Cases from cite.case.law:

J. MURPHY, DOC v. STATE, 273 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . It also appears that the trial court erroneously combined a $ 151 fine authorized under section 938.01 . . .

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE- REGULAR- CYCLE REPORT., 265 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 2018)

. . . . ___ $3.00 as a court cost pursuant to section 938.01, Florida Statutes (Criminal Justice Trust Fund . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 188 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 2015)

. . . . ■ $3.00 as a court cost pursuant to section 938.01, Florida Statutes (Criminal Justice Trust Fund). . . .

CLAVELLE, v. STATE, 80 So. 3d 456 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . inaccurate, and it appears that the court intended to make these assessments under section 983.03 and 938.01 . . .

DE LA FUENTE, v. STATE, 58 So. 3d 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . as follows: 1) Section 938.03, Florida Statutes (2007), Crimes Compensation Trust Fund; 2) Section 938.01 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 48 So. 3d 17 (Fla. 2010)

. . . . _ $3.00 as a court cost pursuant to section 938.01, Florida Statutes (Criminal Justice Trust Fund). . . .

WHITE, v. STATE, 22 So. 3d 157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . The trial court assessed costs of $3 under section 938.01 and $2 under section 938.15, Florida Statutes . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 26 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 2009)

. . . . _ $ 3.00 as a court cost pursuant to section 943.25(3)938.01, Florida Statutes (Criminal Justice Trust . . .

EDNEY, v. STATE, 3 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . justice education degree programs and training courses”: In addition to the costs provided for in s. 938.01 . . . Section 938.15 provides that “[i]n addition to the costs provided for in s. 938.01, municipalities and . . . The “costs provided for” in section 938.01 are assessed against “every person convicted for violation . . . Section 938.01 provides, in pertinent part: All courts created by Art. . . . . § 938.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

L. HENRY J. v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY,, 539 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 938.01(2)(c). . . . Stat. § 938.01(2)(c), (f). . . .

C. S. v. STATE, 985 So. 2d 706 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . [T]he Court will re-impose $165 and specify that those costs came from the mandatory court costs in 938.01 . . . On appeal, C.S. argues that the trial court erred in imposing costs pursuant to sections 938.01 and 938.05 . . . Like section 938.05, section 938.01 makes no mention of juvenile delinquency proceedings. . . . Therefore, both the $3 surcharge imposed pursuant to section 938.01 and the $112 cost imposed pursuant . . . reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court strike the costs imposed pursuant to sections 938.01 . . .

In MORGAN, v. Jo-, 353 B.R. 599 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2006)

. . . for the 1997 Chevrolet Truck and 1996 Grand Am hid are on one installment note. 5/31/06 Check 4736 $ 938.01 . . .

KIMBALL, v. STATE, 933 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Section 938.15 provides that “[i]n addition to the costs provided for in s. 938.01, municipalities and . . . The “costs provided for” in section 938.01 are assessed against “every person convicted for violation . . . a state penal or criminal statute or convicted for violation of a municipal or county ordinance.” § 938.01 . . . make the $2 assessment, it shall be an additional cost in every case where the costs provided for by 938.01 . . .

V. K. E. v. STATE, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006)

. . . statute or municipal or county ordinance (to benefit the Additional Cost Clearing Trust Fund), section 938.01 . . .

V. K. E. a v. STATE, 902 So. 2d 343 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . statute or municipal or county ordinance (to benefit the Additional Cost Clearing Trust Fund), section 938.01 . . .

BUTLER, v. OAK CREEK- FRANKLIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, s, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (E.D. Wis. 2000)

. . . See §§ 48.01(1), 938.01(1). . . .

FOLGER ADAM v. UNITED STATES, 103 Ct. Cl. 769 (Ct. Cl. 1945)

. . . The proof shows that plaintiff incurred increased labor-costs of $938.01 as a result of the enactment . . . and equitable to allow it reimbursement under the act of June 25, 1938 for the increased-wages of $938.01 . . . Here, however, the proof satisfactorily .shows that the increased wages paid in the amount of $938.01 . . .

ADAM v. UNITED STATES, 60 F. Supp. 200 (Ct. Cl. 1945)

. . . The proof shows that plaintiff incurred increased labor costs of $938.01 as a result of the enactment . . . and equitable to allow it reimbursement under the act of June 25, 1938 for the increased wages of $938.01 . . .