Cases from cite.case.law:

M. RORRER f k a M. v. G. ORBAN,, 215 So. 3d 148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . incurred to arrive at a total fee expenditure by both parties of $521,272.65 ($284,470.30 plus $238,-924.19 . . .

B. CORBETT, v. WILD WEST ENTERPRISES, INC. a, 713 F. Supp. 1360 (D. Nev. 1989)

. . . Based on these facts, plaintiff submits an application for attorneys’ fees for $103,-924.19 enhanced . . .

STATE v. L. JIMENEZ,, 508 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . . § 924.19, Fla.Stat. (1985). . . .

SHERROD, v. J. FRANZA,, 396 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . The state made no effort to have the original order stayed pending appeal pursuant to Section 924.19 . . .

STATE v. LAMPLEY,, 271 So. 2d 783 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . . § 924.19, F.S.A. appellant’s argument must fail. . . . . § 924.19, F.S.A., reads as follows: “When operation of order m favor of defendant not stayed. — An . . .

STATE v. H. COOK,, 201 So. 2d 769 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . . § 924.19. . . .

FIDELITY DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND, 4 B.T.A. 283 (B.T.A. 1926)

. . . taxpayer’s affairs in Europe, as contended by the Commissioner, or to show that the payment of $89,-924.19 . . .