Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 6.10 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 6.10 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 6.10

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. 6.10
6.10 Confirmation of certain grants of Georgia.The titles of bona fide holders of land under any grant from the State of Georgia prior to December 22, 1859, in the territory formerly claimed by the said state, which land is within the State of Florida by the line specified in s. 6.09 remain confirmed so far as this state had the right and power to confirm the same as provided by the act of December 22, 1859.
History.s. 2, ch. 1017, 1859; RS 456; GS 645; RGS 1229; CGL 1785.

F.S. 6.10 on Google Scholar

F.S. 6.10 on Casetext

Amendments to 6.10


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 6.10
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 6.10.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SHOCKLEY, v. PRIMELENDING, a, 929 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Shockley's] intent to be presently bound.' " Kunzie , 330 S.W.3d at 484 (quoting 2 Williston on Contracts § 6.10 . . .

PROTECT OUR PARKS, INC. v. CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, 385 F. Supp. 3d 662 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . fee policies" for such individuals maintained by "other Museums in the Park." [125-5] (Exhibit D, § 6.10 . . . comparable" to those maintained by other museums in Jackson Park. [124] ¶ 37; [125-5] (Exhibit D, § 6.10 . . .

MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. WALFLOR INDUSTRIES, INC., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1148 (W.D. Wash. 2019)

. . . . ¶ 6.10), impliedly state a claim for product disparagement within the meaning of Subpart d (see Def . . . Compl. ¶¶ 3.14, 3.18-3.19, 3.30, 6.9-6.10.) . . .

BROWN- THOMAS, D. C. v. HYNIE, J. II, L. I C. Jr. I, 367 F. Supp. 3d 452 (D.S.C. 2019)

. . . that a plaintiff can accomplish service by "leaving it at a place specified in rule 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, or 6.10 . . .

GALESTAN, v. ONEMAIN HOLDINGS, INC. N. T., 348 F. Supp. 3d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . that showed projected earnings of $4.20-$4.70 per share for FY 2016, and projected earnings of $5.60-$6.10 . . . This brings us to a range of $5.60 to $6.10 for 2017. (Id. ¶ 152.) . . . of plan"; and "[w]e remain comfortable with our previously stated EPS guidance for 2017 of $5.60 to $6.10 . . . range of $4.20-$4.70 to a range of $3.60-$3.70, and the guidance for FY 2017 from a range of $5.60-$6.10 . . . Levine stated: "We remain comfortable with our previously stated EPS guidance for 2017 of $5.60 to $6.10 . . .

IN RE L. CUMBESS, LLC, v. L., 594 B.R. 843 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2018)

. . . Id. , § 6.10 n.5 (citing In re Michalek , 393 B.R. 642 (Bankr. E.D. . . .

HIRTENSTEIN, v. CEMPRA, INC. B. W. W., 348 F. Supp. 3d 530 (M.D.N.C. 2018)

. . . Cempra's stock price fell an additional 57%, declining from $6.10 to $2.60 per share on higher-than-average . . .

ESTATE OF J. MCKELVEY, G. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 906 F.3d 26 (2nd Cir. 2018)

. . . date was September 22, 2007, but cost $2.55 if the expiration date was January 19, 2008, and cost $6.10 . . .

SOARING WIND ENERGY, LLC, P. W. v. CATIC USA, INC. a. k. a. AVIC USA,, 333 F. Supp. 3d 642 (N.D. Tex. 2018)

. . . Specifically, AVIC USA contends the Panel read Section 6.10 to include the term "Affiliate", as defined . . . Section 6.10 appears to apply only to Members. . . . The Panel found an ambiguity in reading Sections 6.10, 6.11, and 6.12, along with other provisions, in . . . AVIC USA never identifies any liability finding by the Panel based specifically on a breach of Section 6.10 . . . on AVIC USA's earlier argument in Section III.B regarding liability based on a rewriting of Section 6.10 . . .

R. DAIGLE, v. CIMAREX ENERGY CO., 333 F. Supp. 3d 604 (W.D. La. 2018)

. . . Treatise, Civil Procedure, § 6.10, 9. 200 (Thomson-Reuters, 2d ed. 2008). Taylor v. . . .

COFFELT, v. OMAHA SCHOOL DISTRICT, 309 F. Supp. 3d 629 (W.D. Ark. 2018)

. . . Level 3 or Level 4 sex offenders may only enter a school campus under the provisions listed in Policy 6.10 . . . Policy 6.10, in turn, provides: Level 3 and Level 4 sex offenders may only enter the school campus in . . . Omaha School District Policy, 6.10 Sex Offenders on Campus (Megan's Law) It appears, therefore, that . . .

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

. . . On January 2015, the bidding culminated with BGC's cash offer of $6.10/share. (Defs.' . . . Further, BGC's acquisition of GFI for $6.10/share, a huge premium over CME's original offer, suggests . . .

AGILITY LOGISTICS SERVICES COMPANY KSC, v. N. MATTIS, T., 887 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

. . . . § 6.10 cmt. b ("[A]n agent does not become a party to a contract made on behalf of a disclosed principal . . .

IN RE N. PETERSON,, 581 B.R. 789 (Bankr. D. Md. 2018)

. . . Declaration, § 6.10 (emphasis added). . . .

DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES, L. P. v. COMICMIX LLC a k a Ty, 300 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (S.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . Harder, Entertainment Law & Litigation § 6.10 (Matthew Bender 2017-2018 ed.). . . .

MCKAY, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BAKERY DRIVERS AND SALESMEN LOCAL PENSION FUND,, 291 F. Supp. 3d 597 (D.N.J. 2017)

. . . that the essence of the dispute is the meaning of "disqualifying employment" as defined under Section 6.10 . . . Defendant submits that Rule 6.10(a)(i) governs the instant case, which provides for the suspension of . . .

IN RE WELLS FARGO COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, 282 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . Chao, Chen, Dean, Engel, Hernandez, James, Milligan, Peña, Runstad, Sanger 1Q 2013 10-Q May 8, 2013 6.10 . . .

HANCOCK, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 321 F.R.D. 383 (W.D. Wash. 2017)

. . . Hancock’s claim and appeal (SAC ¶ 6.10), the first and second interrogatories seek relevant information . . .

IN RE ARCTIC GLACIER INTERNATIONAL, INC. a a k a a k a EB EB EB EB Y v. E. A. R. A., 255 F. Supp. 3d 534 (D. Del. 2017)

. . . Arctic, 2016 WL 3920855 at *16 (citing Plan at A170-72, §§ 6.10(a), 6.10(b), 6.11, 6.13). . . .

IN RE SHARAK, s, 571 B.R. 13 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . that his loan payment in the amount of $629.60 remains unpaid, causing a late charge in the amount of $6.10 . . .

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. WEY,, 246 F. Supp. 3d 894 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . and this first sale on the- secondary market, the purchase price jumped from $3.00 at offering to $6.10 . . .

IN RE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTITRUST LITIGATION., 238 F. Supp. 3d 1313 (N.D. Ala. 2017)

. . . Relevant Undisputed Facts Pursuant to Alabama Code § 10A-20-6.10, the Alabama DOI is tasked with reviewing . . .

UNITED STATES v. SPEAR, 219 F. Supp. 3d 847 (N.D. Ill. 2016)

. . . declining to give a “good faith” jury instruction modeled on Seventh Circuit Pattern Criminal Instruction 6.10 . . . The Committee Comment to Instruction 6.10 explains that “this instruction should not be used in cases . . . Pattern Instruction 6.10, Committee Comment at 97 (emphasis added). . . . Pattern Instruction 6.10, Committee Comment at 97. . . .

IN RE HERCULES OFFSHORE, INC., 565 B.R. 732 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)

. . . JX 469 (First Lien Credit Agreement) § 6.10(a); see also Trial Tr. 152:17-154:7 (Carson). . . . . Trial Tr. 153:1— 153:9 (Carson); JX 469 (First Lien Credit Agreement), at JX0469-0016, 3X0469-0115 (§ 6.10 . . .

IN RE MAJORCA ISLES MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC. v. D. R., 560 B.R. 824 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . delinquent assessments, including late charges, interest, and the cost of collection (Id. at Section 6.10 . . .

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, v. SYMANTEC CORP. USA, 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

. . . I concur in the result reached by the majority except -with respect to the '6.10 patent. . . .

LUCAS, v. BREG, INC. a, 212 F. Supp. 3d 950 (S.D. Cal. 2016)

. . . . ¶¶ 6.6, 6.10). There have been other changes and revisions to this supplemental information. . . .

MAPP v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC., 208 F. Supp. 3d 776 (M.D. La. 2016)

. . . Dodd, Mead & Co., 374 F.Supp. 429 (S.D.N.Y.1974); 1 Nimmer on Copyright §§ 6.10, 6.11). . . . Id. § 6.10[A][2][c]. . . . See id. § 6.10[A][2][d] (citing Davis v. Blige, 505 F.3d 90, 100 (2d Cir.2007)). . . . See 1 Nimmer & Nimmer, supra, § 6.10[A][2][c]-[d] (explaining that an exclusive license from fewer than . . . See 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10, n. 80-81. . . . .

ALBEMARLE CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES, DMD Co. Co. v. UNITED STATES,, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

. . . evidence and procedure shall apply to any review carried out under this Article”), referring to Article 6.10 . . .

INGHAM REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, v. UNITED STATES,, 126 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . United States, 62 Fed.Cl. at 198 (quoting Williston on Contracts § 6.10, at 71 (4th ed. 1990)). “ ‘This . . . (quoting Williston on Contracts § 6.10, at 74). . . . conclude a contract or whether it leaves matters yet to be concluded.’ ” (quoting Williston on Contracts § 6.10 . . .

GROSS, v. GFI GROUP, INC., 162 F. Supp. 3d 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Ultimately, BGC offered $6.10/share, 34% more than GFI’s shareholders would have received from CME. . . .

PALATKEVICH BPVN v. CHOUPAK, LLC, LLC LLC, LLC, LLC, ANZFS, v. LLC, LLC, LLC., 152 F. Supp. 3d 201 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Ex. 3 at 6.10. . . . DelCode Ann. tit. 6, § 18-302(d); Rohan Deck Ex.. 3 at 6.10. . . .

GREEN, v. CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY,, 148 F. Supp. 3d 852 (N.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . It survives. 6.10 Declaratory Relief Ms. Green’s twelfth claim is for declaratory relief. . . .

KENNEDY, v. UNITED STATES,, 124 Fed. Cl. 309 (Fed. Cl. 2015)

. . . The relevant portion of DoDI 1215.08 concerns medical leaves of absence, DoDI 1215.08, ¶ 6.10, indicates . . .

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

. . . . § 6.10(1). . . .

UNITED STATES v. STRAKER, s v. E. U. S. H. Jr., 800 F.3d 570 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

. . . LaFave et al., 2 Criminal Procedure § 6.10(d) (3d ed. 2013) (“[T]hough a defendant may be entitled to . . . Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 227 (4th Cir. 2008); see also LaFave, supra, § 6.10(d) n. 59 (it is “commonly . . .

UNITED STATES v. STRAKER, s v. E. U. S. H. Jr., 419 U.S. App. D.C. 210 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

. . . LaFave et al., 2 Criminal Procedure § 6.10(d) (3d ed. 2013) (“[T]hough a defendant may be entitled to . . . Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 227 (4th Cir.2008); see also LaFave, supra, § 6.10(d) n. 59 (it is “commonly assumed . . .

HILL, BHJ, a v. J. CUNDIFF, J. G. BHJ, a v., 797 F.3d 948 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . The second was approved "June 24, 2010” and titled "6.10 Student Anti-Harassment Policy." . . .

UNITED STATES v. BLAGOJEVICH,, 794 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2015)

. . . Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit § 6.10 (2012 revision). . . . instruction limited to the wire-fraud counts, which have an intent requirement within the scope of § 6.10 . . . The judge used the language of § 6.10, as modified to fit the specific charges, and added one sentence . . .

MARSH, v. TERRA INTERNATIONAL OKLAHOMA INC., 122 F. Supp. 3d 1267 (N.D. Okla. 2015)

. . . (Id., Ex. 6.10.) D. . . .

UNITED STATES v. WASHINGTON,, 129 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (W.D. Wash. 2015)

. . . close to shore, whales and seals were harvested as far as twenty-five and thirty miles offshore”). 6.10 . . .

CASA DUSE, LLC, v. MERKIN, A. A. LLC,, 791 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10[A] (2015). . . .

STANEK, v. ST. CHARLES COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 783 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2015)

. . . student’s parents” under IDEA “transfer to the student” except in limited circumstances. 105 ILCS 5/14-6.10 . . . by the adult child of a Delegation of Rights, the form which is prescribed by statute. 105 ILCS 5/14-6.10 . . .

ATELIERS DE LA HAUTE- GARONNE S. A. S. v. BROETJE AUTOMATION- USA INC. Br GMBH, 85 F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Del. 2015)

. . . (See also D.I. 415 at 48 (Jury Instr. 6.10) (“If the claims, read in light of the disclosure, reasonably . . .

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

. . . The Trustee claims that section 6.10 of the Indenture (“Rights and Remedies Cumulative”), which states . . .

SANDISK CORPORATION, v. SK HYNIX INC., 84 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . . § 6.10. The arbitration clause further provides that arbitration will take place in [Redacted]. . . . The arbitration clause in the Patent Cross License Agreement provides that [Redacted] PCLA § 6.10. . . . conceivable that the instant dispute [Redacted] the Patent Cross License .Agreement [Redacted] PCLA § 6.10 . . . See PCLA § 6.10 (arbitration clause providing that [Redacted] related to the agreement [Redacted] will . . .

POPE v. COUNTY OF ALBANY, 94 F. Supp. 3d 302 (N.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Hispanic VAP Combined VAP 2 49.16% 8.47% 57.63% 3 51.16% 5.16% 56.37% 4 54.16% 5.27% 59.43% 5 52.3% 6.10% . . . Hispanic VAP Combined VAP 2 54.03% 7.88% 61.91% 3 53.91% 6.12% 60.03% 4 51.22% 4.34% 55.56% 5 57.72% 6.10% . . .

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY- EAST v. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, 88 F. Supp. 3d 615 (E.D. La. 2015)

. . . Id. at ¶ 6.10. . See, e.g., Rec. Doc. 1 at ¶ 1.3; ¶ 22. . . . .

CORBELLO, v. DeVITO, J. S. DSHT, FKA JB LP S. v. J. S. DSHT, JB LP S., 777 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . 1084 (N.D.Cal.2012) (citing III Goldstein on Copyright § 15.5 (3d ed.2011); 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10 . . .

MERITAGE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC. v. FNBN- RESCON I, LLC N. A., 86 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (D. Nev. 2015)

. . . Interest Sale and Assignment Agreement § 9; Servicing Agreement § 11.09; see also Guaranty §§ 2(a)(i), 6.10 . . .

TRIAD PACKAGING, INCORPORATED v. SUPPLYONE, INCORPORATED, Co. PLLC, v. v. v., 597 F. App'x 734 (4th Cir. 2015)

. . . . • Section 6.10 required SupplyONE to use its best efforts to sell inventory and to collect accounts . . .

WAVERLEY VIEW INVESTORS, LLC v. UNITED STATES, 79 F. Supp. 3d 563 (D. Md. 2015)

. . . (Federal Facility Agreement § 6.10.) . . .

BROADCAST MUSIC, INC. ATV LLC, d. b. a ATV LLC, R- v. EVIE S TAVERN ELLENTON, INC. d. b. a s, 772 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . Nimmer and David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10[A][l]-[2][a] (Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed.) . . .

BELL, v. XEROX CORPORATION, M., 52 F. Supp. 3d 498 (W.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . The amendment stated: A new Section 6.10 shall be added to read in its entirety as follows: “Section . . . 6.10. . . .

SEAMON, v. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC,, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1198 (M.D. Ala. 2014)

. . . (Powell’s Report, at § 6.4; see also § 6.10.) In his report, Mr. . . .

In FMB BANCSHARES, INC. FMB v. CDO XII,, 517 B.R. 361 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2014)

. . . there is not a direct contractual relationship between Trapeza and FMB Holdco, Trapeza cites Section 6.10 . . . Likewise, Section 6.10(b) of the Amended Trust Agreement provides, For so long as any [TruPS] remain . . . Additionally, Trapeza properly notified FMB Holdco that it was exercising its rights under Section 6.10 . . . Amended Trust Agreement, § 6.10(b). .Indenture § 5.8, Amended Trust Agreement, § 6.10(b) (stating that . . .

WARRICK v. ROBERTS, II, UMG Of, 34 F. Supp. 3d 913 (N.D. Ill. 2014)

. . . constitutes an effective defense to an infringement action brought by another joint owner” (1 Nim-mer § 6.10 . . . purports to convey an "exclusive” license to a third party, as Shepherd did to ABC/Dunhill (see Nimmer § 6.10 . . .

GARCIA, v. GOOGLE, INC. a LLC, a K. J. M., 766 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . See 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10[A][l][a], at 6-36 (''[A] joint owner may exploit the work himself, without . . .

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA UAW v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., 300 F.R.D. 323 (E.D. Mich. 2014)

. . . Restatement Third of Agency, § 6.10; see also Kaminskas, 51 Mich.App. at 47, 214 N.W.2d 331. . . .

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

. . . But in section 6.10(d)(ii) of the agreement, Sequent represented and warranted: “Except as otherwise . . . disclosed on Schedule 6.10(d) of Sequent Disclosure Schedule, there are no pending, or to the knowledge . . . And Sequent’s Disclosure Schedule 6.10(d) listed its “Claims Against Employee Benefit Plans” as “None . . . In subsection (d)(ii) of 6.10, Sequent represented that there were “no pending, or to the knowledge of . . . And Schedule 6.10(d) stated “none.” . . .

MARINO, v. USHER,, 22 F. Supp. 3d 437 (E.D. Pa. 2014)

. . . .”); 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10 (2003) (same); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. . . . necessarily non-exclusive, it follows that any such grant constitutes a non-exclusive license.”); id. at § 6.10 . . . joint author can grant only non-exclusive license without co-authors’ consent); 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10 . . .

EMBLAZE LTD. v. APPLE INC., 38 F. Supp. 3d 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . However, [Madisetti] also fails to take into account that certain audio compression schemes such as GSM 6.10 . . . In the case of GSM 6.10, the scheme generates 260 bits for every 20 milliseconds of speech. . . . (See, e.g., GSM 6.10 Specification, Ex. 9 at 6 & 10). . . . As detailed in the GSM 6.10 Specification, GSM 6.10 only provides for a single bit rate but software . . . The significance of operating at a fixed rate is that for GSM 6.10 or modified GSM encoding, dividing . . .

TRANSWEB, LLC, v. INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY, 16 F. Supp. 3d 385 (D.N.J. 2014)

. . . one year ago, Jones told him that he met Ogale for the first time in 1997 or 1998. (11/20/2012 Tr. at 6.10 . . .

TREE OF LIFE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, v. CITY OF UPPER ARLINGTON,, 16 F. Supp. 3d 883 (S.D. Ohio 2014)

. . . Additional standards for conditional uses are listed in Section 6.10. . . .

ROBERTS, v. HOWTON,, 13 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (D. Or. 2014)

. . . No DNA foreign to Jerri Williams was detected on the left hand fingernails (Exhibit 6.10). 4. . . .

GARCIA, v. GOOGLE, INC. a LLC, a K. J. M., 743 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . See 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10[A][l][a], at 6-36 ("[A] joint owner may exploit the work himself, without . . .

BROWNSTEIN, v. LINDSAY, 742 F.3d 55 (3d Cir. 2014)

. . . non-exclusive rights to the joint work without the consent of his co-author. 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10 . . . Id. § 6.10; see Davis, 505 F.3d at 100-01 (“A co-owner may grant a non-exclusive license to use the work . . . could only have assigned the rights to her own ownership interest in the LCID. 1 Nimmer on Copyright §§ 6.10 . . . nonexclusive license and does not negate the other coauthor’s ownership interest. . 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10 . . .

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

. . . See 110 Mass.Code Regs. 6.10(1). . . .

GIOSTA, v. MIDLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT, 542 F. App'x 523 (7th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 1415(m); 105 ILCS 5/14-6.10(b). . . .

GONZALEZ, s v. SEARS HOLDING COMPANY a k a s, 980 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.P.R. 2013)

. . . See ECF Nos. 35-1, ¶ 46; 51-1, ¶¶ 6.8-6.10, 48; 63-1, ¶¶ 6.8-6.10. . . . ECF Nos. 51-1, ¶ 6.10; 63-1, ¶ 6.10. . . .

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION FKA v. W. COREY, D. D R. H. G. O. G. Jr. D. FKA v. W. D. D R. H. G. O. G. Jr. D., 730 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . That 38.7% consisted of 6.10% oil recovered through gas-injection (“Gas Injection”), 1.3% oil recovered . . . Carbon Intensity Variance CA TEOR 14.8 18.89 8.07 -10.82 Gas Injection 1.3 12.75 8.07 -4.68 Water Flood 6.10 . . .

H SOLANO- MORETA, v. FIRST TRANSIT OF PR, INC., 964 F. Supp. 2d 214 (D.P.R. 2013)

. . . See id., ¶¶ 1.2, 3.1, 5.5, 6.6, 6.10. . . .

In COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION MORTGAGE- BACKED SECURITIES LITIGATION v., 943 F. Supp. 2d 1035 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . APA § 6.10. . . .

TRIAD PACKAGING, INC. S. v. SUPPLYONE, INC. v., 925 F. Supp. 2d 774 (W.D.N.C. 2013)

. . . (APA, Section 6.10). After numerous delays, the closing occurred on October 8, 2008. . . . “Best Efforts” Under Section 6.10 / Accounts Receivable & Inventory Section 2.7(b) of the APA requires . . . (APA, Section 6.10 at 36). . . . to Purchase Price, including whether SupplyOne utilized its “best efforts” for purposes of Section 6.10 . . . certain conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ performance, namely failure to satisfy Sections 2.7(a), 6.10 . . .

In PINNACLE AIRLINES CORP., 483 B.R. 381 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Super-Priority Debtor in Possession Credit Agreement ("DIP Financing Agreement”)), May 18, 2012, Annex G/Section 6.10 . . .

NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, v. LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN,, 906 F. Supp. 2d 791 (N.D. Ill. 2012)

. . . (Hospital Contract ¶ 6.10). . . . Paragraph 6.10(b) provides in relevant part that “First Health and the Contract Hospital agree to meet . . . (Hospital Contract ¶ 6.10(b)). . . . of Paragraph 6.10(b) also gave rise to a breach. . . . This permits the inference, at the very least, that failure to comply with Paragraph 6.10(b) is not a . . .

Dr. ALTSHULER v. ANIMAL HOSPITALS, LTD. d b a Dr., 901 F. Supp. 2d 269 (D. Mass. 2012)

. . . Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 6.10(5) (1993); see also 1 George E. . . . 1998); Robert Belton, Remedies in Employment Discrimination Law § 9.3 (1992); Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 6.10 . . .

TREE OF LIFE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, v. CITY OF UPPER ARLINGTON,, 888 F. Supp. 2d 883 (S.D. Ohio 2012)

. . . Additional standards for conditional uses are listed in Section 6.10. . . .

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION BOARD, v. RBS SECURITIES, INC. v. LLC, LLC,, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (D. Kan. 2012)

. . . Hicks, Civil Liabilities: Enforcement & Litigation Under the 1933 Act § 6.10[1], at 6-274 (1989)); see . . .

SIKKELEE, v. PRECISION AIRMOTIVE, CORPORATION,, 876 F. Supp. 2d 479 (M.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . (Doc. 234-4, ¶¶ 5.0, 6.10-.13). William R. . . . (Doc. 234-4, ¶¶ 5.0, 6.10 — .13). William R. . . . (See, e.g., Doc. 234-4, ¶¶ 5.0, 6.10 — .13; Doc. 234-5, p. 24; Doc. 234-6, pp. 15-16, 34). . . .

UNITED STATES v. FULKS,, 683 F.3d 512 (4th Cir. 2012)

. . . composite rating in parentheses, were Lisa Harvey (6.90), Richard Goehring (6.48), and Sylvia Allison (6.10 . . .

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. W. DARRAGH,, 95 So. 3d 897 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . , Nationwide requested that the jury be instructed as to this issue using Standard Jury Instruction 6.10 . . .

In K. BUTLER,, 472 B.R. 786 (Bank. W.D. Wis. 2012)

. . . Partnership Agreement, § 6.10(b). . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. PRODUCTS LIABILITY, 91 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 2012)

. . . and-physical condition, before and after-the-injury, — in—determining the probable length of his life. [6.10 . . . and-physical condition, before and after the injury, in determining the probable length of his-life, [6.10 . . .

SNC- LAVALIN AMERICA, INC. v. ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS, INC., 858 F. Supp. 2d 620 (W.D. Va. 2012)

. . . ATK also cites § 6.10 of the fire protection report prepared by Brooks, which confirms that “NFPA 101 . . . (Def.’s Trial Ex. 90 at § 6.10.) . . . Section 6.10 of the report states that “NFPA 101 requires a fire alarm system with voice communication . . . (Def.’s Trial Ex. 90 at § 6.10.) . . .

In CENTURY CITY DOCTORS HOSPITAL, LLC, K. v., 466 B.R. 1 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . AltmaN (“LubaRoff & Altman”), Lubaroff & Altman on Delaware Limited PARTNERSHIPS § 6.10 at 6-26 (2011 . . . Lubaroff & Altman, LubaRoff & Altman on Delaware Limited Partnership § 6.10 at 6-25 to 6-26 (2011 Supp . . . LubaRoff & Altman, Lu-baROFf & Altman on Delaware Limited Partnerships § 6.10 at 6-25 (2011 Supp.). . . .

In SUFFOLK REGIONAL OFFTRACK BETTING CORP. d b a OTB,, 462 B.R. 397 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . subject to liability to the third party for breach of the agent’s warranty of authority as stated in § 6.10 . . .

CORBELLO, v. DeVITO, 832 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Nev. 2011)

. . . . § 6.10[A][l][a] (citing Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630 (9th Cir.1984)). . . . Id. § 6.10[A][l][b] (citing 17 U.S.C. § 501(b)). . . . Id. § 6.10[A][2][c]. . . . See id. § 6.10[A][2][c]-[d]. . . . See 1 Nimmer & Nimmer, supra, § 6.10[A][2][c]-[d], . . . .

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. v. DDB WORLDWIDE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC., 812 F. Supp. 2d 650 (D.N.J. 2011)

. . . LLC (In re Nickels Midway Pier), 372 B.R. 218, 222 (D.N.J.2007); see also 2-6 Corbin on Contracts § 6.10 . . . conceptual differences between termination of a contact and breach of a contract); 2-6 Corbin on Contracts § 6.10 . . .

AMBASE CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES,, 100 Fed. Cl. 548 (Fed. Cl. 2011)

. . . result of the breach, Carteret shrank its total assets by almost $1.1 billion, from $7.17 billion to $6.10 . . .

BROWNMARK FILMS, LLC, v. COMEDY PARTNERS, MTV LLC,, 800 F. Supp. 2d 991 (E.D. Wis. 2011)

. . . See 1-6 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10[A][2][d] (“[A] grant ... that characterizes itself as exclusive, should . . . determination of whether a grant is exclusive or nonexclusive depends on the grant.” 1-6 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10 . . .

In DREIER LLP, M. LLP, v. LLC,, 452 B.R. 391 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . The RestatemeNt (ThiRd) of Agency § 6.10 provides that: A person who purports to make a contract, representation . . . Id. § 6.10. . . .

In NATIONAL JOCKEY CLUB, DII LLC v. III,, 451 B.R. 825 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2011)

. . . The board resolution may have bound the Board and HNL, see Operating Agreement ¶¶ 3.1 & 6.10, but it . . . Operating Agreement, ¶ 6.10. . . .

In BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES, INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND ERISA LITIGATION. To, 763 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . Furthermore, pursuant to § 6.10, if shareholders had rejected the acquisition, the Company would have . . .

PEREZ, v. CATE G. Jr., 632 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . Courts, supra, at 6.10. . . .

KIM- LLC, v. VALENT BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION,, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . Respondent’s Exs. 6.9 (under “Ruling On Issue 5”), 6.10 (under “Ruling On Issue 9”). 2010 Arbitration . . . See Respondent’s Exs. 6.10. . . . Respondent’s Ex. 6.10 (emphasis added). The use of "either or” creates limited options. . . .

COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE, LLC v. BRIAN MOSES REALTY, INC., 752 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D.N.H. 2010)

. . . . ¶ 6.10. . . .

D. HETTINGER, v. KLEINMAN,, 733 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.10 cmt. b (2006) (stating that the better rule is to award the benefit . . .

In BASHAS INC. s, LLC,, 437 B.R. 874 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010)

. . . 4,800,000.00 06/22/05 Aug. 28, 2016 6.27% 13,360,000.00 Mar. 31, 2014 5.75% 8,300,000.00 Sept. 27, 2017 6.10% . . .