Cases from cite.case.law:

VARGAS, v. JUNIOR,, 254 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . After the section 941.15 time limit of 30 days expires, section 941.17 allows for an extension of time . . . [T]he trial court, in compliance with section 941.17, Florida Statutes (1981), intended only to dismiss . . .

E. FRANCE, v. JUDD,, 932 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . . § 941.17, Fla. Stat. (2005). In this case, none of the foregoing statutes were honored. . . .

PALEY, v. BIELUCH,, 785 So. 2d 692 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 941.17 allows for an extension of the commitment period for up to another sixty days, if there . . .

STATE v. BIVONA, Jr., 496 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1986)

. . . Criminal Extradition Act § 17, 11 U.L.A. 262 (1974); § 941.17, Fla. Stat. (1983); Cal. . . .

E. CARTER, v. A. COLEMAN,, 443 So. 2d 491 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . . § 941.17, Fla.Stat. (1981). . . . requisition and enable his expeditious arrest under a Governor’s warrant. §§ 941.-13, 941.15, 941.16, 941.17 . . . construe the language in the trial court’s order to mean that the trial court, in compliance with section 941.17 . . .

P. MURPHY, v. BOEHM, Sr., 443 So. 2d 363 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . See §§ 941.15 and 941.17, Florida Statutes (1981). . . .

Ed ORTON v. STATE, 431 So. 2d 236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Tennessee, urging that they are entitled to dismissal of the extradition proceedings pursuant to Section 941.17 . . . extradition time under the bond was extended until April 29, 1981, as allowed by the provisions of Section 941.17 . . . from the bond” because they had not been extradited within the sixty-day extension allowed by Section 941.17 . . . argue on appeal that they are entitled to dismissal of the extradition proceedings pursuant to Section 941.17 . . . We disagree with appellants’ interpretation that the term “discharge” as used in Section 941.17 means . . .

LEWIS a k a v. BOONE,, 418 So. 2d 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . . § 941.17, Florida Statutes (1981). . . . Since appellant was neither arrested within thirty days nor recommitted under § 941.17, he contends he . . . argued that because he was held beyond the thirty-day limit in § 941.15, and was not recommitted under § 941.17 . . .

TREADWAY, v. R. HEIDTMAN,, 284 So. 2d 473 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . petitioner to the custody of the respondent for a further thirty-day period pursuant to, F.S., Section 941.17 . . . It is our judgment that Section 941.17 permits the judge to recommit an accused one time for a period . . .