The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 6
ADMISSION INTO UNION; CONCESSIONS; STATE BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 6.02

6.02 United States authorized to acquire lands for certain purposes.—The United States may purchase, acquire, hold, own, occupy, and possess such lands within the limits of this state as they shall seek to occupy and hold as sites on which to erect and maintain forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings, or any of them, as contemplated and provided in the Constitution of the United States; such land to be acquired either by contract with owners, or in the manner hereinafter provided.

History.—s. 1, ch. 25, 1845; RS 7; GS 5; RGS 5; CGL 5.

F.S. 6.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 6.02 on Casetext

Amendments to 6.02

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 6.02

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 6.02.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

MCGIRT, v. OKLAHOMA, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020)

. . . United States , 450 U.S. 544, 565-566, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981) ; see Cohen § 6.02(2)(a) . . .

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

. . . Gouvin, Corporate Groups §§ 6.01, 6.02, 6.05 (2020 Supp.). . . .

QUEST INTEGRITY USA, LLC, v. COKEBUSTERS USA INC., 924 F.3d 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 6.02[6] (2017). . . .

IN RE RENT- RITE SUPERKEGS WEST, LTD. v. LLC,, 603 B.R. 41 (Bankr. Colo. 2019)

. . . Malloy, 2 BANKING LAW AND REGULATION § 6.02[D] (Wolters Kluwer Supp. 2017). . . .

ALLEN, v. LILLY EXTENDED DISABILITY PLAN,, 379 F. Supp. 3d 743 (S.D. Ind. 2019)

. . . Relevant Plan Provisions Allen invokes § 6.02(b) of the Plan, the "Proof of Claims" provision, which . . . Section 6.02(b) states "[t]he Employee Benefits Committee may require an Employee to undergo examination . . .

A. BARRY, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., 914 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . 1995) (cited favorably in Pfaff , albeit for a different proposition); see also 2A Chisum on Patents § 6.02 . . .

OLIVER, v. JOHANSON DB LLC,, 357 F. Supp. 3d 758 (W.D. Ark. 2018)

. . . See, e.g. , Nimmer on Copyright § 6.02 (noting that a joint work exists "[w]here the common design for . . .

DOES v. ABBOTT,, 345 F. Supp. 3d 763 (N.D. Tex. 2018)

. . . Thus, Section 6.02(c) of the Texas Penal Code requires that Article 62.102(a) require at minimum recklessness . . . Penal Code § 6.02(c) ("If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but . . . some finding of knowledge or recklessness does apply to Article 62.102 by virtue of Texas Penal Code § 6.02 . . .

DEFINITIVE MARINE SURVEYS INC. v. TRAN, A. T. a A. T. a, 339 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . R. 6.02(a). . . . R. 3-1 ; Local Rule 6.02. . . .

IN RE MILLER, v. F., 589 B.R. 550 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2018)

. . . BELL, BELL ON MISSISSIPPI FAMILY LAW § 6.02[2]; Godwin v. . . .

J. LITTERER L. v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, FOR U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION SC U. S. SC, 894 F.3d 1274 (8th Cir. 2018)

. . . As relevant here, Rule 6.02 provides: "When by statute ... an act is required or allowed to be done at . . . If Rule 6.02 may be used to extend the deadline in § 582.043, subdiv. 7(b), then the Litterers' failure . . . Applying Minnesota law, the district court concluded that Rule 6.02 may not be used to extend the lis . . . P. 6.02 ?" . . . As a result, the court concluded that " Rule 6.02 may not be used to extend this deadline." Id. . . .

IN RE PENSON WORLDWIDE, LLC, SAI v. LLC,, 587 B.R. 6 (Bankr. Del. 2018)

. . . APA Section 6.02, Appendix to Motion to Dismiss A187. Appendix to Motion to Dismiss A211-A215. . . .

GROSS, v. GFI GROUP, INC., 310 F. Supp. 3d 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . With the prospect of an all cash tender-offer, GFI's share price skyrocketed from $5.03/share to $6.02 . . .

SPIREAS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 886 F.3d 315 (3rd Cir. 2018)

. . . Byrnes & Marvin Petry, TAXATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TECHNOLOGY § 6.02[1] (2017). . . .

BLACK VEATCH CORPORATION, v. ASPEN INSURANCE UK LTD s, 882 F.3d 952 (10th Cir. 2018)

. . . Miller, et al., § 6.02 Third Party Coverage, Handling Construction Defect Claims: Western States 123 . . . Miller at § 6.02; see, e.g. , Cherrington v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. . . . See Miller at § 6.02. . . . Miller at § 6.02; see, e.g. , Essex Ins. v. . . .

WILLIAMSON, v. TRAVELPORT, LP U. S., 289 F. Supp. 3d 1305 (N.D. Ga. 2018)

. . . therein (the computational formula in which was [sic] supposed to be drawn from the Legacy Plan, Section 6.02 . . .

In MATTER OF MPM SILICONES, L. L. C. LLC, Ad v. BOKF, NA, N. A. U. S. v. FSB, Ad LLC,, 874 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2017)

. . . brought about by MPM’s voluntary bankruptcy petition leads to an automatic acceleration under Section 6.02 . . . Section 6.02 provides: "If an Event of Default specified in Section 6.01(f) or (g) with respect to MPM . . .

In MATTER OF MPM SILICONES, L. L. C. LLC, Ad v. BOKF, NA, N. A. U. S. v. FSB, Ad LLC,, 874 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2017)

. . . brought about by MPM’s voluntary bankruptcy petition leads to an automatic acceleration under Section 6.02 . . .

IN RE WTE- S S AG ENTERPRISES, LLC, WTE- S S Ag LLC, v. GHD, n k a DVO,, 575 B.R. 397 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2017)

. . . Section 6.02(A) titled “Supervision and Superintendence of Construction” states as follows: Design/Builder . . . No. 2, p. 15 (Section 6.02(A)).) . . . DVO is the design/builder and is subject to section 6.02(A) of the General Conditions. . . . supervise construction, the Court finds that DVO breached its supervision responsibilities under section 6.02 . . .

IN RE ACTOS PIOGLITAZONE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION., 274 F. Supp. 3d 485 (W.D. La. 2017)

. . . MSA; § 6.02. . See MSA, App’x. J. .MSA, § 7.01. . MSA, § 7.02. . MSA. . . . Art, XIII. .See MSA Secs. 3,01, 3.05, 4.02, 6.02, 7.02, 9.01, 9.03, and 14.03. . MSA, at 35-36. . . . .

LAKE, v. FLAGG, 319 F.R.D. 252 (S.D. Ill. 2017)

. . . The Court also noted that the Seventh Circuit Pattern Instruction, at the time labeled 6.01 and 6.02 . . . See Committee Comments to Seventh Circuit Pattern Civil Jury Instruction 6.01 and 6.02. . . .

IN RE R. WILKINS, W. Jr. V. v. R. J. III,, 564 B.R. 268 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2017)

. . . . § 6.02 (4th ed. 2016-2 Supplement). . . .

UNITED STATES v. AETNA INC., 240 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . DX0262-064 (APA § 6.02(e)); DX0264-063-64 (APA § '6.02(e)), Such a transfer would be contrary to CMS’ . . . DX0262-064 (APA § 6.02(e)); DX0264-064 (APA § 6.02(e)); Tr. 986:22-987:3 (Mr. . . .

S. BROWN, v. MOUNTAINVIEW CUTTERS, LLC,, 222 F. Supp. 3d 504 (W.D. Va. 2016)

. . . Code § 6.02-302; E.E.O.C. v. . . .

IN RE ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP. a k a TXU a k a TXU a k a f k a CSC v. LLC EFIH Ad EFIH In a k a TXU a k a TXU a k a NA v. LLC EFIH, 842 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2016)

. . . The Relationship Between §§ 3.07 And 6.02 (Or Whether § 6.02, Once Triggered, Annuls § 3.07) At oral . . . In our case, § 6.02 makes no mention of the make-whole. . . . We know no reason why we should choose between §§ 3.07 and 6.02 when both plainly apply.' . . . It surpasses strange to hold that silence in § 6.02 supersedes § 3.07’s simple script. C. . . . Sections 3.07 and 6.02 are not merely compatible but complementary. . . .

IN RE ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP. a k a TXU a k a TXU a k a f k a CSC v. LLC EFIH Ad EFIH In a k a TXU a k a TXU a k a NA v. LLC EFIH, 842 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2016)

. . . Second Lien Indenture § 6.02 (emphases added). . . . Indenture § 6.02; see also id. § 6.01 (defining bankruptcy as an event of default). . . . The Relationship Between §§ 3.07 And 6.02 (Or Whether § 6.02, Once Triggered, Annuls § 3.07) At oral . . . In our case, § 6.02 makes no mention of the make-whole. . . . Sections 3.07 and 6.02 are not merely compatible but complementary. . . .

ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. v. MAKARIOS- OREGON, LLC, LLC,, 210 F. Supp. 3d 1259 (D. Or. 2016)

. . . In addition, Section 6.02 of the Richmond Lease provides, in relevant part: The Tenant covenants and . . .

MCCURRY, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a a, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . . § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule 6.02. . . .

IN RE ADKINS SUPPLY, INC. v. L. T. Jr., 556 B.R. 285 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2016)

. . . . ¶ 6.02. • Defendants “artificially calculated interest rates by the use of computation tricks and balances . . .

ONE WISCONSIN INSTITUTE, INC. M. R. S. T. R. M. M. v. L. THOMSEN, S. R. M. M., 198 F. Supp. 3d 896 (W.D. Wis. 2016)

. . . . §§ 6.02, .10(3), and .15 to increase the durational residency requirement from 10 days to 28 days violate . . .

FRANK, v. WALKER,, 196 F. Supp. 3d 893 (E.D. Wis. 2016)

. . . . § 6.02. . . .

HL INTERMEDIATE HOLDCO INC. v. N. B. LOVE INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD., 191 F. Supp. 3d 345 (D. Del. 2016)

. . . B at § 6.02) Additionally, the Agreement provides that the parties made no other representation of warranty . . .

IN RE ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP. v. N. A., 551 B.R. 550 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)

. . . Thereafter, on March 26, 2015, in Phase One, the Court held: Under section 6.02, “in the case of an Event . . . There is no reference in Section 6.02 to the payment of the “Applicable Premium” upon an automatic acceleration . . . ,, nor is section 3.07 incorporated into section 6.02. . . . It is not mentioned in section 6.02 or anywhere else in the Indenture. . . .

PHOENIX LIGHT SF LTD. v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., 172 F. Supp. 3d 700 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Biron Decl., Ex. 1-a § 6.02(a), Ex. 52 § 8.02(a)(v). . . .

BECKER v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N. A. J. P., 172 F. Supp. 3d 777 (E.D. Pa. 2016)

. . . Loan Agreement §§ 6.2, 6.3, 6.4; Indenture, recitals at 2-3, §§ 6.02, 6.03, 6.07, 7.01; Assignment at . . .

C. STATUM, v. W. COLVIN,, 169 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . R. 6.02. . . . .

UNITED STATES A. v. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, WORCESTER a k a, 812 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2016)

. . . See, e.g., 815 Mass.Code Regs. 6.02 (“The ISA is a contract between two state departments that documents . . .

IN RE K. HANN, s s v. K. s, 544 B.R. 326 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2016)

. . . . § 6.02. Tex. . . . Penal Code Ann. § 6.02 provides: (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person does not commit an . . . Penal Code Ann. § 6.02 (West). . . . .

ONE WISCONSIN INSTITUTE, INC. M. R. S. T. R. v. C. NICHOL, V. J., 155 F. Supp. 3d 898 (W.D. Wis. 2015)

. . . . § 6.02(1). . . . Id. § 6.02(2). . . .

A. HARRIS, Co- D. Co- D. v. KELLOGG, BROWN ROOT SERVICES, INC., 151 F. Supp. 3d 600 (W.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . . §§ 33.003, 33.004; Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 203, § 6.02, eff. . . . Acts , 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 203, § 6.02, eff. . . . Code Ann. §§ 33.003, 33.004; ’ Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. '203, § 6.02, eff. . . .

IN RE ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP., 540 B.R. 96 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015)

. . . Section 6.02 of the PIK Indenture defines “Acceleration” and, as noted above, specifies (emphasis added . . . such repayment would not be “optional” as the PIK Notes were accelerated under the terms of section 6.02 . . . a claim for Applicable Premium following the automatic acceleration of the debt pursuant to Section 6.02 . . . PIK Indenture § 6.02 (emphasis added). . PIK Indenture § 3.03. . PIK Indenture § 6.02. . . . . PIK Indenture § 6.02 (emphasis added). . 2014 WL 4436335, supra. . Id. at *13. . . . .

IN RE ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP. N. A. v. LLC EFIH, 539 B.R. 723 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015)

. . . ’ Positions The Second Lien Trustee argues that the inclusion of the phrase “premium, if any,” in § 6.02 . . . Because this phrase was not in § 6.02 of the First Lien Indenture, the Second Lien Trustee argues, the . . . a claim for Applicable Premium following the automatic acceleration of the debt pursuant to Section 6.02 . . . Because § 6.02 accelerated the Second Lien Notes when EFIH declared bankruptcy, therefore, the Partial . . . Second Lien Indenture § 6.02 (emphasis added). . 2014 WL 4436335, supra. . Id. at *13. . . . .

FRANK, v. WALKER,, 141 F. Supp. 3d 932 (E.D. Wis. 2015)

. . . . § 6.02(1). . . . Stat. § 6.02 provide additional standards for determining residence, but those standards do not alter . . .

CROWE, v. EXAMWORKS, INC., 136 F. Supp. 3d 16 (D. Mass. 2015)

. . . Code Regs. 6.02; see Clark v. Centene Co. of Tex., 44 F.Supp.3d 674, 676 (W.D.Tex.2014). . . . Code Regs. 6.02 (defining "practitioner” as "any person who is licensed to practice under the laws of . . .

BOBO Co- v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,, 138 F. Supp. 3d 1285 (N.D. Ala. 2015)

. . . Accordingly, the following question was presented to the Alabama Supreme Court pursuant to Article VI, § 6.02 . . .

BURNETT, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,, 139 F. Supp. 3d 231 (D.D.C. 2015)

. . . . § 6.02(a). . . . .

IN RE MACCO PROPERTIES, INC. NV LLC,, 540 B.R. 793 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2015)

. . . Collier Compensation, Employment and Appointment of Trustees and Professionals in Bankruptcy Cases ¶ 6.02 . . .

AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CITY OF OCALA,, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1265 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 636, and Rule 6.02, Local Rules, M.D. . . .

DE GAZELLE GROUP, INC. v. TAMAZ TRADING ESTABLISHMENT,, 308 F.R.D. 688 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . R. 6.02, within fourteen (14) days after service of this report and recommendation. . . .

IN RE ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP. v. LLC, 533 B.R. 106 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015)

. . . Default, including, without limitation, any such acceleration pursuant to the second paragraph of section 6.02 . . . unlikely that a creditor operating under a contract with provisions substantially similar to section 6.02 . . .

C. MATHESON, v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, a, 187 So. 3d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . appellees claimed the County fatally failed to mention in the ballot summary was the following: SECTION 6.02 . . . Miami-Dade County, Fla., Charter art. 6, § 6.02.' . . .

In MPM SILICONES, LLC, U. S. v. FSB, USA I LLC, II LLC, III LLC, IV LLC, MPM LLC, SPV In MPM LLC, BOKF, NA, MPM LLC MPM v. USA. I LLC, II LLC, III LLC, IV LLC, MPM LLC, SPV, 531 B.R. 321 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Cl, §§ 6.01(f), 6.02). . . . (Id., § 6.02). . . . Cl, §§ 6.01(f), 6.02). . . . (Id., § 6.02). . . . Further, a Section 601(f) Event of Default triggers the acceleration clause contained in Section 6.02 . . .

BREWER BODY SHOP, LLC, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 101 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . R. 6.02, within fourteen (14) days after service of this report and recommendation. . . .

IN RE ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP. v. LLC EFIH, 527 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015)

. . . (Id. § 6.02, ¶ 2.) 21. . . . (Id. § 6.02, ¶ 1.) . . . (Indenture § 6.02, ¶ 2.) 46. . . . Here, that specific provision is section 6.02. . . . (Indenture § 6.02, ¶ 3 (emphasis added).) 64. . . .

A. CLARK, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,, 95 F. Supp. 3d 1335 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); L.R. 6.02(a). . . .

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, a v. WEAVER AGGREGATE TRANSPORT, INC. a a a v. a, 89 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Local Rule 6.02. . . . Specific written objections may be filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Rule 6.02, Local Rules . . .

L- COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, v. SPARTON CORPORATION, 313 F.R.D. 661 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1) and Local Rule 6.02(a) provide that the time for objection to . . .

IN RE HINTZE K. M. v. M., 525 B.R. 780 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Barkley Clark & Barbara Clark, The Law of Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code § 6.02 . . .

LEE GRAHAM SHOPPING CENTER, LLC, V. M. M. H. T. v. ESTATE OF Z. KIRSCH Z., 777 F.3d 678 (4th Cir. 2015)

. . . Sections 6.02(b), (c) and (d) further elaborate on 6.02(a)’s purchase offer framework by describing, . . . of 6.02(a). . . . of either 6.02(a) or 6.02(e). . . . (a)’s purchase process and the limitations and explanations of that proce'ss in 6.02(b)-(d). 6.02(e) . . . If these other transfers were allowed under Cullen’s reading of 6.02, there would be no need for 6.02 . . .

In GILBRAITH,, 523 B.R. 198 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2014)

. . . Proc. 2013-12 § 6.02(1), titled “Restoration of benefits,” states: “The correction method should restore . . . Proc. 2013-12 § 6.02(1); In re Richey, 2011 WL 4485900, at *11 (9th Cir. . . . Proc. 2013-12 § 6.02(1); IRS Compliance Statement § VII (DE 84, Ex. 1). . . .

In L. DUCKWORTH, v. E. L., 776 F.3d 453 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . Barkley Clark & Barbara Clark, The Law of Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code § 6.02 . . . (1)(a) (3d ed. 2011) (“The strong-arm clause is the ultimate Article 9 enforcer.”); id., § 6.02(l)(b) . . .

In L. DUCKWORTH, v. E. L., 776 F.3d 453 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . Barkley Clark & Barbara Clark, The Law of Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code § 6.02 . . . (l)(a) (3d ed. 2011) (“The strong-arm clause is the ultimate Article 9 enforcer.”); id., § 6.02(l)(b) . . .

RETINA- X STUDIOS, LLC, a v. ADVAA, LLC, a, 303 F.R.D. 642 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); Local Rule 6.02(a). The Court will not extend the 14-day period. . . .

FISHER v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., 49 F. Supp. 3d 637 (D.N.D. 2014)

. . . Martin, The Law of Pooling and Unitization § 6.02 (3d ed.2013). . . .

In CORRLINE INTERNATIONAL, LLC,, 516 B.R. 106 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Section 6.02(a) of the JV Agreement allows the board of managers to delegate authority to officers. . . . counsel to oppose the Petition without complying with § 6.07(a) of the JV Agreement, CorrLine points to § 6.02 . . .

IN RE ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP. CSC v. LLC EFIH, 513 B.R. 651 (Bankr. D. Del. 2014)

. . . [The] acceleration provision, Section 6.02 of the Indentures, provides ... nothing about the payment . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. MORALES, In M., 36 F. Supp. 3d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); Local Rule 6.02. . . .

D. HERMOSILLO, v. LINWOOD TRAWLERS, INC., 35 F. Supp. 3d 806 (S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . No. 1 ¶ 6.02], . These entities are: L & O Trawlers, Inc.; WL & O Trawlers, Inc.; Capt. . . .

Dr. A. GUTTENBERG, v. Dr. W. EMERY,, 41 F. Supp. 3d 61 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 6.02 (discussing agent’s liability in unidentified principal situation); id. § 6.03 (agent’s liability . . .

R. BROWN, v. LIVINGSTON,, 17 F. Supp. 3d 616 (S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . In fact, under TDCJ’s Chaplaincy Manual policy 6.02, an inmate must complete Shahada training, a part . . .

FRANK, v. WALKER, v. G., 17 F. Supp. 3d 837 (E.D. Wis. 2014)

. . . . § 6.02(1). . A general election is one held "in even-numbered years ... in November....” Wis. . . .

DE GAZELLE GROUP, INC. v. TAMAZ TRADING ESTABLISHMENT,, 113 F. Supp. 3d 1221 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . R. 6.02, within fourteen (14) days after service of this report and recommendation. . . .

HARRIS, v. CITY OF BALCH SPRINGS, Z. B. E., 9 F. Supp. 3d 690 (N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Plaintiffs Complaint: 6.01 Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing provisions as if set forth herein verbatim. 6.02 . . .

HARLAND CLARKE HOLDINGS CORP. v. MILKEN, 997 F. Supp. 2d 561 (W.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Subject to Sections 1.04, 1.05, 6.02 and 11.11 herein, and the alternative dispute resolution provisions . . . and the other transactions contemplated hereby shall be a claim pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.02 . . . reason of this Agreement; provided, that any Person that is not a Party but, by the terms of Sections 6.02 . . . Under the Purchase Agreement, “any Person that is not a Party but, by the terms of Sections 6.02, 6.04 . . .

ARCHSTONE PALMETTO PARK, LLC, a v. KENNEDY, M. S. R. R. A., 132 So. 3d 347 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . the appellees, a group of Boca Raton residents, collectively filed a petition, pursuant to Section 6.02 . . . Although not specifically addressing development orders, Section 6.02 conferred upon the City’s residents . . . Accordingly, since Section 6.02’s general provision “for the referendum process on any Ordinances” impliedly . . . Legislature’s intent to expand the referendum process to all general charter provisions, such as Section 6.02 . . .

VERSATILE HELICOPTERS, INC. v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO,, 548 F. App'x 337 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . (citing 2 Restatement (Third) of Agenoy, §§ 6.01 and 6.02). . . .

LLC, W. H. A v., 141 T.C. 477 (T.C. 2013)

. . . Section 6.02 of the Holdings Agreement is entitled “Distributions.” . . . Section 6.02(a) states “[a]ll distributions made in accordance with the terms of this Section 6.02 shall . . . Intervenor’s reliance on section 6.02(c) is inapposite. . . . accordance with Section 6.02(a) an aggregate amount”. . . . This amount is then distributed to the members in accordance with section 6.02(a). . . .

CONNOR B. VIGURS, S. R. S. T. D. v. L. PATRICK, I., 985 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D. Mass. 2013)

. . . provision of an alternative permanent home for a foster child. 110 Mass.Code Regs. 6.01(l)(b)-(c), 6.02 . . .

W. TAYLOR, v. W. BETTIS, Jr., 976 F. Supp. 2d 721 (E.D.N.C. 2013)

. . . Reed, Civil Rico ¶ 6.02 at 6-39 (2013) (observing that the Fourth and Eleventh Circuit hold that § 1965 . . .

OWINGS, v. T- MOBILE USA, INC., 978 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); and, Local Rule 6.02(a), United States District Court for the Middle . . .

M. CORLETT, v. OAKLAND UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES,, 958 F. Supp. 2d 795 (E.D. Mich. 2013)

. . . Regulation 6.02 reads in full: No person shall engage in any activity, individually or in concert with . . . Defendants contend that Regulation 6.02 is neither overly-broad nor vague. . . . Plaintiffs fourth cause of action similarly alleges that Regulation 6.02 is unconstitutional in that . . . Plaintiff challenges the final clause of Regulation 6.02 that reads: “nor shall any person in any way . . . The Court, therefore, is focusing only on Regulation 6.02. . . . .

GULF POWER COMPANY, v. COALSALES II, LLC, f. k. a., 522 F. App'x 699 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . Per Sections 1.01 and 6.02 of the CSA, Coalsales agreed to provide Gulf Power with 1,900,000 tons of . . . Doc. 54-3 (CSA, Sections 1.01 and 6.02). . . . Section 6.02 of the CSA creates a simple mandatory obligation that Coalsales supply and Gulf Power buy . . . CSA, Section 6.02. . . . derives not from the term “right” in the sourcing provisions but from the clear language of section 6.02 . . .

MADELEINE, L. L. C. v. I. CASDEN,, 950 F. Supp. 2d 685 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Agreement that are included in the calculation of the Special Distribution distributed pursuant to Section 6.02 . . . Section 6.02 sets forth various terms relating to “Special Distributions; Subordination.” . . . 59% to Blackacre Member until such time as the aggregate amount distributed pursuant to this Section 6.02 . . . (a)(i) equals $50,000,000____ (Id. at Sec. 6.02(a).) . . .

TARRANT REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT, v. HERRMANN, 569 U.S. 614 (U.S. 2013)

. . . subbasin is hereby apportioned sixty (60) percent to Texas and forty (40) percent to Oklahoma"); § 6.02 . . .

MAYS, v. SPRINGBORN,, 719 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2013)

. . . The Seventh Circuit Pattern Civil Jury Instructions 6.01 and 6.02 (2005) say the same thing in slightly . . .

BNP PARIBAS MORTGAGE CORPORATION BNP v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. AG, v. N. A., 949 F. Supp. 2d 486 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . establish a duty by BoA to “sue itself’ for violating the Depositary and Custodial Agreements: (1) Section 6.02 . . . Section 6.02 of the Security Agreement, for instance, limits BoA to exercise only rights and remedies . . .

SCHNEIDER, v. CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION POLICE DEPARTMENT, D. A., 717 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937; Dodds, 614 F.3d at 1204-05; Schwartz, at § 6.02[A], In contrast . . . See Schwartz, at § 6.02[C] ("Since the decision in City of Canton [adopted deliberate indifference for . . .

PICKETT, Jr. Sr. v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,, 948 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . R. 6.02(a). . . .

TEMPAY, INC. v. BILTRES STAFFING OF TAMPA BAY, LLC, a I., 929 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . Compare Local Rule 6.02 (governing review of reports and recommendations). .Failure to timely file objections . . .

DeGRAFF, v. SMA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. d b a d b a St., 945 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); and, Local Rule 6.02(a), United States District Court for the Middle . . .

W. WIAND, L. P. LLC LLC L. P. v. MORGAN, III,, 919 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . Pursuant to Rule 6.02, Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, . . .

W. WIAND, L. P. LLC LLC L. P. v. W. CLOUD,, 919 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . Pursuant to Rule 6.02, Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, . . .

W. WIAND, L. P. LLC LLC L. P. v. DANCING LLC,, 919 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . Pursuant to Rule 6.02, Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, . . .

BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. As LLC, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,, 908 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.C. Cir. 2012)

. . . Section 6.02 of the Security Agreement states that in the event of a default by Ocala: [BOA] shall have . . . version of the Uniform Commercial Code ... relating to the Assigned Collateral (Security Agreement at § 6.02 . . .

WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. v. CCC ATLANTIC, LLC,, 905 F. Supp. 2d 604 (D.N.J. 2012)

. . . (PSA §§ 6.02, 6.04) The PSA also allows for 'sub-servicing agreements” between a Master Servicer and . . . (See PSA §§ 6.02, 6.04) Likewise, the Special Servicer is allowed to hire subservicers. . . .

TRUSTEES OF EIGHTH DISTRICT ELECTRICAL PENSION FUND, v. GIETZEN ELECTRIC, INC., 898 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (D. Idaho 2012)

. . . B at §§ 6.02, 6.03, 7.03, 8.03, 9.01, 10.01 to Rodney James Decl. . . . C at §§ 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 7.03, 8.03 to Gill Decl. (Docket No. 22, Att. 5). . . .

In GLOBAL TECHNOVATIONS INCORPORATED GMBH SDN BHD v., 694 F.3d 705 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . then, the value of the indirect benefits were “certainly not equivalent” to a “substantial outlay” of $6.02 . . .

In GLOBAL TECHNOVATIONS INCORPORATED GMBH SDN BHD v., 694 F.3d 705 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . then, the value of the indirect benefits were “certainly not equivalent” to a “substantial outlay” of $6.02 . . .

In U. S. FIDELIS, INC., 481 B.R. 503 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2012)

. . . Section 6.02 Consumer Restitution Advisory Committee Advice and Recommendations. . . .

STULLER, INC. v. STEAK N SHAKE ENTERPRISES, INC. N, 877 F. Supp. 2d 674 (C.D. Ill. 2012)

. . . of the South Dirksen Agreement (which has different language), the Agreements also contain Section 6.02 . . . Section 6.02(b) of the Agreements (except the South Dirksen Agreement) provides for the creation of an . . . See South Dirksen Agreement § 6.02(c) (d/e 92-2). . . . . § 6.02, § 7.01) in the Statement of Undisputed Facts. 1. . . . ” (not underlined) instead of "Section 6.02." . . .