Home
Jacksonville Location Phone Call/Texting Policy How do Fees Work?
Criminal Defense DUI Defense Foreclosure Defense Copyright Workers Compensation Attorney Jacksonville Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statutes Georgia Code Jacksonville Accident Attorney Real Estate Attorney Jacksonville Florida Criminal Lawyer Jacksonville Notary Public
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 7.05 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 7.05 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 7.05

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION
Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 7.05
7.05 Brevard County.—The boundary lines of Brevard County are as follows: Beginning in the thread of the St. Johns River where the line dividing townships twenty-one and twenty-two south, intersects said river; thence east on said township line to the range line dividing ranges thirty-three and thirty-four east; thence north on said range line to where the same intersects the line dividing townships nineteen and twenty south; thence east on said township line to the Atlantic Ocean; thence southward along the Atlantic coast, including the waters of the Atlantic Ocean within the jurisdiction of Florida, to the intersection with the centerline of the Sebastian Inlet produced eastwardly, said inlet being in section twenty of township thirty south range thirty-nine east; thence westerly on said centerline and continuing southwesterly along the centerline of the approach channel to said inlet from the Indian River to a point due east of the mouth of the St. Sebastian River; thence due west to the mouth of the St. Sebastian River; thence south along the thread of the St. Sebastian River and the thread of the south fork of the St. Sebastian River to a point where the line dividing townships thirty and thirty-one south intersects the thread of said south fork; thence west on said township line to the line dividing ranges thirty-four and thirty-five east; thence north on said range line to the northeast corner of township twenty-five south, range thirty-four east and the St. Johns River; thence northerly following the thread of said river to the point of beginning.
History.—s. 1, Mar. 14, 1844; s. 1, ch. 105, 1846; s. 1, ch. 290, 1849; s. 1, ch. 651, 1855; s. 1, ch. 1621, 1866; s. 2, ch. 1998, 1874; s. 1, ch. 3175, 1879; s. 1, ch. 3768, 1887; RS 50; ss. 1, 19, ch. 5567, 1905; GS 48; RGS 53; s. 1, ch. 10148, 1925; CGL 55; s. 1, ch. 59-486.

F.S. 7.05 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.05 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.05


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.05
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.05.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

AUGUSTIN, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 375 F. Supp. 3d 135 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . She specifically ruled out impairments under Listing 7.05, which includes sickle cell disease, and Listing . . .

FRANKFURT- TRUST INVESTMENT LUXEMBURG AG, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP., 336 F. Supp. 3d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . UTC revised its 2015 forecast downward from between $7.00 and $7.20 to $6.85 to $7.05 per share. . . .

GAMERO, v. KOODO SUSHI CORP. d b a, 328 F. Supp. 3d 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . Faillace are 7.05; to Ms. Gutierrez are 34.9; to Mr. Clark are 46.45; and to Ms. Santos are 24. 3. . . .

FIRST MIDWEST BANK, D. a v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a, 337 F. Supp. 3d 749 (N.D. Ill. 2018)

. . . $216,225.00 Gina DeBoni $500 7.40 $3,700.00 Debra Thomas $500 2788.25 $1,394,125.00 Michael Holden $425 7.05 . . .

IN RE TANGOE, INC. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION, 333 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D. Conn. 2018)

. . . The common stock dropped from $7.75 on March 7, 2016, to $7.05 on March 8, 2016. Id. . . . it had made errors in its financial statements, its "stock dropped from $7.75 on March 7, 2016, to $7.05 . . .

BRICKLAYERS TROWEL TRADES INTERNATIONAL PENSION FUND v. BARRON d b a, 317 F. Supp. 3d 157 (D.D.C. 2018)

. . . Plaintiffs estimate that $6.82 is owed each month for December 2016 and $7.05 per month for June, August . . .

PAUMA, a v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. a, 888 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2018)

. . . Yakima Tribal Court , 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir. 1986) ; see Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 7.05 . . .

FIXED INCOME SHARES SERIES M, v. CITIBANK N. A., 314 F. Supp. 3d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . (See Docket No. 154, Ex. 5.2, at § 7.05 ("In the event that any Mortgagor fails to make the first, second . . .

UTE INDIAN TRIBE a a a LLC, v. G. LAWRENCE, D., 875 F.3d 539 (10th Cir. 2017)

. . . See Cohen § 7.05[l][b], at 640 n.27 (“The sovereign immunity inquiry is solely concerned with whether . . .

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. BROOKWOOD, LLC,, 283 F. Supp. 3d 1153 (N.D. Ala. 2017)

. . . Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 7.05, at 460 (12th ed. 2004) ). Owens Ins. Co. v. . . .

QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, v. PEARSON, Ad FOR ESTATE OF A. COMENOUT, v. Ad A. R. Sr., 868 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 7.05[l][c], at 645 (Nell Jess-up Newton ed., 2012). . . .

STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. MURPHY, G. M. M. a G. M. M. a v., 260 F. Supp. 3d 497 (D.S.C. 2017)

. . . Both Williamson and Horning filed briefing that ignore the page restrictions set out in Local Rule 7.05 . . . Williamson then filed a 37 page reply brief, in violation of Local Rule 7.05(B)(2) which limits reply . . .

BENIHANA OF TOKYO, LLC, v. ANGELO, GORDON CO. L. P., 259 F. Supp. 3d 16 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . . § 7.05. . . . The provision to which the Complaint thus refers is ARA § 7.05, which, in full, provides: Section 7.05 . . . ARA § 7.05. . . . The answer is no, because the text of § 7.05 does not permit such a conclusion. . . . ARA § 7.05 (emphasis added). . . .

BRUGUIER, v. LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS St. R. v. L. D. F. St., 237 F. Supp. 3d 867 (W.D. Wis. 2017)

. . . See Cohen’s Handbook of Federal- Indian Law § 7.05 (2012 ed.) (summarizing case law), . . . .

CRUZ, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, P. O. s, 232 F. Supp. 3d 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . law enforcement officials at the Federal Express hub in Memphis, Tennessee, seized a package weighing 7.05 . . .

SOUTH CAROLINA, v. UNITED STATES Of Dr. Lt. G., 232 F. Supp. 3d 785 (D.S.C. 2017)

. . . R. 7.05 (see ECF Nos. 24, 39, 70), which the court granted each time (see ECF Nos. 26, 40, 71). . . . authorities, and signature blocks in memoranda are not counted toward the page totals listed in Local Rule 7.05 . . . R. 7.05(B) (listing portions of memoranda that do not count toward page total), and because Defendants . . .

MCNEIL, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 233 F. Supp. 3d 150 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . following hours billed before June 1, 2015 and reimbursed by reference to the 2014-2015 Laffey matrix: • 7.05 . . .

U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. T. D. BANK, N. A., 569 B.R. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . its entitlement to fees is underscored by section 9.04 of the Bond Indenture and sections 2.15 and 7.05 . . .

KOHLER, v. HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, 212 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . Compare Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 and Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05(1) (2006) with . . .

JACOBS, v. EXPERTS, INC., 212 F. Supp. 3d 55 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . Compare Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 and Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05(1) (2006) with . . .

MCCULLOUGH, v. HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, 212 F. Supp. 3d 131 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . Compare Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 and Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05(1) (2006) with . . .

ZAGAMI, v. HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, 212 F. Supp. 3d 185 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . Compare Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 and Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05(1) (2006) with . . .

RIDGELL, v. HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, 209 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . Compare Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 and Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05(1) (2006) with . . .

DELORENZO, v. HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, 207 F. Supp. 3d 26 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . Compare Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 and Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05(1) (2006) with . . .

VASQUEZ, v. EMPRESS AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., 835 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2016)

. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05; id. cmt. b. . . . .

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. ARRILLAGA- TORR NS, Jr., 212 F. Supp. 3d 312 (D.P.R. 2016)

. . . $6.22 Million (Docket No. 369 at p. 4; Docket No. 443 at p. 9), and Marat recovery to no more than $7.05 . . .

EDISON, v. UNITED STATES v., 822 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2016)

. . . Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 7.05 (2006). . . .

IN RE STAR GROUP COMMUNICATIONS, INC. J. v., 568 B.R. 616 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2016)

. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, § 7.05(l)(a), p. 636 (2005 ed.) (emphasis added)). . . . .

IN RE CREDO- LAWSON, a k a LLC, d b a a v., 546 B.R. 888 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2016)

. . . Hardy Gregory, Jr., Georgia Civil Practice, Ch. 7, § 7.05 (3rd ed. . . .

BLACKROCK CORE BOND PORTFOLIO, v. U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,, 165 F. Supp. 3d 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . For example, the Thornburg MST 2007-3 SSA contains the following provision: SECTION 7.05 Action Upon . . . X (TMST 2007-3 SSA) § 7.05; see also id. Exs. . . . G (TMST 2007-1 SSA) § 7.05; W (TMST 2007-2 SSA) § 7.05.) . . .

R. LLOYD, v. CVB FINANCIAL CORPORATION D. J. Jr., 811 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2016)

. . . Consistent with that analysis, CVB’s stock dropped only slightly on September 10, from $7.05 to a closing . . . By the next week the stock had risen above $7.05, and it never again fell below that price. . . .

INDYMAC BANK, F. S. B. FSB, v. ARYANA OLIVE GROVE LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC, a, 636 F. App'x 704 (9th Cir. 2016)

. . . In addition, § 7.05(c) of the loan agreement provides that “the [Bank] shall have no responsibility or . . .

A. MANDICH J. v. UNITED STATES,, 124 Fed. Cl. 209 (Fed. Cl. 2015)

. . . In Partnership Taxation, Willis, Pennell, Postlewaite, Thomas Reuters, 2015, ¶ 7.05, at 1, for example . . .

A. MANDICH J. v. UNITED STATES,, 124 Fed. Cl. 19 (Fed. Cl. 2015)

. . . In Partnership Taxation, Willis, Pennell, Postlewaite, Thomas Reuters, 2015, ¶7.05, at 1, for example . . .

IN RE ARCE RIVERSIDE, LLC, In LLC,, 538 B.R. 563 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . And Section 7.05(a) states that the parties to the agreement are the sole and exclusive beneficiaries . . .

M. BRAILSFORD, v. WATEREE COMMUNITY ACTION, INC. L. Jr., 135 F. Supp. 3d 433 (D.S.C. 2015)

. . . need consider only the cited materials” in deciding a motion for summary judgment); Local Civ.‘ Rule '7.05 . . .

REGAN, v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 131 F. Supp. 3d 541 (D.S.C. 2015)

. . . Rule 7.05(A)(4) (D.S.C.) ("A memorandum shall contain ... . . .

J. KORESKO, v. UNITED STATES, 123 F. Supp. 3d 654 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . (Trust § 4.6; Master Plan Document§ 7.05(f).) . . . (Trust§ 4.6; Master Plan Document§ 7.05(0; see also Master Plan Document§ 5.06.).” . . . 7.05(f); see also Master Plan Document! 5.06.).” . . . No. 609507 (Koresko’s Appellate Brief)(citing Master Trust, Sec. 7.05(f) and (g))). . . . B, ¶ 7.05(f) (Health and Welfare Benefit Plan Document)). See also DOL (09-cv-988), Doc. . . .

A. PEARCE, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC. a LLC, a, 116 F. Supp. 3d 948 (D. Neb. 2015)

. . . See § 7.05, Rest. '3d Agency § 7.08 cmt. b (emphasis supplied). . . .

BUCKHORN INC. v. ORBIS CORPORATION,, 618 F. App'x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. . . J.A. 94 § 7.05. . . .

PE A, v. GREFFET, 110 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (D.N.M. 2015)

. . . conduct, if that of the principal, would subject the principal to tort liability; or (b) as stated in § 7.05 . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05(1). . . .

CITY OF MARLBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS, v. WeCARE ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC,, 109 F. Supp. 3d 329 (D. Mass. 2015)

. . . Section 7.05 provides: Water, (a) During the Term, [WeCare] shall cause all water used by the Facility . . . {See Agreement at 5.07(b) (Leachate Control), 7.05(b)). . . . Section 7.05(a) provides that the City will provide WeCare with up to 3,000 gallons of potable water . . . See Agreement § 5.07(b), 7.05(b). . . .

HARDY, v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Jr. Jr., 88 F. Supp. 3d 852 (E.D. Wis. 2015)

. . . Compare (Docket #203 at 20-21) with Seventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions — Civil, §§ 7.05, 7.06. . . .

ATLANTIC MARINE FLORIDA, LLC, v. EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,, 775 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 7.05 (16th ed.2013). . . .

DAHLBERG, v. MCT TRANSPORTATION, LLC J. O, 571 F. App'x 641 (10th Cir. 2014)

. . . supervising, or otherwise controlling the agent.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. HORRY- GEORGETOWN TECHNICAL COLLEGE,, 26 F. Supp. 3d 519 (D.S.C. 2014)

. . . Kirkwood, 999 F.2d 86 (4th Cir.1993); Local Rules 7.04, 7.05, D.S.C. IV. DISCUSSION A. . . .

MICHIGAN, v. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY, 572 U.S. 782 (U.S. 2014)

. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 7.05[1][b], p. 643 (2012). . . .

In CARSON, v. R., 510 B.R. 627 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . Trainor, 556 F.2d 818, 819-820 (7th Cir.1977) (citing to 2-A Moore’s Federal Practice, para. 7.05, at . . .

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

. . . Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 [102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396] (1982). 7.05 Such discrimination by .Defendants . . . Compl. ¶¶ 7.01-7.05. . . .

C. HUFF, v. COMMISSIONER OF IRS, P. v. IRS, A. v. IRS,, 743 F.3d 790 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . Proc. 2006-23, § 7.05, 2006-1 Cum. Bull. 900, 906. . . .

WILLS v. RADIOSHACK CORPORATION,, 981 F. Supp. 2d 245 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . plus $20.00 of non-overtime premium pay, with a regular rate of $14.09 and four hours of overtime at $7.05 . . .

PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA v. G. NASH, XVII, F., 972 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (D.N.M. 2013)

. . . See Cohen's Handbook, § 7.05[l][c] at 643-44; C & L Enterprises, 532 U.S. at 423, 121 S.Ct. 1589 (Court . . .

LANGLEY, v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, d b a, 972 F. Supp. 2d 804 (D.S.C. 2013)

. . . Kirkwood, 999 F.2d 86 (4th Cir.1993); Local Rules 7.04, 7.05, D.S.C. IV. DISCUSSION A. . . .

GRIFFIN, v. HOLDER,, 972 F. Supp. 2d 827 (D.S.C. 2013)

. . . Kirkwood, 999 F.2d 86 (4th Cir.1993); Local Rules 7.04, 7.05, D.S.C. IV. DISCUSSION A. . . .

M. LEWIS, v. OMNI INDEMNITY COMPANY,, 970 F. Supp. 2d 437 (D.S.C. 2013)

. . . Kirkwood, 999 F.2d 86 (4th Cir.1993); Local Rules 7.04, 7.05, D.S.C. IY. DISCUSSION A. . . .

UNITED STATES v. LEE, a. k. a., 525 F. App'x 918 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . (E)(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Local Admiralty Rule 7.05 . . .

In LMR, LLC d b a, 496 B.R. 410 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2013)

. . . See Plan (dkt # 102, § 7.05(6)). B. . . .

J. MALMSTEEN, v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC. UMG, 940 F. Supp. 2d 123 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . are defined as “[n]ormal retail distribution channels, excluding sales of Records described in [§§ 7.05 . . .

MORANGELLI v. CHEMED CORPORATION, 922 F. Supp. 2d 278 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Bradley worked in Missouri where, at the time, the applicable minimum wage was $7.05. . . .

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

. . . Section 7.05 No Contravention of Requirements. . . .

MICHIGAN v. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY,, 695 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . See Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 7.05[l][b] (2005 ed. . . . See Cohen, swpra, at § 7.05[l][a] (2005 ed.). . . .

MICHIGAN v. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY,, 695 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . See Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 7.05[1][b] (2005 ed. . . . See Cohen, supra, at § 7.05[1][a] (2005 ed.). . . .

L. SOLIS, v. J. KORESKO, V,, 884 F. Supp. 2d 261 (E.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . Master Trust Agreement Whereas Cl., § 4.2 (GX 11); Plan Document § 7.05(a) (GX 14). . . . Bonney Aff. ¶¶ 11, 24 (July 16, 2009) (GX 17); Plan Document §§ 5.04, 7.05(a) (GX 14). . . . Plan Document § 7.05(g) (GX 14). . . . Plan Document § 7.05(g) (GX 14) (emphasis added). . . . Id. §§ 7.05(a), (f). . . .

SOMERLOTT, v. CHEROKEE NATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC. CND, L. L. C., 686 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir. 2012)

. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal' Indian Law § 7.05(l)(a) (2005 ed.) . . .

CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,, 875 F. Supp. 2d 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . income taxes” of $5 million and an increased projection of diluted earnings per share from a range of $7.05 . . .

STOUT STREET FUNDING LLC v. JOHNSON a k a, 873 F. Supp. 2d 632 (E.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . Plaintiff contends that in our application of the Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05, which deals with . . . The Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05 provides: A principal who conducts an activity through an agent . . .

TRINITY HOMES LLC LLC, v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 864 F. Supp. 2d 744 (S.D. Ind. 2012)

. . . Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 7.05, 546 (14th ed. 2008) (“[Cjourts have consistently . . .

INLAND MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION, v. CHIVAS RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC,, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Ill. 2012)

. . . distance of 9.93 feet to a point; THENCE North 46 degrees 02 minutes 28 seconds East for a distance of 7.05 . . .

EVERGLADES ECOLODGE AT BIG CYPRESS, LLC, v. SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA,, 836 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 7.05(l)(a). . . . .

DAVIS WINE COMPANY, a LLC, a v. VINA Y BODEGA ESTAMPA, S. A. a, 823 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (D. Or. 2011)

. . . ., 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139-40, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 864 (2009) (applying Restatement Third of Agency § 7.05 . . .

VANN, v. SALAZAR,, 883 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . constitute a clear waiver of tribal sovereign immunity, see Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 7.05 . . .

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. LAKE OF THE TORCHES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,, 658 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011)

. . . Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1046-47 (9th Cir.2006); Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law §§ 7.05 . . .

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. LAKE OF THE TORCHES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,, 658 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011)

. . . Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1046-47 (9th Cir.2006); Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law §§ 7.05 . . .

ZISS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, OHIO, 439 F. App'x 467 (6th Cir. 2011)

. . . In March 2005, Plaintiff purchased a 7.05 acre parcel of wooded land in Independence, Ohio (the “Property . . . Plaintiff alleges, in relevant part, as follows: On March 18, 2005, Plaintiff purchased an approximately 7.05 . . .

PYRAMID DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, INC. d b a HR, v. PROVIDENCE PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PACA, INC. v., 433 F. App'x 687 (10th Cir. 2011)

. . . Providence then loaned $7.05 million to its subsidiary pursuant to “surplus certificates.” Id. . . . The cancellation satisfied a $7.05 million debt owed by the subsidiary to Providence — $3.1 million of . . .

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION TRUST, v. THORNTON CONCRETE PUMPING, INC. a v. LLC, a d b a, 806 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (D. Nev. 2011)

. . . LV Justice Center 5/20/2009 6 $16.67 $ 100.02 $ 10.00 $ 7.05 $ 117.07 Pahrump Justice Center 8/31/2009 . . . LV Justice Center 5/20/2009 $16.67 $ 100.02 $ 10.00 $ 7.05 $ 117.07 Pahrump Justice Center 8/31/2009 . . . LV Justice Center 5/20/2009 6 $16.67 $ 100.02, $ 10.00 $ 7.05 $ 117.07 Pahrump Justice Center 8/31/2009 . . .

CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY v. STONEBRIDGE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,, 797 F. Supp. 2d 534 (E.D. Pa. 2011)

. . . See 1 Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 7.05 (Barry R. Ostrager & Thomas R. . . .

APILADO, v. NORTH AMERICAN GAY AMATEUR ATHLETIC ALLIANCE,, 792 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (W.D. Wash. 2011)

. . . Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ request to enjoin enforcement of Rule 7.05 . . . playing in the championship game when the commissioner of the Atlanta league filed a protest under Rule 7.05 . . . Rule 7.05 states that “[a] maximum of two Heterosexual players are permitted on a GSWS roster.” . . . The Softball Code also establishes a mechanism for enforcing rule 7.05: the protest hearing. . . . NA-GAAA’s next argument is that Rule 7.05 is protected by the First Amendment. . . .

ROSENZWEIG, v. MANVILLE,, 422 F. App'x 709 (10th Cir. 2011)

. . . if Policy Statement 126 can be read separately from the 1997 SPP, it is expressly supex'ceded by § 7.05 . . .

KEUM, v. VIRGIN AMERICA INC., 781 F. Supp. 2d 944 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . . § 7.05, comment d. . . .

ARMOUR OF AMERICA, v. UNITED STATES, v. LLC,, 96 Fed. Cl. 726 (Fed. Cl. 2011)

. . . 8/26/2004 Test No. 5 9/03/2004 2976 7.55 Test No. 6 9/24/2004 2940 7.08 Test No. 7 10/05/2004 2982 7.05 . . . /sq ft weight required (October 5, 2004 test results: 7.05 lbs. . . .

BREAKTHROUGH MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. v. CHUKCHANSI GOLD CASINO AND RESORT, 629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010)

. . . Cohen, Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law §§ 7.05, 21.02[2] (Nell Jessup Newton et al., eds., 2005 . . .

UNITED STATES v. REDZIC,, 627 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2010)

. . . See Model Jury Instructions, § 7.05, at 582. . . .

LEVITON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. UNIVERSAL SECURITY INSTRUMENTS, INC. USI v., 606 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 7.05; 4-11 id. § 11.03. . . .

In LUEDTKE, v., 429 B.R. 241 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2010)

. . . reads the final instructions to the jury, to-wit: Indiana Pattern Instruction Nos. 3.13, 1.17, 1.03, 7.05 . . . Court’s Final Jury Instruction number 7.05 “The burden is on the plaintiff in a civil action such as . . . instructions apparently filed on March 21, 2007: Courts Final Jury Instruction Number 3.13, 1.17, 1.03, 7.05 . . .

TROWBRIDGE J. N. T. a v. UNITED STATES, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Idaho 2010)

. . . Normal pH for a fetus is defined by a curve that goes down to about 7.05 on the bottom side and up to . . .

In WHITE, v., 429 B.R. 201 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . Davis was decided when the controlling statute was § 7.05 of the Texas Business Corporations Act. . . . Davis held that because § 7.05 allowed the appointment of a liquidating receiver, a court in equity could . . .

WACHOVIA BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. ENCAP GOLF HOLDINGS, LLC, v. LLC, v. LLC, II, SFT I,, 690 F. Supp. 2d 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . . § 7.05.) . . . (Id. §§ 7.05 and 7.06.) . . .

In GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC. A K v., 423 B.R. 716 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . The appellant argues that section 7.05 of the CSA imposes upon The Rouse Company and, pursuant to Section . . .

In COMSCAPE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., 423 B.R. 816 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2010)

. . . Other provisions of the Regulations that are relevant to this dispute include §§ 5.07, 7.04, 7.05 and . . . Sections 7.04 and 7.05 provides as follows: 7.04 Removal and Resignation. . . . Directors or to the Chief Executive Officer, President, if any, or Secretary of the Corporation.... 7.05 . . . These actions were consistent with §§ 7.04 and 7.05 of the Regulations. . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. NEWBURG CHIROPRACTIC, P. S. C. P. S. C., 683 F. Supp. 2d 502 (W.D. Ky. 2010)

. . . does not extend to licensing requirements. 1 Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 7.05 . . .

SKF USA INC. SKF S. A. SKF S. A. S. SKF SKF S. p. A. v. UNITED STATES,, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . assigned to plaintiffs of 11.09% on ball bearings from France, 4.15% on ball bearings from Germany, and 7.05% . . .

SKF USA SKF S. A. SKF S. A. S. SKF SKF S. p. A. v., 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1866 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . assigned to plaintiffs of 11.09% on ball bearings from France, 4.15% on ball bearings from Germany, and 7.05% . . .

A. PARKELL, v. SOUTH CAROLINA,, 687 F. Supp. 2d 576 (D.S.C. 2009)

. . . Kirkwood, 999 F.2d 86 (4th Cir.1993); Local Rules 7.04, 7.05, D.S.C. IV. DISCUSSION A. Standing 1. . . .

OWUSU, v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE,, 655 F. Supp. 2d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . On August 8, 2001 plaintiff overdrew his account by $208.39 but had only $7.05 in available credit. . . .

SMITH, v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., 662 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . This is very significant because pursuant to the CBA Chapter 7.05 D2b. the failure to timely respond . . . Extension of Time to Step 2 Grievance Pursuant to the CBA Chapter 7.05, the failure to timely respond . . . Similarly, Section 7.05 of the collective bargaining agreement defines the Grievance Procedure. . . . Section 7.05 .A. pertains to "a grievance involving the dismissal of any Regular or Term employee.” . . . In pertinent parts, Section 7.05.A. provides that paid Union representatives "designated by the Local . . .

SMITH, v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., 649 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . This is very significant because pursuant to the CBA Chapter 7.05 D2b. the failure to timely respond . . .

SOUTH CHERRY STREET, LLC, v. HENNESSEE GROUP LLC, A., 573 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2009)

. . . represented to South Cherry that Bayou Fund’s annual performance between 1997 and 2002 ranged from a 7.05% . . .

SHORES, v. STATE, 15 So. 3d 697 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . At the hearing, the parties agreed the proper sentencing guidelines range was 84.6 months (7.05 years . . .

UNITED STATES v. REDZIC,, 569 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . See Model Jury Instructions, § 7.05, at 582. . . .