applies when the co-conspirators fix the price paid by the plaintiff ." 686 F.3d at 752 . . . (emphasis added)); In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig. , 686 F.3d at 752 (approving of the Fourth Circuit's . . .

EFFEX CAPITAL, LLC, v. NATIONAL FUTURES ASSOCIATION,, 933 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Comm'n , 461 U.S. 190, 203, 103 S.Ct. 1713, 75 L.Ed.2d 752 (1983) ; Frank Bros., Inc. v. . . .

IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON v. L. L. C. v. Jr. Sr. M. a v. L. L. C. v. Jr. Sr. v. BP v. L. L. C. v. Jr. Sr. In v. L. L. C. v. Jr. Sr. M. a v. v. Jr. Sr. M. a v. L. L. C. v. Jr. Sr. v. BP v. v. Jr. Sr. In v. L. L. C., 934 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . M/V Testbank [TESTBANK] , 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1985), and their progeny[.] . . . M/V TESTBANK , 752 F.2d 1019, 1027 n.10 (5th Cir. 1985). . . .

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

. . . (emphasis added); In re Fuel Oil Supply & Terminaling, Inc. , 72 B.R. 752, 758 (S.D. . . .

LIVADITIS, v. DAVIS,, 933 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ryan , 752 F.3d 768, 777 (9th Cir. 2014). . . . Hurles , 752 F.3d at 778. A. . . .

UNITED STATES v. NG LAP SENG, Ng, Ng W. C., 934 F.3d 110 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Esquenazi , 752 F.3d 912, 929 (11th Cir. 2014) (rejecting vagueness challenge to FCPA definition of " . . .

PILLAR DYNASTY LLC, v. NEW YORK COMPANY, INC., 933 F.3d 202 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Tommy Hilfiger, U.S.A. , 80 F.3d at 752. . . .

PARENT PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE M. W. a F. D. S. S. a S. Y. v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS J., 934 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . relief for the denial of a FAPE, because that is the only 'relief' the IDEA makes 'available.' " Id. at 752 . . . Id. at 752 ; see also id. at 755-57. . . . Id. at 752. . . . Ct. at 752 (internal quotation marks omitted). . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. HARPER,, 934 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Doody , 600 F.3d 752, 755 (7th Cir. 2010) ; see also United States v. . . .

DOE, v. MCKESSON, 935 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 752 So. 2d 762, 766 (La. 1999) ; Bursztajn v. . . . Posecai , 752 So. 2d at 766. . . .

UNITED STATES v. NYGREN,, 933 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Maguire, 752 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2014). There are no hen's teeth to be found here. . . .

UNITED STATES v. LEAL,, 933 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Keele , 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). . . . Chem. & Metal Indus., Inc. , 677 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2012) ( CMI ). . . . raised on appeal, would not be barred by an appeal waiver." 755 F.3d at 756 (citing CMI , 677 F.3d at 752 . . . See Winchel , 896 F.3d at 389 ; see also CMI , 677 F.3d at 752 (restitution order under 18 U.S.C. § 3664 . . .

BREDA, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d b a, 934 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . App'x 752, 753 (9th Cir. 2018) (Mem.) . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOSYK,, 933 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Court (Keith) , 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). . . .

D. LEISER, v. KLOTH,, 933 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Webster , 658 F.3d 742, 752-53 (7th Cir. 2011) (refusal to provide inmate with prescribed medication . . .

A. P. a BY E. F. v. LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT, 389 F. Supp. 3d 322 (E.D. Pa. 2019)

. . . . §§ 101, 553, 752 ; 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 933(a)(2) ); Whitacker-Reid v. Pottsgrove Sch. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MATHIS, a k a a k a a k a D- v. a k a a k a v. a k a a k a a k a v. a k a a k a K. a k a a k a v. a k a a k a a k a v. a k a a k a a k a a k a, 932 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Mandell , 752 F.3d 544, 552 (2d Cir. 2014) (noting that statements made between co-conspirators to "inform . . . See Mandell , 752 F.3d at 552 (citation omitted). . . .

AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION, v. ROSS, 391 F. Supp. 3d 98 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . E.P.A., 752 F.3d 999, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). III. A. . . . Ass'n's Clean Air Project , 752 F.3d at 1009. . . .

J. GILLIAM, C. Ad v. SEALEY, E. C. T. A. Sr. C. T. A. WTVD LLC J. C. Ad v. C. T. A. E. C. T. A. Sr. WTVD LLC, 932 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 231 N.C.App. 412, 752 S.E.2d 508, 509 (2013) ("We note ... that this doctrine . . . Simpson , 752 S.E.2d at 509 (quoting Myrick , 371 S.E.2d at 495 ). . . . Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 752 S.E.2d at 510. . . .

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

. . . Office of Children and Youth , 752 F.3d 316, 321 (3d Cir. 2014). . . . Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding, Ltd. , 703 F.3d 742, 752-53 (5th Cir. 2012), as revised (Jan. 17, 2013). . . .

UNITED STATES v. GALECKI, v., 932 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . As any error in excluding it did not "affect the outcome of [the] case," see Ferguson , 752 F.3d at 619 . . . Ferguson , 752 F.3d at 619. If so, the district court abused its discretion in excluding him. . . . Ferguson , 752 F.3d 613, 618 (4th Cir. 2014) (contrasting the two harmless error thresholds and noting . . .

UNITED STATES v. GLENN,, 931 F.3d 424 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Riazco , 91 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 1996). . . .

SEVUGAN, v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, a, 931 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Co. , 351 Ill.App.3d 752, 286 Ill.Dec. 734, 814 N.E.2d 960, 967 (2004) ). . . .

DEXTER, a k a v. DEALOGIC, LLC,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 233 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . Teamwork, Inc., 434 Mass. 761, 752 N.E.2d 700, 711 (2001). . . .

Z. J. a BY AND THROUGH Je JONES, v. KANSAS CITY BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS,, 931 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Dawson , 752 F.3d 1109, 1116 (8th Cir. 2014) ). A. . . . Wallace , 843 F.3d at 767 (quoting Walton , 752 F.3d at 1116 ). . . . City of Cape Girardeau , 752 F.3d 1149, 1160 (8th Cir. 2014) ; see also Monell v. Dep't of Soc. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HALL, III,, 931 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Kane , 552 F.3d 748, 752 (8th Cir. 2009), rev'd on other grounds , 562 U.S. 1267, 131 S.Ct. 1597, 179 . . .

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

. . . Dist. , 337 S.W.3d 746, 752-53 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). . . .

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a v. GOVINDARAJ, a, 931 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Perez , 752 F.3d 398, 406 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. . . .

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). . . .

DOE, v. TRUMP CORPORATION,, 385 F. Supp. 3d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc. , 752 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2014). . . .

IN RE R. MONTGOMERY,, 602 B.R. 353 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2019)

. . . Levesque (In re McCoy) , 92 B.R. 750, 752-53 (Bankr. N.D. . . .

NORTHPORT HEALTH SERVICES OF ARKANSAS, LLC, NHS LLC v. POSEY, AARP AARP s s, 930 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ring, 298 Ark. 582, 769 S.W.2d 750, 752 (1989) ). . . .

RODRIGUEZ v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, 930 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bonvicino , 573 F.3d 752, 764 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. IWAI,, 930 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Hicks , 752 F.2d 379, 384 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Bernard, 623 F.2d at 560 ), overruled on other grounds . . . Martin Jaska, Inc. , 752 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1985) )). That ends the inquiry. . . . Div. , 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972) ). . . . Bonvicino , 573 F.3d 752, 763 (9th Cir. 2009) ). 1 The officers claim that their warrantless entry was . . .

WALKER, v. UNITED STATES v., 931 F.3d 467 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan , 628 F.3d 743, 752 (6th Cir. 2010) (dissenting opinion). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BERRY, Sr., 930 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Kane , 552 F.3d 748, 752 (8th Cir. 2009), vacated , 562 U.S. 1267, 131 S.Ct. 1597, 179 L.Ed.2d 495 (2011 . . .

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

. . . AutoStyle , 269 F.3d at 752. . . . AutoStyle , 269 F.3d at 752. Trustee offers no evidence or argument about whether U.S. . . . AutoStyle , 269 F.3d at 752 (citation omitted). . . .

F. WORTHY, D. Co. v. CITY OF PHENIX CITY, ALABAMA,, 930 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Wright , 468 U.S. 737, 752, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), abrogated on other grounds by Lexmark . . . Allen , 468 U.S. at 752, 104 S.Ct. 3315 ("Typically ... the standing inquiry requires careful judicial . . .

TERESE F. v. SAUL,, 387 F. Supp. 3d 874 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . Independence Tube Corp. , 467 U.S. 752, 774, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 81 L.Ed.2d 628 (1984). . . .

G. BROWN, v. SERENITY C C, INC., 391 F. Supp. 3d 546 (E.D. Va. 2019)

. . . Anne Arundel Cty., 137 F.3d 752, 764 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding that Emergency Medical Technicians ("EMT . . .

LLACUA De La v. WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION LLLP LLC D B A, 930 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Corp. , 465 U.S. 752, 763, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984) ("On a claim of concerted price-fixing . . . Tube Corp. , 467 U.S. 752, 755, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 81 L.Ed.2d 628 (1984). . . .

SCOTTSDALE CAPITAL ADVISORS CORPORATION, v. FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 72 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 477, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982 . . .

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, v. BERNHARDT,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1225 (D. Or. 2019)

. . . See, e.g. , Connaughton , 752 F.3d at 764 ("Neither the planting of new seedlings nor the paying of money . . . Connaughton , 752 F.3d 755, 766 (9th Cir. 2014). . . . See Connaughton , 752 F.3d at 766. . . . Connaughton , 752 F.3d 755, 766 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. . . . Connaughton , 752 F.3d at 766. . . .

CARELLO, v. AURORA POLICEMEN CREDIT UNION,, 930 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982 . . .

RIOS, v. JENKINS,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 714 (W.D. Va. 2019)

. . . Ovando-Garzo, 752 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Arizona, supra ); see also City of El-Cenizo . . .

UNITED STATES v. RANKIN,, 929 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Olive , 804 F.3d 747, 752 (6th Cir. 2015). . . . Olive , 804 F.3d at 752 (quoting United States v. Gibson , 409 F.3d 325, 331 (6th Cir. 2005) ). . . .

D. BLAIR, v. BOWERSOX, SCCC I SCCC I SCCC I SCCC I,, 929 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . III, at 752. . . .

INDIVIOR INC. UK RB Rx, LLC, v. DR. REDDY S LABORATORIES, S. A. Dr. s UT, USA, UK RB v. LLC,, 930 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Reddy's Labs., S.A. , 752 F. App'x 1024, 1031-32 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (" Indivior "). . . . concluded that the same specification in the related '305 patent disclaimed conventional top air drying. 752 . . . Indivior , 752 F. App'x at 1035. . . .

PENNSYLVANIA v. PRESIDENT UNITED STATES D. C., 930 F.3d 543 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . EPA ("NRDC"), 683 F.2d 752, 764 (3d Cir. 1982) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and . . .

OVERBEY v. MAYOR OF BALTIMORE UC MPA D. C. s E. W., 930 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Maynard , 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977) (holding that "the right of freedom . . . Maynard , 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977) ). . . .

RUSH, v. SAUL,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 957 (D.N.M. 2019)

. . . App'x 748, 752 (10th Cir. 2013). . . .

UNITED STATES v. WHYTE, a. k. a., 928 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Mozie , 752 F.3d 1271, 1282 (11th Cir. 2014), we conclude that the 2015 amendment of section 1591 makes . . . Mozie , 752 F.3d at 1282. . . . See Mozie , 752 F.3d at 1286. . . . See Mozie , 752 F.3d at 1282. . . .

IN RE J. TRUMP, D. H., 928 F.3d 360 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . United for Separation of Church & State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 489, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982 . . . See Valley Forge Christian Coll. , 454 U.S. at 482-87, 102 S.Ct. 752 ; see also Schlesinger , 418 U.S . . .

UNITED STATES v. FIGUEROA- FIGUEROA,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D. P.R. 2019)

. . . Salvador, 740 F.2d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 1196, 105 S.Ct. 978, 83 L.Ed.2d . . .

REID v. DONELAN,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 201 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . Supp. 2d 747, 752-53 (S.D. . . . See Salerno, 481 U.S. at 752, 107 S.Ct. 2095 ; Carlson, 342 U.S. at 545, 72 S.Ct. 525. . . . See id. at 752, 107 S.Ct. 2095 ; Carlson, 342 U.S. at 545, 72 S.Ct. 525 ; see also Bolante v. . . .

IN RE MENAKER LLC, v., 603 B.R. 628 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . See In re Bowen , 102 B.R. 752 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989) ; In re Kuhr, 132 B.R. 421 (Bankr. E.D. . . .

CITY OF HEARNE, TEXAS, v. JOHNSON, v. F. Jr., 929 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 484, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOLEYN v. v. v. v., 929 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Allen, 633 N.W.2d 752, 754-56 (Iowa 2001) ; State v. . . .

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

. . . additional steps of the claims here, though "set forth with some specificity," Athena , 915 F.3d at 752 . . . Id. at 752. . . . autoantibodies and MuSK-related disorders without practicing the claim's concrete steps." 915 F.3d at 752 . . .

BROWN, v. MAXWELL, v. L. M. v. L. v., 929 F.3d 41 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Sys., Inc. , 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. . . .

WILSON, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION,, 385 F. Supp. 3d 557 (E.D. Ky. 2019)

. . . Irving Trust Co. , 757 F.2d 752, 755 (6th Cir. 1985) ; see also Gilmer v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. WILKERSON,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 969 (E.D. Tenn. 2019)

. . . New York , 315 U.S. 752, 752, 62 S.Ct. 854, 86 L.Ed. 1166 (1942) ). . . .

YANBIN YU, v. APPLE INC. Yu, v. Co., 392 F. Supp. 3d 1096 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC , 915 F.3d 743, 752 (Fed. . . .

D. WATSON, v. PEARSON, s, 928 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Dawson , 752 F. . . .

DURAND, v. GOGUEN,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 54 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . Roden , 752 F.3d 505, 511 (1st Cir. 2014) ("There is clear logic [to this framework]: if an error had . . .

IN RE GRAVEL, In In, 601 B.R. 873 (Bankr. Vt. 2019)

. . . Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980). . . . Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980) (noting that sanctions must be applied . . . Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 763-64, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980) (quoting National Hockey League v. . . .

DOE, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS,, 928 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . . & Sales Practices Litig. , 752 F.3d 1065, 1074 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. . . . Bayer Healthcare , 752 F.3d at 1074 (quoting Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. , 426 F.3d at 862 ). . . .

A. RUCHO, v. COMMON CAUSE, H. v. O., 139 S. Ct. 2484 (U.S. 2019)

. . . ing] boundary lines" to create the appropriate number of safe seats for each party. 412 U.S. at 738, 752 . . . Gaffney , 412 U.S. at 752, 93 S.Ct. 2321. . . .

IN RE HURLEY, v., 601 B.R. 529 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2019)

. . . (In re Brunner) , 46 B.R. 752, 756 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd , 831 F.2d 395, 396 (2d Cir. 1987) (adopted . . .

IN RE GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION LLC, v., 386 F. Supp. 3d 477 (E.D. Pa. 2019)

. . . Corp. , 465 U.S. 752, 762, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984) ("[T]hat a manufacturer and its distributors . . .

L. KISOR, v. WILKIE,, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (U.S. 2019)

. . . No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 28 (1945); 92 Cong. Rec. 5654 (1946) (statement of Rep. Walter). . . .

In SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, In L. L. LLC, v., 603 B.R. 682 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Id. at 752. . . .

OVERLOOK GARDENS PROPERTIES, LLC, a LLC, a II, LLC, a LLC, a v. ORIX USA, L. P. a LLC, a LLC, a LLC, a LLC,, 927 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Env't Optimization, LLC , 626 F.3d 752, 755 (4th Cir. 2010) (listing cases); Ocwen Orlando Holdings Corp . . .

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC. v. FITBIT, INC. USA, U. S. A. JK v. U. S. A., 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . No. 8,892,752 ("the '752 patent"), U.S. Pat. No. 9,258,698 ("the '698 patent"), and U.S. Pat. . . . The '752 Patent The '752 patent, which issued November 2014, shares its specification with the '794 patent . . . Claim 1 of the '752 patent includes limitations that are substantially similar to the limitations of . . . a "cryptographic encryption key." '752 patent, col. 11, ll. 54-56. . . . As relevant here, Cellspin asserted the '794, '752, and '847 patents against Appellees Fitbit, Moov, . . .