Cases from cite.case.law:

STATE v. GONZALEZ,, 212 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . witness” and accordingly could not be compelled to answer a subpoena in this state pursuant to section 942.02 . . .

A. ULLOA, v. CMI, INC., 133 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2013)

. . . As this is a reciprocal law, section 942.02 provides the procedures for a Florida court to follow if . . . set a time and place for a hearing in Florida and direct the witness to appear for such a hearing. § 942.02 . . . whether the witness will suffer undue hardship if compelled to appear and testify in the sister state. § 942.02 . . . See § 942.02(3), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . . § -942.02(4), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

CMI, INC. v. A. ULLOA,, 73 So. 3d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . . § 942.02(1). . . .

STATE v. BASTOS, 985 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . . § 942.02. In this case, the county court issued its certificate stating that: Mr. . . .

MASTRAPA, v. SOUTH FLORIDA MONEY LAUNDERING STRIKE FORCE,, 928 So. 2d 421 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . court — the Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial Circuit — and a proceeding begun, pursuant to section 942.02 . . . Section 942.02, Florida Statutes, sets out the procedure for the State Court wherein the criminal proceeding . . .

GLOVER, v. MIRO,, 262 F.3d 268 (4th Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 942.02. Glover was forced to trial on June 19. . . .

SKAKEL, Sr. v. STATE, 738 So. 2d 468 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . final order compelling him to appear and testify before a grand jury in Connecticut pursuant to section 942.02 . . . Pursuant to section 942.02, a hearing was set before the trial judge to determine whether the witness . . . In any such hearing the certificate shall be prima facie evidence of all the facts stated therein. § 942.02 . . .

DELIT, v. STATE, 583 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . We need not reach the state’s claim that the trial court erred in concluding that section 942.02, Florida . . .

In SUPERIOR COURT, 471 So. 2d 171 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . court failed to make an independent determination of materiality and necessity as required by section 942.02 . . .

COX BROADCASTING CORP. v. COHN, 420 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1975)

. . . . §942.02 (1968). . . . The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a predecessor of §942.02 in State v. . . .

W. McGRATH, v. PEOPLE STATE OF NEW YORK,, 258 So. 2d 291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . The procedure involved here is authorized by and in conformity to § 942.02 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . . .

TERL, v. STATE OF MARYLAND GRAND JURY OF BALTIMORE CITY,, 237 So. 2d 830 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . Pursuant to § 942.02(2) of said Act the court below found; among other things, that the appellant is . . . In arguing his first point, appellant apparently finds great solace in the language of § 942.02(2), supra . . .

EPSTEIN, v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK,, 157 So. 2d 705 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)

. . . As has been pointed out above, § 942.02(1) provides for the presentation of an appropriate certificate . . .

In O NEILL No., 17 Fla. Supp. 199 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1960)

. . . “Renewal of Motion to Quash” the rule issued to said respondent challenging the validity of section 942.02 . . . O’Neill (Fla.), 112 So. 2d 837) the first contention is that section 942.02, Florida Statutes, violates . . . There can be no doubt that both the summons provided for in section 942.02(2), Florida Statutes, and . . . the order provided for in sub-section (3) of section 942.02, are both “process”. . . . Supp. 153) it was pointed out that sub-section 3 of section. 942.02, Florida Statutes, makes no provision . . .

NEW YORK v. O NEILL, 359 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1959)

. . . Stat., 1957, § 942.02) gives the witness who is extradited only $5 a day for his mainténance in New York . . . Stat., 1957, §942.02 (2). . . .

PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK C. O NEILL, 100 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1958)

. . . was filed O’Neill was apprehended and gave bond, although there is no provision in our statute, Sec. 942.02 . . . Subsequently the judge, basing his opinion on the record, concluded that Sec. 942.02, supra, was unconstitutional . . . to a determination of the dispute on the merits,, that is, the adjudication of the validity of Sec. 942.02 . . . In the circumstances it seems to be our obligation to decide the constitutionality of Sec. 942.02, supra . . . IV has no application to the facts of this case because, as we understand it, the statute, Sec. 942.02 . . .

In O NEILL, 9 Fla. Supp. 153 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1956)

. . . Second, by the issuance or entry of an order, provided by subsection (3) of section 942.02, that the . . . the constitutionality of the particular subsection of the “uniform law” (subsection (8) of section 942.02 . . . with the question whether the “summons” or subpoena provided for by the Act (subsection (2), section 942.02 . . . Insofar as subsection 1 of section 942.02 attempts to confer any such power, authority, or , jurisdiction . . . Subsection 3 of section 942.02, invoked by the applicant in this case, is clearly unconstitutional and . . .