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. 6.08

6.08 Boundary between Florida and Alabama.—The line commencing on the Chattahoochee River near a place known as “Irwin’s Mills,” and running west to the Perdido, marked throughout by blazes on the trees, and also by mounds of earth thrown upon the line, at distances of 1 mile, more or less, from each other, and commonly known as the “Mound line” or “Ellicott’s line,” and by these names distinguished from another line above, running irregularly at different distances not exceeding one and a half miles from the “Mound line” and marked by blazes only, and known as the “Upper line,” or “Coffee’s line,” is the boundary line between the States of Florida and Alabama.

History.—s. 2, ch. 165, 1848; RS 2; GS 2; RGS 2; CGL 2.

F.S. 6.08 on Google Scholar

F.S. 6.08 on Casetext

Amendments to 6.08

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 6.08

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 6.08.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

ECONOMY LINEN AND TOWEL SERVICE, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION, 917 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . In support of its argument, the union relied on Article 6.08 of the collective bargaining agreement, . . . He concluded that Article 6.08's "unambiguous" language meant the wage-limits provision applied even . . . concluded that the company's exclusive power to subcontract in Articles 3.01-.04 was limited by Article 6.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. DONG, a k a, 252 F. Supp. 3d 447 (D.S.C. 2017)

. . . (See ECF Nos. 6.08; 612; 811.) . . .

UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . Percent Cable Companies Comcast 22,868,000 25.55% Time Warner Cable 13,016,000 14.54% Charter 5,441,000 6.08% . . .

UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 423 U.S. App. D.C. 183 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . Companies Number Percent Comcast 22,868,000 25.55% Time Warner Cable 13,016,000 14.54% Charter 5,441,000 6.08% . . .

W. GREENE, v. J. ABLON, a k a, 794 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2015)

. . . nevertheless equal owners of the copyright in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. 1 Nimmer § 6.08 . . .

GARCIA, v. GOOGLE, INC. a LLC, a K. J. M., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . See 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.08 at 6-34 to 636. . . .

ROBL CONSTRUCTION, INC. a v. G. HOMOLY,, 781 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2015)

. . . my disagreement with the majority rests in Robl Construction’s waiver of arguing that it fulfilled § 6.08 . . .

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC. f k a Co. LLC, v. UNITED STATES,, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1278 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014)

. . . Further, Rockwell’s second citation to Moore's Federal Practice — i.e., "2 Moore’s Federal Practice [§ ] 6.08 . . . (citing "4A Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165; 2 Moore’s Federal Practice [§ ] 6.08,” absent any . . .

UNITED STATES v. STEPHENS- MILLER,, 582 F. App'x 626 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . Sixth Circuit Pattern Instruction § 6.08, Committee Commentary (2013 ed.). . . .

ESCUE, v. SEQUENT, INC., 568 F. App'x 357 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . Section 6.08 of the merger agreement, entitled “Litigation,” disclosed (through Schedule 6.08 of the . . . The representations and warranties covered by this clause include those made in Sections 6.06, 6.08, . . . criminal investigation in its letter disclosed during the due diligence process, and also in Section 6.08 . . . Finally, Section 6.08 required only that Sequent “list” any investigations of which it was aware; the . . . Given that the criminal investigation was disclosed in Schedule 6.08, it was not required to be again . . .

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

. . . Buyer [Scantron] or (y) limit any injunctive relief or other specific performance remedy under Section 6.08 . . .

LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. v. GATEWAY FUNDING DIVERSIFIED MORTGAGE SERVICES, L. P., 989 F. Supp. 2d 411 (E.D. Pa. 2013)

. . . Pl.’s Ex. 6 at § 6.08. . . . PL’s Ex. 6 at § 6.08. 56. Gateway also hired Lord, Arlington’s CFO, as a controller. . . .

CHURCHILL DOWNS INCORPORATED v. TROUT, P. F. F. T. III,, 979 F. Supp. 2d 746 (W.D. Tex. 2013)

. . . . § 6.08, et. seq. . . .

JACKSON v. CITY OF CENTREVILLE, 899 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (N.D. Ala. 2012)

. . . minimum wage increase to $5.85 per hour; on October 16, 2007, he received a cost of living increase to $6.08 . . . McLaughlin’s pay reached $6.08 an hour by the time Mayor Murphy fired him in July 2008. 27. . . .

In LOWER BUCKS HOSPITAL,, 471 B.R. 419 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . . §§ 6.03, 6.04, 6.08); • established procedures that governed the respective rights and obligations . . .

R. ESCUE, v. SEQUENT, INC., 869 F. Supp. 2d 839 (S.D. Ohio 2012)

. . . Section 6.08 of the merger agreement disclosed that Sequent was the subject of a “DOL Investigation into . . .

In R. HERBST,, 469 B.R. 299 (Bank. W.D. Wis. 2012)

. . . before the petition is filed. 1 The Law of Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code, ¶ 6.08 . . .

REMY ASSOCIATES, L. L. C. v. WHOLE FOODS MARKETS, INC., 460 F. App'x 494 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . Accordingly, we hold that Remy is not entitled to the daily charge specified in section 6.08 on account . . .

HARDING, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY UNUM, 809 F. Supp. 2d 403 (W.D. Pa. 2011)

. . . The “POLICY SCHEDULE” also states that the Plaintiff was receiving a “Salary Allotment Discount” of $6.08 . . .

In LYONS, v., 454 B.R. 174 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2011)

. . . Sommer & Margaret Dee McGarity, Collier Family Law and the Bankruptcy Code ¶ 6.08[3] at 6-115 through . . . Sommer & McGarity, supra, ¶ 6.08[3] at 6-115 (2010), citing to Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 118 . . . See generally Sommer & McGarity, supra, ¶ 6.08[6] at 6-123 through 6-127. . . . .

CITY OF DEARBORN HEIGHTS ACT POLICE FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, GCC IBT, v. WATERS CORPORATION, A. A., 632 F.3d 751 (1st Cir. 2011)

. . . Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, Berthiaume sold 6.08% of his stock holdings and Ornell . . .

In AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 741 F. Supp. 2d 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . revealed another unrealized market valuation loss on the CDS portfolio of $5.6 billion, as well as $6.08 . . .

ROSARIO, v. ERCOLE,, 601 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2010)

. . . Schultz, Proving Criminal Defenses ¶ 6.08 (1991), quoted in Henry v. . . .

CITY OF DEARBORN HEIGHTS ACT POLICE FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. WATERS CORPORATION, A. A., 699 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D. Mass. 2010)

. . . Berthiaume allegedly sold 180,000 shares of the common stock of Waters Corp., or 6.08% of his total holdings . . . In addition, Berthiaume allegedly sold only 6.08% of his total stock holdings, excluding options, which . . .

In BABCOCK WILCOX COMPANY, 425 B.R. 266 (E.D. La. 2010)

. . . See id. at Section 3.03(e) and 6.08(a). . . . Thus, Section 6.08(a) and 6.08(b) differ in terms of the time of “discovery” of the environmental problem . . . Section 6.08(a) covers those discovered before closing, and Section 6.08(b) those discovered after closing . . . Section 6.08 of The Purchase and Sale Agreement In general, Section 6.08(a) and 6.08(b) of the PSA cover . . . Section 6.08(a) states in full: 6.08 Environmental Matters. . . .

LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY v. CHESTER, WILLCOX SAXBE W. C. P. A. f. k. a. P. A. P. A. GP FL III, LLC, v. G. III GP FL II, LLC II, T- LLC LLC,, 589 F.3d 835 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . from the states and territories that opted for arbitration received a total award of approximately $6.08 . . .

MARTINEZ, v. CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS,, 265 F.R.D. 490 (D. Neb. 2009)

. . . duties receive a supplemental daily payment, ranging from 3-5 minutes, as provided for under CBA § 6.08 . . . A (“CBA”), § 6.08, at CM/ECF p. 5,18-19; and Named plaintiff Martinez, a union employee who worked the . . .

LANGFORD, v. GRADY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (W.D. Okla. 2009)

. . . . # 126], Exhibit 21, GCDC Policy and Procedures Manual, ¶ 6.08. . . . .

SIERRA- PASCUAL, a k a MC v. PINA RECORDS, INC., 660 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D.P.R. 2009)

. . . . § 201; see also 1-6 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.08 (2009) (“In the absence of agreement to the contrary . . .

LIOBMEDIA, LLC, v. DATAFLOW ALASKA, INCORPORATED,, 349 F. App'x 843 (4th Cir. 2009)

. . . In addition, the Teaming Agreement limits the types of damages that can be recovered: 6.08 Neither party . . .

In ELDERCARE PROPERTIES LTD. v. In v., 568 F.3d 506 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . Section 6.08 did so for “claims arising out of malpractice.” . . .

In ELDERCARE PROPERTIES LTD. v. In v., 568 F.3d 506 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . Section 6.08 did so for “claims arising out of malpractice.” . . .

TOLBERT, v. ULIBARRI, 325 F. App'x 662 (10th Cir. 2009)

. . . found on the victim’s face and bedsheet and calculated the probability of error at no more than 1 in 6.08 . . .

In BABCOCK WILCOX COMPANY, Co., 413 B.R. 337 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2009)

. . . Under 6.08(a), the actions identified in PMAC’s audit, as modified by B & W’s consultant, became the . . . Section 6.08(b) B & W and PMAC dispute whether Section 6.08(b) holds B & W liable for the remedial actions . . . B & W argues that it is not liable under Section 6.08(b) because Section 6.08(b) only applies to conditions . . . Therefore, B & W is not liable for any Consent Order costs under Section 6.08(b). . . . PSA, § 6.08(a)-(b) (P-7745, Ex. A). . P-7745 at ¶ 25. . P-7745 at ¶ 25. . P-7745 at ¶ 23. . . . .

LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, v. CHESTER, WILLCOX SAXBE, LLP,, 546 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 2008)

. . . from the states and territories that opted for arbitration received a total award of approximately $6.08 . . .

CITIBANK, N. A. v. UNITED SUBCONTRACTORS, INC., 581 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . (Credit Agreement § 6.08.) . . . , stating that the “Borrower has exceeded the following Financial Covenants as set forth in Section 6.08 . . . default caused by the Borrower’s failure to comply with the financial covenants set forth in Section 6.08 . . .

In EARNED CAPITAL CORPORATION, LLP v. L., 393 B.R. 362 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008)

. . . The Plan provides: 6.08 The surviving corporation, as may be authorized by its Board of Directors, shall . . .

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS d b a a v. METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC. a, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Colo. 2008)

. . . (Section 6.08). . See, e.g., E. Brunswick Sewerage v. E. . . .

RICHLIN v. METRO- GOLDWYN- MAYER PICTURES, INC., 531 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008)

. . . Hoffman, 84 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1055 (D.Ariz.2000); 1 Nimmer § 6.08. In Aalmuhammed v. . . .

GELOW, v. CENTRAL PACIFIC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,, 560 F. Supp. 2d 972 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . . § 6.08. Each party may subpoena witnesses and documents for the arbitration hearing. Id. § 6.09. . . . Id. § 6.08. . . . B (employment contract of Jeffrey Just) §§ 6.06, 6.08, 6.09. Plaintiffs do not dispute this. . . . B (employment contract of Jeffrey Just) § 6.08. . . .

In ENGMAN,, 389 B.R. 36 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2008)

. . . For example, the requests for $6.08 in mileage on May 2, 2005 and $.97 in mileage on December 8, 2005 . . .

A. HUFFMAN H. A. E. M. M. A. A. v. COMMISSIONER INTERNAL REVENUE,, 518 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2008)

. . . Gertzman, Federal Tax Accounting ¶ 6.08, at 6-83 (2d ed.1993). . . . Gertzman, supra, ¶ 6.08[1], at 6-83. . . . Gertzman, supra, ¶ 6.08[2], at 6-84. . . .

J. SANTINI, v. CYTEC INDUSTRIES, INC., 537 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (S.D. Ala. 2008)

. . . (APA § 6.08(a)). . . . (APA § 6.08(n)). . . . consultant any U.S. employee who does not accept Kemira’s job offer of employment pursuant to section 6.08 . . . (APA § 6.08(d)). D. . . .

ALBERT, v. CITY OF HARTFORD,, 529 F. Supp. 2d 311 (D. Conn. 2007)

. . . Heslin completed a “Report of Disciplinary Infraction,” which charged Albert with violating Section 6.08 . . . The initial penalty set forth in the HPD Code of Conduct for a violation of Section 6.08 is an oral reprimand . . . The code violations sustained against Albert were, (1) Section 6.08 on August 29, 2001, (2) Section 1.00 . . .

SCHOOL BOARD OF LEVY COUNTY, v. TERRELL,, 967 So. 2d 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . The School Board of Levy County had a policy, contained in section 6.08(2)(c-d) of its rules, providing . . . In its order, the court found that “the change to Rule 6.08 to delete Rule 6.08(2)(e) and Rule 6.08(2 . . . argues that we should affirm on the theory argued at trial, to wit, that the school board repealed rules 6.08 . . . However, the plain language of her contract belies any legal reason to rely on the continuation of rules 6.08 . . .

J. WRIGHT, D. M. v. FRANKEL, a Jr. a a, 965 So. 2d 365 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . the initiated ordinance as its own or submit the ordinance to the electors, as required by section 6.08 . . . below: Sec. 6.08. . . .

In DELTA AIR LINES, INC. v., 374 B.R. 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Trustee in return for their agreement to give up indemnification rights against Delta under section 6.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CARMICHAEL, Sr., 467 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (M.D. Ala. 2006)

. . . Gundlach established that “6.08 percent of all juror history transactions involving whites are requests . . .

In ELDERCARE PROPERTIES, s, 405 B.R. 816 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . respect of bodily injury and One Million and No/100 Dollars ($1,000,000,000.00) for property damage. 6.08 . . .

In R. McGUIER v. R., 346 B.R. 151 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2006)

. . . Therefore, fees in the amount of $600 (4.0 hours x $150) and costs of $6.08, for a total of $606.08 are . . .

DIXON v. UNITED STATES, 548 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2006)

. . . Criminal Jury Instructions §6.05 (1991); Seventh Circuit Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions § 6.08 . . .

A. E. v., 126 T.C. 322 (T.C. 2006)

. . . Id. par. 6.08[2], at 6-84. . . .

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF GEORGIA L. W. J., 448 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (N.D. Ga. 2005)

. . . between those railroads and CSXT, the appropriate market multiple value of CSXT would be approximately $6.08 . . .

In EARNED CAPITAL CORPORATION, v. LLP, 331 B.R. 208 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2005)

. . . The Plan provides: 6.08 The surviving corporation, as may be authorized by its Board of Directors, shall . . .

HENRY, v. POOLE, L., 409 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2005)

. . . Schultz, Proving Criminal Defenses ¶ 6.08 (1991) (“[T]here is nothing as dangerous as a poorly investigated . . .

CHRISTALDI- SMITH v. JDJ, INC. U. C. C., 367 F. Supp. 2d 756 (E.D. Pa. 2005)

. . . In fact, section 6.08 of JDJ’s franchise agreement specifically provides that JDJ, as franchisee, is . . .

MEDINOL LTD. v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP., 346 F. Supp. 2d 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . parties agreed that the Stockholder Agreement would be governed by New York law, Stockholder Agreement § 6.08 . . .

In SENIOR LIVING PROPERTIES, L. L. C. B. L. L. C. v. ZC, 309 B.R. 223 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . 6.05, the access to and accuracy of the books and records of § 6.07, the payment of debt service of § 6.08 . . .

ROLLISON, v. CITY OF KEY WEST,, 875 So. 2d 659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Young, Anderson’s American Law of Zoning § 6.08 (4th ed.1996); 4 Edward H. . . . Young, Anderson’s American Law of Zoning § 6.08; see also Key West Code § 122-1371(a). . . . Young, Anderson’s American Law of Zoning §§ 6.08, 6.11, 6.13; Paloumbis v. . . .

KUHN, v. C. THOMPSON,, 304 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (M.D. Ala. 2004)

. . . Const, of 1901, amend. 328 § 6.08(c). . . .

In HOBERG, v., 300 B.R. 752 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . Collier Family Law and the Bankruptcy Code ¶ 6.08[2] (2003). . . .

A. O KEEFE, v. MERCEDES- BENZ USA, LLC,, 214 F.R.D. 266 (E.D. Pa. 2003)

. . . $4,896,783 fee award, the lodestar multiplier is 2.95 using class counsel’s estimated reasonable hours and 6.08 . . .

H. DICKSON, D. N, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 309 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2002)

. . . Harrison, Understanding Antitrust and its Economic Implications § 6.08, at 258 (2d ed. 1994) ([The prohibition . . .

GEORGIA, v. ASHCROFT,, 204 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . 12.00%; in S.D. 55, - 11.76%; in S.D. 15, -11.18%; in S.D. 26, - 7.06%; in S.D. 10, -6.52%; in S.D. 2, -6.08% . . .

HAMILTON, Go C. II, ZARETSKY, v. BERETTA U. S. A. CORP. s Co. ACCU- TEK, A. M. T. Co. Y S. A. Co. E. A. A. Co. H R K. B. I. Y S. A. R. G. Co. L. W. U. S. Co. Aj L. P. s, Go s J S Co. s, Co. P B s, Co. Sg s s D S. P. A. S. W., 264 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2001)

. . . percent liability), Beretta U.S.A. (6.03 percent liability), and Taurus International Manufacturing (6.08 . . .

SCHOLASTIC, INC. v. HARRIS, 259 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2001)

. . . Partnership Law §§ 43, 44 (McKinney 1988); see also Bromberg & Ribstein, supra, at § 6.08(b), at 172- . . .

BUTLER, W. v. THE ALABAMA JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION, L., 245 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001)

. . . Const, of 1901, amend. 328, § 6.08(c). . . .

In MIDLANDS UTILITY, INC., 253 B.R. 683 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2000)

H. HISRICH, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., 226 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2000)

. . . at 1248 (alterations in original) (quoting O’Reilly & Cody, Ohio PRODUCTS Liability Manual Section 6.08 . . .

SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY St. v. VOLUNTARY PURCHASING GROUPS, INC., 252 B.R. 373 (E.D. Tex. 2000)

. . . See R. 862 at 472; R. 768 at 36 § 6.08. . See LaSalle, 526 U.S. at 442-44, 119 S.Ct. 1411. . . . .

FIRST TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE,, 220 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 2000)

. . . certificates”) as contemplated by article VI of the Disbursement Agreement, and in particular section 6.08 . . . made by FNBC and requesting Disbursement Certificates that it had not received as required by section 6.08 . . .

In MIDLANDS UTILITY, INC., 251 B.R. 296 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2000)

. . . Finally, Section 6.08 of the Attachment provides: Following the three year period detailed in Section . . . have not been able to negotiate a new wastewa-ter treatment contract within the parameter of Section 6.08 . . . Inside Sewer Customer rate and is precluded from taking such argument to arbitration until Section 6.08 . . . Whether the Court has the authority to grant Debtor relief from the provision set forth in Section 6.08 . . . The Court also notes that the fact that the Attachment, and more specifically Section 6.08, were a result . . .

RICHTER, v. J. VAN AMBERG F. P. B. Z. a, 97 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (D.N.M. 2000)

. . . (repealed); II Bromberg & Ribstein on Partnership, § 6.08(b) & (d) (discussing an accounting); GCM, Inc . . .

BENCICH, v. HOFFMAN,, 84 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (D. Ariz. 2000)

KOROS, M. D. v. DOCTORS SPECIAL SURGERY CENTER OF JACKSONVILLE, LTD. d b a a HSI a J. HSI C. HSI J., 717 So. 2d 137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Ross, 35 Fla. 377, 17 So. 640, 641 (1895), and see also Bromberg & Ribstein on Partnership, § 6.08(c) . . . Bromberg & Ribstein at § 6.08(c). . . . Id. at § 6.08(a). . . .

JOHNSON v. LAND O LAKES, INC., 18 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Iowa 1998)

. . . of 15,000 bushels of soybeans with a “futures option” of November 1996, a “futures option price” of $6.08 . . .

CANTERBURY LIQUORS PANTRY, Co. v. J. SULLIVAN, Jr., 999 F. Supp. 144 (D. Mass. 1998)

. . . CONTROL COMMISSION 204 CMR 6.00: PRICE POSTING (WHOLESALERS) Section 6.01: Definitions 6.02: Application 6.08 . . . shall be deemed to be a condition of a wholesaler’s license to sell alcoholic beverages to a retailer. 6.08 . . . : Posting (1) For purposes of 204 CMR 6.08, “item” shall mean a case of distilled spirits product identified . . .

KIEFER v. CERIDIAN CORPORATION, a SBC, 976 F. Supp. 829 (D. Minn. 1997)

. . . McElvain sent Kotten another letter, seeking a “request for review of [Kotten’s] decision under Section 6.08 . . .

P. BROADAWAY G. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, M. CAMERON D. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 111 F.3d 593 (8th Cir. 1997)

. . . Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders ¶ 6.08[1] (6th ed. 1994). . . . . Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders ¶ 6.08 (6th ed. 1994). . . .

SMITH, v. M. BEASLEY, C. ABLE, v. H. WILKINS, H. Jr., 946 F. Supp. 1174 (D.S.C. 1996)

. . . District 29 contains only 26.51% BPOP and 25.32% BVAP, and the portion in District 43 contains only 6.08% . . .

UNITED STATES v. REYES,, 934 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . numbers to the voting-age population of blacks and Hispanics (22.22% and 23.50%) to show disparities of 6.08% . . .

W. HARPER, v. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM SERVICES, INC., 918 F. Supp. 196 (E.D. Tenn. 1996)

. . . retirement, and Plan 017, early retirement benefits based on the discretionary provision of section 6.08 . . .

SKF USA SKF S. p. A. v. Co., 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 105 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . Commerce’s Rede-termination on Remand used SAS (“Statistical Analysis Software”) Version 6.08 rather . . . Further, we note that SKF has not identified any errors in the code of 6.08. . . . In addition, SKF claims that Commerce’s use of the new SAS 6.08 version is not the mere correction of . . . corrects errors found in the 6.07 version (not vice versa), Commerce concluded that SAS Version 6.08 . . . Moreover, SKF has not identified any specific errors in the SAS Version 6.08 code. . . .

SKF USA SKF AB, v. Co., 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 109 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . Commerce’s Rede-termination on Remand used computer SAS (“Statistical Analysis Software”) Version 6.08 . . .

SKF USA SKF S. A. v. Co., 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 98 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . , Slip Op. 95-67 (April 19, 1995) (“Redetermination on Remand”), Commerce used computer SAS Version 6.08 . . .

SKF USA SKF v. Co., 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 94 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . SKF further argued that there are no guarantees that the 6.08 computer software version is more accurate . . . Further, we note that SKF has not identified any errors in the code of 6.08. . . . In addition, SKF claims that Commerce’s use of the new SAS 6.08 version is not the mere correction of . . . corrects errors found in the 6.07 version (not vice versa), Commerce concluded that SAS Version 6.08 . . . Moreover, SKF has not identified any specific errors in the SAS Version 6.08 code. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ONE FORD MUSTANG LX, VIN WITH ALL ATTACHMENTS THEREON, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL CELLULAR TELEPHONES AND CB RADIOS,, 909 F. Supp. 831 (D. Colo. 1996)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 6.08 (2d ed. 1995). . . . privilege of extensions is not abused.’ ” 726 F.Supp. at 9-10 (quoting 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 6.08 . . .

SWIFT BROTHERS v. SWIFT SONS, INC. Sr. Jr., 921 F. Supp. 267 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . Ribstein, 2 Bromberg and Ribstein on Partnership § 6.08 at 6:102 (1991). . . .

In VICTORIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d b a,, 187 B.R. 54 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1995)

. . . See Id. at §§ 6.07, 6.08 and 6.18. . 9 B.R. 549 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1981), vacated on other grounds, 37 B.R . . .

SIMS, W. T. v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMISSION, B. WILLIAMS v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT, B., 890 F. Supp. 1520 (M.D. Ala. 1995)

. . . Plan § 6.08. . . . Plan § 6.08(a). The panels may consist of only captains. . . .

J. RUBANO, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 656 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1995)

. . . Sackman, Nichols’ The Law of Eminent Domain § 6.08[2] (rev. 3d ed. 1995) (“[W]hen there is no appropriation . . .

In TORNHEIM, 181 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . Id. at ¶¶ 6.01[2] at 6-14, 6.08[1] at 6-46. . . .

H. ODE, Jr. v. OMTVEDT, MD, O MD,, 883 F. Supp. 1308 (D. Neb. 1995)

. . . Eglit, Age Discrimination § 6.08, at 6-84-38 (2d ed. 1994) (“Such a failure will constitute a determinative . . . Eglit, Age Discrimination §§ 6.08, at 6-42-43, 6.27 at 6-164-66; 3A Arthur Larson & Lex K. . . .

PAN AM CORPORATION, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. v. PAN AM CORPORATION, Am, 175 B.R. 438 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . of Reorganization, the date of December 5, 1991 which appears in the termination provision (section 6.08 . . .

BICKHARDT, v. RATNER,, 871 F. Supp. 613 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . Ribstein, 2 Bromberg & Ribstein on Partnership § 6.08 (1991) (discussing general rule and exceptions, . . .

BANKERS TRUST DELAWARE v. BELTWAY INVESTMENT,, 865 F. Supp. 1186 (E.D. Va. 1994)

. . . Pooling Agreement §§ 6.01, 6.08. . . .

In UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS LITIGATION, 854 F. Supp. 914 (D.D.C. 1994)

. . . In their reply brief, defendants cite section 6.08 of the Draft which recommends having federal courts . . .

In TGX CORPORATION, TGX CORPORATION v. J. C. TEMPLETON,, 168 B.R. 122 (W.D. La. 1994)

. . . . § 6.08. . . .

UNITED STATES v. COTTON,, 22 F.3d 182 (8th Cir. 1994)

. . . searching an upstairs bedroom, officers found a razor blade on a dresser and bags containing a total of 6.08 . . .

L. ERICKSON, v. TRINITY THEATRE, INC. d b a, 13 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 1994)

. . . D.C.Cir.1988), aff'd on other grounds, 490 U.S. 730, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989); Nimmer, § 6.08 . . .