The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 7.21

7.21 Gilchrist County.—The boundary lines of Gilchrist County are as follows: Beginning at a point where the range line between ranges sixteen and seventeen east, is intersected by the township line between townships ten and eleven south; thence west on the township line dividing townships ten and eleven south, to the range line dividing ranges fifteen and sixteen east; thence north on said range line to the northeast corner of section thirty-six, township ten south, range fifteen east; thence west to the northwest corner of said section thirty-six; thence north on the section line between sections twenty-five and twenty-six, township ten south, range fifteen east, one half mile, to the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of said section twenty-five; thence due west through the center of section twenty-six and other sections in township ten south, range fifteen east, to the range line dividing ranges fourteen and fifteen east; thence north on said range line one half mile to the northeast corner of section twenty-five, in township ten south, range fourteen east; thence due west on the north boundary line of said section twenty-five and other sections to the thread of the Suwannee River; thence northerly up the thread of the Suwannee River to the thread of the Santa Fe River; thence north and easterly up the thread of the said Santa Fe River to a point where the same is intersected by the range line dividing ranges sixteen and seventeen east; thence south on said range line to the place of beginning.

History.—s. 1, ch. 11371, 1925; CGL 78.

F.S. 7.21 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.21 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.21

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.21

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.21.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

O HARA, v. DIAGEO- GUINNESS, USA, INC., 370 F. Supp. 3d 204 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . . § 7.21. . . . label, but also of statements on the 'carton, case, or other covering of the container.' 27 C.F.R. § 7.21 . . . on the 'carton, case, or other covering of the container.' " Docket No. 35 at 41 (citing 27 C.F.R. § 7.21 . . . ). 27 C.F.R. § 7.21 is written in the disjunctive. . . . See 27 C.F.R. § 7.21 (emphasis added). . . .

BHASKER, v. KEMPER CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 361 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (D.N.M. 2019)

. . . 202 (2d Cir. 2008) ; In re Hydrogen Peroxide Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 318-20 (3d Cir. 2008) ; Newberg § 7.21 . . .

BEY, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,, 341 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018)

. . . WMATA added that "Metro Policy Instruction 7.21/4, Drug and Alcohol Policy and Testing Program provides . . .

O HARA, v. DIAGEO- GUINNESS, USA, INC., 306 F. Supp. 3d 441 (D. Mass. 2018)

. . . Id. at § 7.21. . . . label, but also of statements on the "carton, case, or other covering of the container." 27 C.F.R. § 7.21 . . .

RIVERA, v. E. LYNCH,, 816 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2016)

. . . 803, 795 P.2d 1260 (Cal.1990) (explaining that California Jury Instruction—Criminal (“CALJIC”) No. 7.21 . . . elements are set forth in CALJIC No. 7.20) and perjurious, signed declarations (covered by CALJIC No. 7.21 . . . Compare CALJIC 7.20 (2005 Revision) (“Perjury Under ‘Oath’ ”) with CALJIC 7.21 (2005 Revision) (“Perjury . . .

IN RE OPUS EAST, LLC L. LLC, v. LLC, a A f b o f b o P. VII, L. P. VIII, L. P. P. LLC M. LLC LLC P. C. LLC LLC LLC LLC AE, 528 B.R. 30 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015)

. . . coming to this conclusion, though, the Johnson Court cited the second edition of Minnesota Practice § 7.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, s, 84 F. Supp. 3d 482 (W.D.N.C. 2015)

. . . See Williston on Contracts § 7.21 (Adequacy of consideration) (“[S]o long as the requirement of a bargained-for . . .

BIO- MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF AQUADILLA, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 119 Fed. Cl. 546 (Fed. Cl. 2014)

. . . . § 7.21” and "38 C.F.R. § 17.21”). . . . .

J. STEWART, v. BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC,, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1142 (M.D. Ala. 2014)

. . . Stewart cites Ala.Code § 10A-l-7.21(a), which provides that "[a] foreign entity transacting business . . .

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

. . . Section 7.21 required that any claims against NHF’s officers and directors, again including the Houk . . .

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, v. BROWN, v. CLECO E. Jr. H. Jr., 740 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . Treatise, Law of Obligations § 7.21 (Westlaw 2d ed.2013). . . .

DAVIS WETLANDS BANK, LLC, v. UNITED STATES,, 114 Fed. Cl. 113 (Fed. Cl. 2013)

. . . See Williston on Contracts § 7.21 (Adequacy of consideration) (”[S]o long as the requirement of a bargained-for . . .

In PERRY H. KOPLIK SONS, INC. S. H. v., 499 B.R. 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . arising from the Debtor’s “failure to meet the Single Customer Group Limitation set forth in Section 7.21 . . .

In JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, a v., 503 B.R. 849 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2013)

. . . SOP 90-7.21 sets forth that entering a bankruptcy reorganization ease does not ordinarily affect or change . . .

KELLY- BROWN v. WINFREY, Co. LLC, s FAS, ABC, 717 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 2013)

. . . (internal quotation marks omitted)); 1 McCarthy on Trademarks § 7.21 (“The fact that a slogan is used . . .

Dr. HARDIMAN, PC, v. UNITED STATES, 945 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D. Mass. 2013)

. . . Id. at 7.21. . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. SIMS,, 517 F. App'x 439 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . would have materially affected the bank’s capital ratio,” lowering that figure from a “satisfactory” 7.21 . . .

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

. . . -7.19 (Evaluation of Advertisements); 4-7.20 (Exemptions From the Filing and Review Requirement); 4-7.21 . . . communications: (1)the name of the lawyer or law firm subject to the requirements of this rule and rule 4-7.21 . . . RULE 4-7.21 FIRM NAMES AND LETTERHEAD (a) False, Misleading, or Deceptive Firm Names. . . .

J. HILL, v. J. ASTRUE,, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . to 20 hours a week, as a cashier/stocker at the Dollar Tree store in Great Falls, Montana, earning $7.21 . . .

In NATIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC., 478 B.R. 216 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2012)

. . . The releases, exculpation, and injunction provisions described in Sections 7.19, 7.20, and 7.21 of the . . . The Injunction Provisions of Section 7.21 are discussed last. I. . . . The Exculpation Provisions (Section 7.21). . . . Plan, §~ 7.19, 7.21. . . . The Court will not disturb the Exculpation Provisions of Section 7.21. III. . . .

J. HILL, v. J. ASTRUE,, 688 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . to 20 hours a week, as a cashier/stocker at the Dollar Tree store in Great Falls, Montana, earning $7.21 . . .

JOHNSON, v. DOLLAR GENERAL L. L. C., 880 F. Supp. 2d 967 (N.D. Iowa 2012)

. . . Perrit, Jr., Employee Dismissal Law and Practice § 7.21, at 54 (4th ed.1998)). . . .

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 105 Fed. Cl. 617 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

. . . Approximately $7.21 billion in erroneously collected excise taxes, however, has not been refunded. . . .

S. PETRI, v. UNITED STATES,, 104 Fed. Cl. 537 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

. . . See AFI 36-3212, ¶¶ 7.21-7.22. . . .

P. DeFAZIO, v. HOLLISTER, INC., 854 F. Supp. 2d 770 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . increase); 2000 (3.6% increase); 2001 (3.24% increase); 2002 (9.7% increase); 2003 (9.45% increase); 2005 (7.21% . . .

PIMENTEL, a v. DREYFUS,, 670 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . bill, which would eliminate FAP for the balance of the 2009-2011 fiscal term, saving an additional $7.21 . . .

WEINGARTEN REALTY INVESTORS, a v. A. MILLER,, 661 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . Section 7.21 of that agreement provided that any dispute “arising out of, in connection with, or relating . . . Limited Guarantee even if the Limited Guarantee is not a Loan Document, because the arbitration clause, ¶ 7.21 . . .

PARKWOOD ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a v. UNITED STATES,, 97 Fed. Cl. 809 (Fed. Cl. 2011)

. . . Corman, Limitations of Actions § 7.21, p. 488 (1991)). . . .

WILSON, Jr. v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 730 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D.D.C. 2010)

. . . . § 7.21(c)-(d); see also Thorn v. United States, Civ. . . .

REPUBLIC BANK OF CHICAGO, v. LIGHTHOUSE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. LLC, a N. XYZ, 829 F. Supp. 2d 766 (D. Minn. 2010)

. . . Republic funded those loans by advancing $7.21 million to First United. . . .

HALEBIAN, v. J. BERV, M. A. T. R. B. G. R. III,, 590 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2009)

. . . Law ch. 156D, § 7.21(a). . . . Id. § 7.21(b). . . . Laws ch. 156D, § 7.21(c). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. COLEMAN,, 584 F.3d 1121 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . the conspiracy, the Government needed to present evidence that the conspiracy involved an additional 7.21 . . . A reasonable jury could easily infer from this evidence that the conspiracy involved at least 7.21 grams . . .

v., 133 T.C. 136 (T.C. 2009)

. . . average payment rates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Avg. 1995 9.07 9.05 9.73 8.03 8.67 8.35 8.46 8.02 7.21 . . .

BEEKMAN, v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY,, 635 F. Supp. 2d 893 (N.D. Iowa 2009)

. . . Perrit, Jr., Employee Dismissal Law and Practice § 7.21, at 54 (4th ed. 1998)). . . .

DUGAR v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,, 565 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . Sometime in 2007, Gillespie’s wages at Family Dollar increased to $7.21/hour. . . . She currently earns $7.21/ hour, and her wages are expected to increase annually at 3.49%.2014 represents . . . this calculation must be performed using Gillespie’s actual Family Dollar wages of $6.50/hour and $7.21 . . . It appears that plaintiffs did not submit any pay stubs reflecting the $7.21/hour rate. Dr. . . . Robert Edelman, however, testified that Gillespie’s pay stub reflects a $7.21/hour rate, and the court . . .

UNITED STATES v. RAGINS,, 260 F. App'x 631 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . to distribute approximately 169.44 grams of cocaine base (Count One), distribution of approximately 7.21 . . .

THE FUND FOR ANIMALS, v. NORTON,, 512 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2007)

. . . . §§ 7.13(l)(3)(ii), 7.13(l)(4)(vii), 7.21(a)(3)(h), 7.21(a)(4)(vii), 7.22(g)(3)(ii). . . .

BEST VAN LINES, INC. v. WALKER,, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007)

. . . of Service record of 40% and a driver Out of Service record of 100% (national averages are 22.9% and 7.21% . . .

SHURKIN, On v. GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS INC. J. B. O Co. LLC,, 471 F. Supp. 2d 998 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

. . . Following the Release, the price of GSV stock rose from $7.21 per share, to $7.76 per share. . . .

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

. . . In furtherance of Section 7.21 of the Plan, AWI has disclosed the identities of those persons who will . . . Date, the board of directors of Reorganized AWI will consist of those persons identified in Exhibit “7.21 . . . against Reorganized AWI or Reorganized AWI’s assets, estate, properties, or interests in property. 7.21 . . . Each of the members of such Board of Directors shall be identified on Exhibit 7.21 to the Plan and shall . . . Agreement (attached) Exhibit 7.2: Individuals Appointed as Asbestos PI Trustees (attached) Exhibit 7.21 . . .

FUND FOR ANIMALS, v. NORTON, v., 390 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 2005)

. . . . §§ 7.13, 7.21, 7.22). . . .

GALLUP, INC. d b a v. KENEXA CORPORATION, 149 F. App'x 94 (3d Cir. 2005)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §§ 7.20[B], 7.21[A] (2005). . . . and formal requirements ... have been met.” 17 U.S.C. § 410(a); see also 2 Nimmer & Nimmer, supra, § 7.21 . . .

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

. . . (JPTO ¶ 7.21; Sloan Direct ¶ 316; Markus Direct ¶ 41.) . . . {See JPTO ¶ 7.21; Markus Direct ¶ 42; see also PX III — 13.) . . . {See JPTO ¶7.21; Markus Direct ¶ 42; see also PX III — 13.) . . .

Y. CHEIN, v. SHUMSKY, LA, 373 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2004)

. . . This standard is the one generally used by California trial courts, see CALJIC § 7.21 (1996 Revision) . . . CALJIC § 7.21 (1996 Revision). . . .

Co. v., 28 Ct. Int'l Trade 480 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . Plaintiffs identified a pig iron price of 9.12 Rupees/kg. (7.21 Rs/kg. excluding excise tax) based on . . .

SHANGHAI FOREIGN TRADE ENTERPRISES CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . Plaintiffs identified a pig iron price of 9.12 Rupees/kg. (7.21 Rs/kg. excluding excise tax) based on . . .

UNITED STATES v. KINCADE,, 345 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . Penal Code § 7.21 ("To 'book' signifies the recordation of an arrest in official police records, and . . .

GASTON, v. THE RESTAURANT COMPANY a k a d b a, 260 F. Supp. 2d 742 (N.D. Iowa 2003)

. . . Perrit, Jr., Employee Dismissal Law And Practice § 7.21, at 54 (4th ed.1998)). . . .

MILLER, v. WELLS DAIRY, INC. d b a, 252 F. Supp. 2d 799 (N.D. Iowa 2003)

. . . Perrit, Jr., Employee Dismissal Law And Practice § 7.21, at 54 (4th ed.1998)). . . .

NATIONAL COALITION FOR MARINE CONSERVATION, v. L. EVANS, s v. L. s A s v. L., 231 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . H134, at 7-63, Table 7.21. . . .

STROUGO, v. BASSINI, Dr. R. J. W. M., 282 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2002)

. . . Hanks, Jr., Maryland Corporations Law § 7.21(b), 270 (1990 & 2000 Suppl.) . . .

WHITE BUFFALO CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES,, 52 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2002)

. . . The parties could not agree on a price for the borrow, so the CO unilaterally gave plaintiff $7.21 per . . . Plaintiff again has not provided any actual proof of how the CO’s decision to award $7.21 per cubic yard . . .

BROWN, v. FARMLAND FOODS, INC., 178 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Iowa 2001)

. . . Perrit, Jr., Employee Dismissal Law and Practioe § 7.21, at 54 (4th ed.1998)). . . .

GFL ADVANTAGE FUND, LTD. a v. R. COLKITT, 272 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2001)

. . . of loan, principal for 18,726 shares at an average market price of $9,075 and a conversion price of $7.21 . . .

LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE SALOON, INC. v. W. ADAMS, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Kan. 2001)

. . . ); Green-light Capital, LLC (1,055,600 shares/ 4.23%); Chilton Investments, Inc. (1,800,-900 shares/7.21% . . .

BUCHHOLZ, v. ALDAYA W. O, 210 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2000)

. . . . §§ 7.21(b)(2), 7.25(b)(1); Krueger v. Lyng, 927 F.2d 1050, 1054 & n. 4 (8th Cir.1991). . . .

In HARNISCHFEGER INDUSTRIES, INC. v., 246 B.R. 421 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2000)

. . . Compare Bruno’s, 7.21 B.R. at 326 (noting that the movant failed to present evidence regarding whether . . .

REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK, v. HALES,, 75 F. Supp. 2d 300 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . agreed to pay Republic the loaned amount on December 4, 1997, together with interest in the amount of 7.21% . . . The June Swap also provided that Hales would pay 7.21% interest on the swap’s initial “notional” amount . . .

In CLAXTON, 239 B.R. 598 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1999)

. . . Containing a total of 7.21 acres more or less. . . .

BROWN, v. STONE,, 66 F. Supp. 2d 412 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . . §§ 7.21(b), 29.29; 14 NYCRR Part 524, and an independent agency charged with investigating incidents . . .

A. SWOPE, v. SIEGEL- ROBERT, INC., 74 F. Supp. 2d 876 (E.D. Mo. 1999)

. . . 1994, provide in § 7.22(a), Standards for Determining Fair Value: The fair value of shares under § 7.21 . . .

G. NOLEN, v. D. WEST, Jr., 12 Vet. App. 347 (Vet. App. 1999)

. . . 11, 1988) [hereinafter DVB Circular] (presently VA ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, M21-1, Part VI, ¶ 7.21 . . .

LIRIANO, v. HOBART CORPORATION, s h a, 170 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 1999)

. . . Hazard, Jr., & John Leubsdorf, Civil Procedure § 7.21, at 371 (4th ed.1992) (stating that the decline . . .

MILLER, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARM SERVICES AGENCY, USDA,, 143 F.3d 1413 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . . §§ 7.4, 7.21. . . . See 16 U.S.C. § 590h(b)(5)(E); 7 C.F.R. § 7.21(b)(2). . . .

D. NICHOLS, He R. v. CADLE COMPANY,, 139 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 1998)

. . . James & Hazard § 7.21, at 394, we too are unpersuaded. . . . Hazard, Civil Procedure § 7.21, at 391-95 (3d ed.1985). . . .

In CLEARLY CANADIAN SECURITIES LITIGATION. In BORLAND SECURITIES LITIGATION. v. C- VRW, v. C- VRW, 966 F. Supp. 930 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

. . . the thirteen other software stocks Torkelson examined in connection with this case rose an average of 7.21 . . .

MILLER, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARM SERVICES AGENCY,, 966 F. Supp. 1087 (N.D. Ala. 1997)

. . . . § 7.21(a). . . . committees was to employ a County Executive Director (“CED”). 16 U.S.C. § 590h(b)(5)(E); 7 C.F.R. § 7.21 . . .

MOORE, v. GLICKMAN, R., 113 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 7.21(b)(2). . . .

STROUGO, BRAZIL FUND, INC. v. SCUDDER, STEVENS CLARK, INC. STROUGO, v. PADEGS, R. Da A. Da D., 964 F. Supp. 783 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Hanks, Jr., Maryland Corporation Law § 7.21(b) (1990 & 1995-1 Suppl.) (collecting cases). . . . Hanks, Maryland Corporation Law, § 7.21[b] at 263-64. . . . Hanks, Maryland Corporation Law, § 7.21[e] at 269 (1994-1 Suppl.). . . . Hanks, Maryland Corporation Law, § 7.21[c] at 269, n. 173 (1994-1 Suppl.). . . . See Hanks, Maryland Corpora- tion Law, § 7.21[d]. . . .

RAPIDES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. AMERICAN UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 938 F. Supp. 380 (W.D. La. 1996)

. . . Only after this 7.21% deduction was made did AUL apply its annuity premium tables. . . .

MILWAUKEE BRANCH OF N. A. A. C. P. v. THOMPSON D. G. J. M. T. Jr. Jr. T. A., 935 F. Supp. 1419 (E.D. Wis. 1996)

. . . Defendant, the Milwaukee County Board of Election Commissioners, is the responsible agency under § 7.21 . . .

ROXBURY TAXPAYERS ALLIANCE, E. V. S. v. DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,, 80 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1996)

. . . ruled that the Moores lacked standing because they resided in a voting district, Middletown, that had 7.21% . . . With respect to the Moores, there is no dispute that them town has 7.21% of the County’s residents and . . .

Dr. T. REED, Sr. Dr. Dr. St. G. v. TOWN OF BABYLON, H. Jr. A. V. E., 914 F. Supp. 843 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . of Voters at Polls 1987 Town Board Contest 73% 1989 Town Board Contest 8.36% 1991 Town Board Contest 7.21% . . .

FABRICATION ENTERPRISES, INC. v. HYGENIC CORPORATION,, 64 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 1995)

. . . 56 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1080, 104 S.Ct. 1444, 79 L.Ed.2d 763 (1984); 2 McCarthy §§ 7.21 . . . [2], 7.21[3], 12. . . .

ROXBURY TAXPAYERS ALLIANCE, v. DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,, 886 F. Supp. 242 (N.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . Plaintiffs Susan Moore and Edward Moore are registered voters in the Town of Middle-town which has 7.21% . . .

OLIVER, v. RUSSELL CORPORATION,, 874 F. Supp. 367 (M.D. Ala. 1994)

. . . plaintiff to Plant number 7 where he began working as a print washer, a job with a top rate of pay of $7.21 . . .

M. AUSTIN, v. BROWN,, 6 Vet. App. 547 (Vet. App. 1994)

. . . , located in the BVA Manual, MBVA-1 (Appellate Procedure for Professional Services), Part II, para. 7.21 . . . (It is interesting to note that ¶ 7.21 of the MBVA-1, Part II, which was superseded by Memorandum No. . . .

C A CARBONE, INC. v. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, NEW YORK, 511 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1994)

. . . S. 349, 350, n. 1 (1951) (quoting General Ordinances of the City of Madison §7.21 (1949)). . . .

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

. . . on class members, therefore the court overrules as moot all objections to Proposed Amendment No. 5. 7.21 . . . See supra ¶¶ 6.4(f), 7.21. 7.26 The court also rejects the Eagles’ contention that the licensing payments . . . See While, 822 F.Supp. at 1429 n. 67, ¶¶ 7.21-7.27, at 1430-31. . . . . See White, 822 F.Supp. ¶7.21, at 1430 (questioning the plausibility of the Eagles' objections in light . . .

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

. . . Feb. 26, 1993). 7.21 In any event, the court questions the plausibility of the Eagles’ purported objections . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. LOUISIANA NETWORK, INC., 809 F. Supp. 1210 (M.D. La. 1992)

. . . Thus, her actual annual full time salary equates to $7.21 per hour. . . .

NATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC. v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D. U. S., 979 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 7.21 at 99 (2d ed. 1979) (“Since legislative rules when valid have . . .

DUSHAW, v. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC., 816 F. Supp. 1229 (N.D. Ohio 1992)

. . . $1,471.48, calculated as follows: Payments + 10% Time Period Payments interest 01/01/88-12/31/88 $ 7.21 . . .

DEFENDER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 809 F. Supp. 400 (D.S.C. 1992)

. . . E.g., Fleming James, Jr., Civil Procedure § 7.21, at 326 (1965); 6A James W. . . .

QUILTER, v. V. VOINOVICH,, 794 F. Supp. 695 (N.D. Ohio 1992)

. . . Lorain 2.47 271,126 21,230 7.83 274,909 19,813 7.21 0-1 10. . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS BISHOP ESTATE,, 780 F. Supp. 1317 (D. Haw. 1991)

. . . Winegar affidavit, exhibit 7.21 (“Ekalesia” syllabus). . . .

V. KRUEGER, Jr. v. E. LYNG, J. J. D., 927 F.2d 1050 (8th Cir. 1991)

. . . the county executive director [‘CED’] ... to serve at the pleasure of the county committee.” 7 CFR § 7.21 . . .

DCP FARMS, v. YEUTTER,, 761 F. Supp. 1269 (N.D. Miss. 1991)

. . . . § 7.21(a). . . .

TYLER, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,, 752 F. Supp. 32 (D. Me. 1990)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 7.21, at 98 (2d ed. 1979). . . .

STOKELY- VAN CAMP, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 21 Cl. Ct. 731 (Ct. Cl. 1990)

. . . Bittker & Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders, ¶7.21, at 7-47 (3d 1971) . . .

HEDMAN, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 915 F.2d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1990)

. . . . § 7.21(b)(2) (1990). . . .

In RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., 145 B.R. 412 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1990)

. . . In regard to paragraph 7.21(c) of the Plan, which provides in part that no entity shall be approved as . . . Section 7.21 of the Plan provides: (a) Disbursing Agent. . . .

In JOHNSON, ROLAND, v. JOHNSON,, 120 B.R. 461 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1990)

. . . The total amount of the judgment or $117,336.70 shall bear post judgment interest at the rate of 7.21% . . . The total amount of the judgment, $153,191.20, shall bear post judgment interest at the rate of 7.21% . . .

BROWN, By v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS,, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989)

. . . and five elementary schools fell below it (Crestview, 8.94%; Gage 9.43%; McCarter, 9.16%; McClure, 7.21% . . . 215 370 41.89 41.79 Lundgren 38 202 240 15.83 12.99 McCarter 35 347 382 9.16 9.20 McClure 23 296 319 7.21 . . .

FRANCOIS, v. OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH OF THE STATE BRONX PSYCHIATRIC CENTER,, 715 F. Supp. 69 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . Under Mental Hygiene Law 7.21(a) the executive directors of the facilities have the power to hire and . . .

SCHENLEY AFFILIATED BRANDS CORP. a v. MAR- SALLE, INC. a, 703 F. Supp. 744 (N.D. Ill. 1989)

. . . Elder, The Law of Suretyship, § 7.21 at 235 (5th Ed.1951). . . .

HEDMAN, v. UNITED STATES,, 15 Cl. Ct. 304 (Cl. Ct. 1988)

. . . . § 7.21(b); Publication 22-PM, Part 5, till 87 and 88. . . . This comports with the dictates at 7 C.F.R. § 7.21(b) (1984) which states that the County Committee may . . . to the “general direction and supervision” of the State Committee. 16 U.S.C. § 590h(b); 7 C.F.R. § 7.21 . . . This assertion is apparently pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 7.21(b) as well as to the provisions of Publication . . . ; (b) authority to select a County Executive Director to the County Committee, 7 C.F.R. § 7.21(b); and . . .

DRUHILL CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. RSH CONSTRUCTORS, INC., 518 So. 2d 951 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Florida Civil Practice Before Trial, § 7.21 (4th ed. 1983) (citing Hu v. . . .

J. HAMLET, v. UNITED STATES,, 14 Cl. Ct. 62 (Cl. Ct. 1988)

. . . employs the county executive director, who serves at the pleasure of the county committee, 7 CFR § 7.21 . . .

CHALMERS, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES,, 676 F. Supp. 1515 (C.D. Cal. 1987)

. . . to this case are as follows: Year Base Figure Interest Rate Cumulative Annual Total 1978 $ 2,026.16 7.21% . . .