The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 7.18

7.18 Flagler County.—The boundary lines of Flagler County are as follows: Beginning on the township line between townships nine and ten south at a point directly north of Summer Haven; thence southwesterly to the mouth of Pellicer’s Creek; thence westerly along the middle of Pellicer’s Creek to a point where said creek intersects the range line between ranges twenty-nine and thirty east; thence south on said range line to the southeast corner of section thirteen, township ten south, range twenty-nine east; thence west on the south boundary of said section thirteen and other sections to the range line between ranges twenty-seven and twenty-eight east; thence south on said range line to the township line between townships eleven and twelve south; thence south and easterly through the middle of Crescent Lake crossing Bear Island on a line easterly of and parallel to the west line of section nineteen, township twelve south, range twenty-eight east, said line being ten thousand two hundred eighty feet easterly, measured at right angles from said west line of section nineteen, which line crosses approximately in the center of Bear Island, then continuing south and easterly through the middle of said lake to the mouth of Haw Creek; thence due east to a point where said creek is intersected by the range line between ranges twenty-eight and twenty-nine east; thence south on said range line to the southwest corner of section nineteen, township fourteen south, range twenty-nine east; thence east on the south line of said section nineteen and other sections to the southeast corner of section twenty-two, township fourteen south, range thirty-one east; thence north on the east line of said section twenty-two and other sections to the township line between townships twelve and thirteen south; thence east on said township line to a point where same is intersected by the King’s Road; thence northerly along said King’s Road to a point where the line dividing the Bulow and Ormond Grants intersects said road; thence along the said line between the said two grants in a northeasterly direction across Bulow Creek; thence following a continuance of this line, being the line dividing the lots seven and eight of the subdivision of the Bulow Grant, to the intersection with the Haulover or Smith Creek; thence along said Haulover or Smith Creek to the intersection of the line running east between sections thirty and thirty-one, and twenty-nine and thirty-two, township twelve south, range thirty-two east; thence along said line to the Atlantic Coast; thence northerly along the shore of the Atlantic Ocean, including the waters of said ocean within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, to the point of beginning.

History.—s. 1, ch. 7399, 1917; RGS 36; CGL 38; s. 1, ch. 59-488.

F.S. 7.18 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.18 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.18

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.18

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.18.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY v. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP, 389 F. Supp. 3d 794 (C.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . the Primary Policy insurers contributed $1,256,553 above the Primary Policy limits, or approximately 7.18% . . .

. . . VA-GI-5922; 7.18 Acres of Land, Owned by Michael Edward Slayton, Trustee or Margaret McGraw Slayton, . . .

UNITED STATES v. R. M. PACKER COMPANY, INC. v. Co., 355 F. Supp. 3d 66 (D. Mass. 2018)

. . . . § 7.18(20)(g). . . . . § 7.18(20)(a)(1) ; D. 41-2 ¶ 21; D. 44-3 ¶ 21. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ZAPATA- CORTINAS, 351 F. Supp. 3d 1006 (W.D. Tex. 2018)

. . . Fernandez , No. 7.18-CR-11-BO-1, 2018 WL 4976804 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2018). . . .

SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION, v. CITIZENS EQUITY FIRST CREDIT UNION,, 325 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2018)

. . . As of March 31, 2018, CEFCU's California members account for about 7.18% of CEFCU's total deposits and . . .

L. SHORTER, v. D. BACA D., 895 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2018)

. . . . §§ 7.15, 7.18 & comm.(f) (2017 ed.). . . .

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR BIENNIAL PETITION, 234 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2017)

. . . Next, we have made several amendments to Bar Rule 4-7.18 (Direct Contact with Prospective Clients). . . . RULE 4-7.18 DIRECT CONTACT WITH PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS (a) Solicitation. . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. DOPAZO, III,, 232 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2017)

. . . The referee recommends that Dopazo be found guilty of violating Bar Rule 4-7.18 (Direct Contact with . . . ANALYSIS Dopazo challenges the referee’s recommendation that he be found guilty of violating Bar Rule 4-7.18 . . . over Dopazo’s testimony and found that Dopazo directly solicited Jones, in violation of Bar Rule 4-7.18 . . .

A. LERNER, v. NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS,, 273 F. Supp. 3d 573 (D. Md. 2017)

. . . Subsequently, “shares of NW Bio common stock dropped to $7.18 on June 29, 2014, a decline of $1.79 from . . .

IN RE CFB LIQUIDATING CORPORATION, f k a Co. A. CFB WFB v., 561 B.R. 500 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2016)

. . . the Trust, has disbursed $7 million through the 20% pro rata payment and still holds approximately $7.18 . . .

FAKHRI, v. MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL HOTELS, INC., 201 F. Supp. 3d 696 (D. Md. 2016)

. . . As indicated, although the ICC tribunal in Jnah 2 ruled in Jnah’s favor and awarded it $7.18 million . . .

R. TAYLOR, v. CARDIOLOGY CLINIC, INC., 195 F. Supp. 3d 865 (W.D. Va. 2016)

. . . “Lori Dixon” appears, scheduled for Monday from 9:54 a.m. to 5:05 p.m. with a total of 7.18 hours in . . .

LAWSON, v. UNION COUNTY CLERK OF COURT, F. F. a k a NYU, 828 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 7.18, “Confidentiality in the Family Court,” http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/ clerkOfCourtManual/ . . . chapter=7#7.18. . . .

IN RE CHICORA LIFE CENTER, LC, s LC, s v. UCF a s, 553 B.R. 61 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2016)

. . . UCF asserts that section 7.18(c)(ii) of the Loan Agreement identifies and describes several events which . . .

IN RE CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT OPERATING CO. INC., 562 B.R. 168 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2016)

. . . But section 7.18 cannot be read in isolation. . . . So when section 7.18 says on its face that the First Lien Creditors have no recourse “under any law,” . . . The Contract Documents Read Together But section 7.18 cannot be read by itself. . . . Under Wilmington’s reading, section 7.18 would conflict with this provision. . . . Limiting section 7.18 this way reconciles the two provisions and gives effect to both. . . .

L. ROBERTS, II, v. GORDY,, 181 F. Supp. 3d 997 (S.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.18[D][1] (ed. 2015); Morris v. Bus. . . .

A. WICHANSKY, v. T. ZOWINE,, 150 F. Supp. 3d 1055 (D. Ariz. 2015)

. . . Law; Inst., Principles of Corporate Governance § 7.18 (1994)). Nominal damages will not suffice. . . . Law Inst., Principles of Corporate Governance § 7.18(a). . . .

CAMP, v. CITY OF PELHAM,, 625 F. App'x 422 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . City of Pelham Civil Service Law §§ 7.11-.12, 7.18, Doc. . . . month depending on the length of their service, id. § 7.12, and one day of sick leave per month, id. § 7.18 . . . See, e.g., id. § 7.18 (“Sick leave shall be earned at the rate of one (1) work day for each month of . . . Civil Service Law §§ 7.18, 7.19 (emphasis added). . . . We acknowledge that the City’s current interpretation of a firefighter’s “day” for purposes of § 7.18 . . .

DEL ROSARIO, v. LABOR READY SOUTHEAST, INC. MDT LLC,, 124 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . $124.64) by the number of hours he actually worked (17.35) is less than the applicable minimum wage ($7.18 . . .

MOODY, v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA, D. W., 93 F. Supp. 3d 516 (E.D. Va. 2015)

. . . Schwartz, Section 1983 Litigation Claims & Defenses § 7.18[B][1] (4th ed.2014). . . .

In NATIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC. R. v. In R. v. In D. v. In J. v., 510 B.R. 526 (E.D. Va. 2014)

. . . Lastly, section 7.18 discharged claims against NHF for activity occurring before the Plan’s effective . . .

MARIANO, v. GHARAI, SGA v. LLC,, 999 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . The Contract contains an arbitration agreement, which states: 7.18 ARBITRATION: Any Claim arising out . . .

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

. . . See ECF Nos. 35-1, ¶ 50; 51-1, ¶¶ 7.10, 7.18, 52; 63-1, ¶¶ 7.10, 7.18. . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR- SUBCHAPTER LAWYER ADVERTISING RULES, 108 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 2013)

. . . Advertisements); 4-7.16 (Presumptively Valid Content); 4-7.17 (Payment for Advertising and Promotion); 4-7.18 . . . Next, we address a concern expressed by commenters regarding the proposed requirement in new rules 4-7.18 . . . RULE 4-7.18 DIRECT CONTACT WITH PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS (a) Solicitation. . . . rule for compliance with the applicable provisions set forth in rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.15 and 4 — 7.18 . . . advertisements is limited to determination of facial compliance with rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.15 and 4-7.18 . . .

TANTOPIA FRANCHISING COMPANY, LLC v. WEST COAST TANS OF PA, LLC, TMA LLC, CTG LLC,, 918 F. Supp. 2d 407 (E.D. Pa. 2013)

. . . performing massage and anti-aging services at the Southampton Salon on the theory that under section 7.18 . . .

PURCHASE PARTNERS, LLC, v. CARVER FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, s Sr., 914 F. Supp. 2d 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . argument made by Carver that relates to all of the contract claims: that, under Sections 7.17(g) and 7.18 . . . Section 7.18 provides, in relevant part, that Carver shall not be held liable for any act or omission . . . (Id. § 7.18). . . . Carver’s reliance on Section 7.18 of the Participation Agreement is even more misplaced. . . . or omissions of third parties, let alone third-party negligence or third-party misconduct, Section 7.18 . . .

HILLSDALE ENVIRONMENTAL LOSS PREVENTION, INC. v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS L. A. Jr. BNSF, 702 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2012)

. . . But it also found BNSF would reroute 9,100 linear feet of streams, create 7.18 acres of wetlands, and . . . In addition, BNSF’s proposal includes a conservation corridor that will create 7.18 new acres of wetlands . . .

DYNALANTIC CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,, 885 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . controlled by individuals who had proven individual social disadvantage had risen to approximately 7.18 . . .

SOVERAIN SOFTWARE LLC, v. J. C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., 899 F. Supp. 2d 574 (E.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . Avon, however, determines the rate on a per-site basis: 7.18% for avon.com and 0.02% for youravon.com . . . Avon does not dispute the 0.02% rate for youravon.com, but argues that the 7.18% rate for avon. com is . . .

In L. SWENSON, v. BUSHMAN INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LTD. a DBSI LLC, a M. M. A. A. J., 870 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (D. Idaho 2012)

. . . The arbitration clause reads as follows: 7.18 Arbitration of Disputes. 7.18.1 All Claims Subject to Arbitration . . . Rather, under Aerojet and Kyocera, the key question is whether § 7.18 of the parties’ agreement (quoted . . .

PHELAN, PHELAN v. TORRES, St. s v. M. D. M. D., 843 F. Supp. 2d 259 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . Schwartz, supra, § 7.18[B][1], at 7-204; Reynolds v. . . .

McBRIDE, v. CAHOONE, 820 F. Supp. 2d 623 (E.D. Pa. 2011)

. . . G, Chapter 7.18). Judge Chad F. . . . Chapter 7.18 of the Delaware County Adult Probation and Parole Policy and Procedure Manual (the “Manual . . . The “authority” for Chapter 7.18 resides in the Director of APPS, a position currently held by Defendant . . . According to Chapter 7.18 of the Manual, violations of the EM Program include, but are not limited to . . . Additionally, Chapter 7.18 of Defendant APPS’ Policy and Procedure Manual explicitly recognizes that . . .

LEAWOOD BANCSHARES INC. LLC, v. ALESCO PREFERRED FUNDINGS X, LTD., 823 F. Supp. 2d 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . Section 7.18 of the Asset Contribution Agreement provides that Leawood shall redeem the TruPS prior to . . . See Asset Contribution Agreement § 7.18. . . . Section 7.18 of the [Asset Contribution Agreement] contains the requirement of the TruPS purchase/exchange . . . The Change of Control Application described the TruPS redemption and stated: Section 7.18 of the Asset . . .

COOK, LR, a v. CHILDREN S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,, 810 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . And within five hours of birth, LR developed a “severely acidotic” blood pH of 7.18. Id. . . . And within five hours of birth, LR developed a “severely acidotie” blood pH of 7.18. Id. . . .

UNITED STATES v. JORDAN,, 740 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (E.D. Wis. 2010)

. . . During the search of defendant’s home, officers found a baggie containing 7.18 grams of marijuana, a . . .

RAMIREZ, v. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC., 268 F.R.D. 627 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . percent was lower than that of similarly situated white borrowers (6.48 percent); Salazar’s APR of 7.18 . . .

K. BROYLES, v. TEXAS,, 643 F. Supp. 2d 894 (S.D. Tex. 2009)

. . . Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675 (1965); 2 McQuillin Municipal Corporations § 7.18 . . .

K. BROYLES, v. TEXAS,, 618 F. Supp. 2d 661 (S.D. Tex. 2009)

. . . owners are prohibited from voting is constitutionally acceptable.” 2 McQuillin Municipal Corporations § 7.18 . . .

UNITED FARM WORKERS v. L. CHAO, U. S., 593 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D.D.C. 2009)

. . . petition is pending, stated that he has been told that his wages may be cut from $9.70 per hour to $7.18 . . .

In HIGH VOLTAGE ENGINEERING CORPORATION,, 397 B.R. 579 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008)

. . . The Chapter 11 Trustee’s First Amended Plan of Liquidation at Section 7.18 provided the following: Any . . .

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF LARAMIE COUNTY d b a v. HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INCORPORATED,, 509 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . They turned out to be, as Healthcare Realty admitted, $7.18 per rentable square foot instead. . . .

B. J. HALL, v. WHITE, GETGEY, MEYER COMPANY, LPA,, 465 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2006)

. . . See Act of Apr. 23, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch.62, § 7.18(a), 1999 Tex. Gen. . . . § 304.003(c)) (governing post-judgment interest); Act of Apr. 23, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 62, § 7.18 . . .

INFORMATION SCIENCES CORP. v. UNITED STATES, d b a DEVIS, 73 Fed. Cl. 70 (Fed. Cl. 2006)

. . . to January 10 and February 6 be replaced "with the FBO System Transition Plan found in Attachment J.7.18 . . .

In ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 348 B.R. 136 (D. Del. 2006)

. . . .........................205 7.17 Cancellation of Existing Debt Securities......................206 7.18 . . . the terms and conditions set forth by the respective Indenture, other agreement, or applicable law. 7.18 . . .

BRANDAID MARKETING CORPORATION. v. S. S. v., 418 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . (JPTO ¶ 7.18; see also PX III — 5; DX 37.) . . .

SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE, v. U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,, 402 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C. 2005)

. . . . § 7.18. . . .

HOPKINS, v. GODFATHER S PIZZA, INC., 141 F. App'x 473 (7th Cir. 2005)

. . . Prior to his injury, Hopkins’ work hours had fluctuated from a low of 7.18 hours during the week of March . . .

COOK, ESTATE OF F. TESSIER, a v. SHERIFF OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA,, 402 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . to prevent jail hangings (which can occur in only 4 to 5 minutes; See Florida Model Jail Standards, 7.18 . . .

PFIZER, INC. v. STRYKER CORPORATION,, 348 F. Supp. 2d 131 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . transition period and thus breached covenants and warranties contained in Sections 5.9(a), 7.2 and 7.18 . . . its breach is excused on the theory that Pfizer breached its obligations in Sections 5.9(a), 7.2, and 7.18 . . . if its indemnification obligation is dependent upon Pfizer’s performance of Sections 5.9(a); 7.2 and 7.18 . . .

MADSEN, v. ASSOCIATED CHINO TEACHERS,, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2004)

. . . [PL Opp’n at 7.18-20.] . . . .

GALINDEZ, v. MILLER, 285 F. Supp. 2d 190 (D. Conn. 2003)

. . . Kirlin, Section 1983 Litigation § 7.18 (3rd ed. 1997 & Cum.Supp.2003-1). . . .

S. POWELL, v. FIRST REPUBLIC BANK,, 274 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Pa. 2003)

. . . terminate a derivative action, the Cuker court specifically adopted sections 7.02-7.10, and section 7.18 . . .

In CURRENCY CONVERSION FEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 265 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Ex. 2, § 7.18.) . . .

FLEENER, v. TRINITY BROADCASTING NETWORK,, 203 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (C.D. Cal. 2001)

. . . See Local Rule 7.18. See also School Dist. No. 1J v. . . . Rule 7.18 further provides that “[n]o motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral . . . See Local Rule 7.18. Rather, they focus on Local Rule 7.18(b)’s “emergence of new material facts.” . . . This Court concluded then that the arguments were improperly presented, and Local Rule 7.18 strongly . . . In effect, they argue, such a reading of Local Rule 7.18 acts as an unfair waiver. . . .

LZT FILLIUNG PARTNERSHIP, LLP, v. CODY BRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC., 117 F. Supp. 2d 745 (N.D. Ill. 2000)

. . . Nimmer, Copyright § 7.20[B] at 7-208/§ 7.18[C][1] at/ 7-201 (2000)(emphasis added). ’ 40. . . .

A. KRIEGER, v. E. GAST,, 122 F. Supp. 2d 836 (W.D. Mich. 2000)

. . . Schulman, et al., Michigan Corporation Laio & Practice § 7.18 at 275 (2000 supp.) . . . deliberate waste or corporate assets, or gross or palpable overreaching are involved.’ ” MCL & P § 7.18 . . .

DEWS, Co. v. TOWN OF SUNNYVALE, TEXAS,, 109 F. Supp. 2d 526 (N.D. Tex. 2000)

. . . use survey taken in January of 1965 and relied upon in the 1965 Comprehensive Plan showed that only 7.18% . . .

JACKSON, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 89 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2000)

. . . . § 866-7.18. . See Hartman v. Duffey, 88 F.3d 1232, 1235 (D.C.Cir.1996) (citation omitted). . . . .

v., 23 Ct. Int'l Trade 941 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999)

. . . Ltd. 8.25% Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works 7.18% RSI India Pvt. . . .

A. MURPHY, v. NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. NYRA Jr. NYRA NYRA M. V. Jr. H. Sr. M. R. S. Jr. L. E. P. A. F. J I. W. F. G. K. P. V., 76 F. Supp. 2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Schwartz, Section 1983 Litigation § 7.18, at 109 (noting that "[wjhen municipal liability is sought to . . .

In DOCTORS HEALTH, INC., 238 B.R. 594 (Bankr. D. Md. 1999)

. . . . § 7.18. . . .

In JENSEN,, 232 B.R. 118 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1999)

. . . Lundin, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy § 7.18, p. 7-23 (2d.Ed.1994). . . .

In BALDRIDGE,, 232 B.R. 394 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1999)

. . . Lundin, § 7.18, p. 7-21 (emphasis original). . . .

KOREN, v. MARTIN MARIETTA SERVICES, INC., 997 F. Supp. 196 (D.P.R. 1998)

. . . . §§ 1.1-1.9, 4.101-4.156, 4.187-4.191, 7.1-7.18, 8.2-8.9. . . . .

CRESWELL TRADING CO. INC. SOUTH BAY FOUNDRY D L Co. Co. P. RSI Co. R. B. Co. P. P. UMA Co. v. UNITED STATES, Co. Co. Co. U. S. Co., 964 F. Supp. 409 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)

. . . Agarwalla & Co. 7.41% 6.15% R.S.I. 7.18% 6.88% Serampore Industries Pvt. Ltd. . . .

Co. D L Co. Co. P. RSI Co. R. B. Co. P. P. Co. v. Co. Co. Co. U. S. Co., 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 487 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)

. . . Agarwalla & Co. 7.41% 6.15% R.S.I. 7.18% 6.88% Serampore Industries Pvt. . . .

LaCHANCE, v. NORTHEAST PUBLISHING, INC. d b a, 965 F. Supp. 177 (D. Mass. 1997)

. . . See also ADA Handbook, § 7.18 (2d ed.1990). . . .

PEREZ, v. PASADENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 958 F. Supp. 1196 (S.D. Tex. 1997)

. . . 2,105 994 247 149 65 47 3,607 1,998 584 534 264 214 3,594 1,243 250 129 1,731 TOTAL 45.10% 100% 61.29% 7.18% . . . Valdez received 7.18 percent of the total vote; 4.87 percent of the vote in Pasadena; 8.63 percent of . . .

W. GUTKNECHT, v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., 950 F. Supp. 667 (E.D. Pa. 1996)

. . . Eglit, Age Discrimination § 7.18, at 7-102 to 7-103 (2d ed. 1995)). . . .

D. GREENE, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., 98 F.3d 554 (10th Cir. 1996)

. . . Eglit, Age Discrimination § 7.18, at 7-102 to 7-103 (2d ed. 1995) (“This judicial position ... makes . . .

COOK v. CITY OF POMONA, a, 884 F. Supp. 1457 (C.D. Cal. 1995)

. . . by the court, the following schedule shall be observed for applications that comply with Local Rule 7.18 . . .

MEJIA- RUIZ, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,, 51 F.3d 358 (2d Cir. 1995)

. . . See 2 Davis, supra, § 7.18, at 88. . . .

MISSION POWER ENGINEERING COMPANY, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,, 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995)

. . . Local Rule 7.18. . Cf. United States v. . . .

CALMAR, INC. v. EMSON RESEARCH, INC., 850 F. Supp. 861 (C.D. Cal. 1994)

. . . On August 27, 1993, Calmar filed an Ex Parte Application Under Local Rule 7.18 to Lift the Stay of Proceedings . . .

CALMAR, INC. v. EMSON RESEARCH, INC., 838 F. Supp. 453 (C.D. Cal. 1993)

. . . On August 27, 1993, Calmar filed an Ex Parte Application Under Local Rule 7.18 to Lift the Stay of Proceedings . . .

WHITE, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PDB KMS B B NFL, 836 F. Supp. 1458 (D. Minn. 1993)

. . . amendments based on the contention that those amendments impermissibly restrict a greater number of players. 7.18 . . . White, 822 F.Supp. ¶ 7.18, at 1429. . . .

SAHA THAI STEEL PIPE CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 828 F. Supp. 57 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993)

. . . Consequently, Commerce published a separate 7.18 percent duty for all other producers and exporters. . . . As a result, the weighted-average net bounty or grant for all companies (including Saha) fell from 7.18 . . . DefendantIntervenor points out that Commerce itself conceded that its 7.18 percent “all other” rate issued . . .

Co. v. Co., 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 727 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993)

. . . Consequently, Commerce published a separate 7.18 percent duty for all other producers and exporters. . . . As a result, the weighted-average net bounty or grant for all companies (including Saha) fell from 7.18 . . . Defendant-Intervenor points out that Commerce itself conceded that its 7.18 percent “all other” rate . . .

E. JENSON, v. EVELETH TACONITE COMPANY,, 824 F. Supp. 847 (D. Minn. 1993)

. . . also presented evidence of the disparity between 1981 and 1992, the standard deviation of which was 7.18 . . .

WHITE, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PDB KMS B B NFL, 822 F. Supp. 1389 (D. Minn. 1993)

. . . Accordingly, the court rejects any objections concerning the proposed changes to the NFL Player Contract. 7.18 . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. ROMEO COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, 976 F.2d 985 (6th Cir. 1992)

. . . Romeo paid male temporary custodians the entry-level rate for permanent custodians which was between $7.18 . . .

T. DANIELSEN, v. BURNSIDE- OTT AVIATION TRAINING CENTER, INC., 941 F.2d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

. . . The greater portion of Part 7 of Title 29 of the C.F.R., §§ 7.1-7.8 and §§ 7.11-7.18, governs the procedure . . .

NEW CASTLE COUNTY v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, a a a a a a a a a a a a CNA, 933 F.2d 1162 (3d Cir. 1991)

. . . The County’s share of the total cleanup costs currently is estimated at $7.18 million. . . .

In WELLS, 125 B.R. 297 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1991)

. . . Bankr.N.D.Ala.1984); In re Stern, 70 B.R. 472 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987); II Lundin, Chapter 13 Practice, § 7.18 . . .

TRANSTECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, SPACE ORDNANCE SYSTEMS DIVISION, v. UNITED STATES,, 22 Cl. Ct. 349 (Cl. Ct. 1990)

. . . called for the production of 875,000 M206 infrared countermeasure aircraft flares at a unit price of $7.18 . . . Applying the original price of $7.18 to 71.59 percent of these and $7.82 to 28.41 percent, defendant’ . . .

EDWARDS, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 911 F.2d 1151 (5th Cir. 1990)

. . . Because Celotex was found 7.18% responsible for the damages, a judgment of $35,525.80 in compensatory . . .

In SHELTON,, 116 B.R. 453 (Bankr. D. Md. 1990)

. . . Lundin, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy § 7.18 (1990) (containing a scholarly explication of the issue). . . .

MIREE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, v. DOLE, AFL- CIO BCTD,, 730 F. Supp. 385 (N.D. Ala. 1990)

. . . . §§ 7.1 to 7.18 (1988). . . .

NEW CASTLE COUNTY, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY CNA, 725 F. Supp. 800 (D. Del. 1989)

. . . This percentage is currently estimated at $7.18 million. See D.I. 503 at 3.18. III. . . .

v., 93 T.C. 382 (T.C. 1989)

. . . annum in which, for contracts dated June 1, 1976, and after, the level interest rate was guaranteed at 7.18 . . .

In INTERMAGNETICS AMERICA, INC. Co. In ANAND, L. GUMPORT, Co. v. CHINA INTERNATIONAL TRUST AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION, a s, 101 B.R. 191 (C.D. Cal. 1989)

. . . Local R. 7.18 and 7.18.1 (dealing with the procedure for ex parte applications). . . .

KUNZ CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. v. UNITED STATES, 16 Cl. Ct. 431 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . Dec. 1984 6.54 7.18 7.66 8.38 9.01 9.09 1985 9.57 9.89 10.69 11.01 11.72 11.96 1986 12.13 11.48 12.20 . . .

In GENERAL MOTORS CLASS E STOCK BUYOUT SECURITIES LITIGATION, 694 F. Supp. 1119 (D. Del. 1988)

. . . The note also provided for a discount rate of 7.18% per six months for redemptions prior to the final . . . applied to the discount of the redemption price: Date Redemption Price Discount Price Fall, 1991 $62.50 7.18% . . . Spring, 1991 58.01 7.18% Fall, 1990 53.84 7.18% Spring, 1990 49.97 7.18% Fall, 1989 46.38 7.18% ¶ 16 . . .

In UNITED CHURCH OF THE MINISTERS OF GOD, In HEIDNIK,, 84 B.R. 50 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1988)

. . . . § 180-7.18, a state law which provides a detailed procedure for distribution of moneys received by . . . or convicted person’s thoughts, feelings, opinions or emotions regarding such crime_” 71 P.S. § 180-7.18 . . . We have little doubt that the Objections by the D.A., based on 71 P.S. § 180-7.18, would have not proved . . . The Stipulation was far broader than 71 P.S. § 180-7.18(a). . . . The argument of the D.A. that P.S. § 180-7.18 barred the enforcement of the Stipulation appears misplaced . . .

UNITED STATES v. ITT CONSUMER FINANCIAL CORPORATION,, 816 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1987)

. . . (Fla.App.1967); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 258 (1971); 2 American Law of Property § 7.18 . . .

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF STATE OF NEW YORK, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, a DIVISION OF TENNECO, INC. v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Co. Co. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Co., 813 F.2d 448 (D.C. Cir. 1987)

. . . and concluded the overall dividend yield during the January 1980 through May 1982 period was between 7.18% . . . dividend yield during the 1982-83 period had increased to between 9.0% and 9.8% from its 1980-82 level of 7.18% . . . She concluded that because the spot dividend was within the 7.18% to 7.87% range of dividend yields used . . .

P. LEHNERT, S. E. C. R. D. v. FERRIS FACULTY ASSOCIATION- MEA- NEA, S. L. D. P. D. C. P. M. L., 643 F. Supp. 1306 (W.D. Mich. 1986)

. . . the instant case and for the 1981-1982 fiscal year is 3.4% of the ordinary MEA dues of $211.20, or $7.18 . . . shop service fees for 1981-1982, together with any interest earned on said amounts: FFA, $20.99; MEA, $7.18 . . . satisfaction of plaintiffs’ service fee obligations for the 1981-1982 fiscal year: FFA, $20.09; MEA, $7.18 . . .

UNITED STATES v. N. ROBERTSON, 638 F. Supp. 1202 (E.D. Va. 1986)

. . . claim to forfeited bail deposits and other forfeited assets); Pa.Stat. .Ann. tit. 71, §§ 180-7 to 180-7.18 . . .

GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, v. DAYCO CORPORATION,, 637 F. Supp. 765 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

. . . On the basis of the above, the actual cash value for the 4350 belt is $7.18. . . . The increase in the award to Dayco is calculated as follows: Shipment 1 119,056 X ($7.18 - $5.80) = $164,297.28 . . . Shipment 7 no change since it is in excess of the $1 million limit Shipment 11 32,640 x ($7.18 - $5.80 . . . ) = $45,043.20 Shipment 13 7,984 x ($7.18 - $5.80) = $11,017.92 Total Increase $220,358.40 . . . .

MECHMET, v. FOUR SEASONS HOTELS, LIMITED, a a d b a, 639 F. Supp. 330 (N.D. Ill. 1986)

. . . commence when employees are actually allowed to fully clean room after working function 2 6.48 6.68 6.93 7.18 . . .