The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . ."); see also supra n.2, Ginsberg and Martin on Bankruptcy § 15.07[C][2]. . . . Kelley, Ginsberg and Martin on Bankruptcy § 15.07[C][2], noting that "courts issued conflicting decisions . . . See, e.g. , supra n.2, Ginsberg and Martin on Bankruptcy § 15.07[C][2]. . . .
. . . years of coal mine employment and determined that the miner should have been credited with a total of 15.07 . . . Deducting 0.32 years from the 15.07 years of coal mine employment found by the administrative law judge . . . analytical framework, the administrative law judge determined that the miner should be credited with 15.07 . . .
. . . PLN's own exhibit shows that the percentage of problematic ads increased from 9.80% in 2009 to 15.07% . . .
. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 15.07[1][a] (2012) (“Cohen, Handbook”). . . .
. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal .Indian Law § 15.07[l][a] (2012) (“Cohen, Handbook”). . . .
. . . divided all cash compensation by the number of scheduled hours to reach an average regular rate of $15.07 . . .
. . . J.I. 15.07, 15.01(11); Haw. Rev. . . .
. . . .”); 1-15 Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law ¶ 15.07 (2012) (“Taking land into trust shields the . . .
. . . See ' Cohen’s Handbook § 15.07[l][b]; see also 25 U.S.C. § 465. . . . See 25 U.S.C. §§ 465, 1774f(c); Cohen’s Handbook § 15.03, 15.07[1]. . . .
. . . See Cohen’s Handbook § 15.07[l][b]; see also 25 U.S.C. § 465. . . .
. . . In 2014, (3)(Z )-prohibited advertisements averaged 15.07% of the publication. Id. . . .
. . . Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence § 15.07 (4th ed.2007). . . . .
. . . (ACAC ¶ 64) Plaintiffs allege that on December 10, 2012, Uni-Pixels’ share price closed at $15.07 per . . .
. . . The Lings’ home is located on a 4.69 acre tract of land, which is adjoined by a 15.07 acre tract of land . . . Jack Rabbit Lane separates the Lings’ property so that the 15.07 acre tract and the 4.69 acre tract are . . . In 1994, the Lings purchased the 15.07 acre tract and the 4.69 acre tract. • The 15.07 acre tract is . . . The McLaughlins request that the Court sustain their objection to the 15.07 acre tract and the 17.7 acre . . . The McLaughlins do not dispute the Lings’ contention that the 15.07 acre tract and the 4.69 acre tract . . .
. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 15.07[l][a], p. 1010 (2005 ed.) (hereinafter Cohen). . . .
. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 15.07[1][a], p. 1010 (2005 ed.) (hereinafter Cohen). . . .
. . . Kaplan, International Discovery in Antitrust Litigation § 15.07 in 2 Antitrust Counseling and Litigation . . .
. . . Saltzman, at ¶ 15.07; see also Internal Revenue Manual § 5.8.1.1.L These compromises conclusively settle . . .
. . . . § 293-A:15.07(l) (emphasis added), but it also may be simply the office of the company’s registered . . . agent, see id. § 293-A:15.07(2)(i). . . .
. . . See 1 Bornstein, supra § 15.07[2] (explaining that industrial double jeopardy “applies only to subsequent . . .
. . . Section 15.07. . . .
. . . Kaplan, International Discovery in Antitrust Litigation § 15.07 in 2 Antitrust Counseling and Litigation . . .
. . . . § 79-^1-15.07 (2001). . . .
. . . Saltzman, IRS Practice and Procedure ¶ 15.07[1], p. 15-47 (1981). . . .
. . . Saltzman, IRS Practice and Procedure ¶ 15.07[1], p. 15-47 (1981). . . .
. . . Stein et al., 3 Administrative Law, § 15.07[3] at 15-125-126 (1999) (discussing factors used to differentiate . . .
. . . Kaplan, International Discovery in Antitrust Litigation § 15.07 in 2 Antitrust Counseling and Litigation . . .
. . . policy of the Plan and determine the appropriate method of carrying out the Plan’s objectives. ' Article 15.07 . . .
. . . signed objections from the 1997 regular session to the Department of State, as he asserted section 15.07 . . . maintains possession of the remaining vetoed bills from the 1997 regular session in violation of section 15.07 . . . merit in petitioners’ claim that the Clerk’s continued holding of the vetoed bills violates section 15.07 . . . We do not interpret section 15.07 to require vetoed bills which were not taken up by the legislature . . . Section 15.07, Florida Statutes (1997) provides: All original acts and resolutions passed by the Legislature . . .
. . . LOW-ENFELS, BROMBERG AND LOWENFELS ON SECURITIES FRAUD & COMMODITIES FRAUD §§ 15.07(251), 15:179 (2d . . . Burke, 981 F.2d at 1379 (quoting duPont, 828 F.2d at 76); see also BROMBERG § 15.07(251), 15:179; cf. . . .
. . . Erwin, J.D., et al., Defense of Drunk Driving Cases, Sec. 15.07, 3d ed. (1993). . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal- Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1996). . . .
. . . NATURE OF THE CASE As stated in Saltzman, “IRS Practice and Procedure,” ¶ 15.07 [2][a] (2nd ed.1991): . . .
. . . “trustee” as a party in interest); accord Ginsberg & Martin, 2 Bankruptcy: Text, Statutes, Rules, § 15.07 . . .
. . . Childress & Davis, Federal Standards of Review, § 15.07 at 15-41 (2d ed. 1992) (citing Motor Vehicle . . .
. . . Larson, Employment Discrimination § 15.07, 15-50. See also, 2 Employment Discrimination, 34.04. . . .
. . . See Childress & Davis, Federal Standards of Review, § 15.07 at 15 — 41 (2d ed. 1992) (citing Motor Vehicles . . .
. . . Childress & Davis, Federal Standards of Review, § 15.07 at 15-41 (2d ed. 1992) (citing Motor Vehicle . . .
. . . Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 15.07 (Vernon Supp.1994). . . .
. . . such overhead was incurred for the full 288 day delay period claimed at a calculated daily rate of $15.07 . . .
. . . .) ¶ 15.07[2] at 851-52; 6 Charles A. . . .
. . . Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1992) (footnotes omitted); see also McDonald v. . . .
. . . Plan is not subject to ERISA, this court further concludes the restriction on transfer in paragraph 15.07 . . . Paragraph 15.07 of the Pension Plan provides “[n]o Participant or Beneficiary may assign, alienate, encumber . . . , anticipate or otherwise dispose of any benefits hereunder.... ” (Trustee’s Ex. 1, at ¶ 15.07.) . . . .
. . . of a given condition is left to the judgment of the agency); see generally, Childress and Davis, § 15.07 . . . See generally, Steven Childress & Martha Davis, Federal Standards of Review § 15.07 (2d ed. 1991). . . . .
. . . Porco, 289 F.Supp. 403, 408 (S.D.N.Y.1968); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.07 at 15-36 (2d ed.1987) . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1992) ("If the section 2255 movant asserts a claim . . .
. . . Franklin 8.77 961,437 152,840 15.9 2 869,126 131,016 15.07 1-1 3. . . .
. . . Stevenson & Co., Inc., 629 F.2d at 370 n. 68 (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.07(3)). . . .
. . . Rule 15.07(b)(1) provides: (b) It shall be the responsibility of the person seeking to affect the marital . . .
. . . See Fla.Admin.Code Rule 7D-15.07 (1985) (describing when the term “developer” shall include “successor . . .
. . . Trial .S3 Eh '-O *3 208.52 144.20 1,084.60 Xerox bo O 8.97 22.54 53.33 Telephone i — 1 O h-* 25.80 15.07 . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1989). . . .
. . . Gruff, Administrative Law § 15.07[3] (1988 & Supp.1990). . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Procedure ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1989). . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[3] (2d ed. 1989); Terukuni Kaiun Kaisha v. C.R. . . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1989). . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Procedure 1J 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1989) This court would have allowed Marra to amend . . .
. . . . § 15.07(1), 15.91 (1987). . . .
. . . , the Union cites paragraph 11.01 captioned RULES APPLICABLE TO LAYOFFS AND REHIRING, and paragraph 15.07 . . . In addition, paragraph 15.07 provides in part that [n]o outside driver shall be permitted to operate . . . Paragraph 15.07 LEASED OR HIRED EQUIPMENT: The Company may not lease or hire outside equipment to supplement . . .
. . . set forth above, as well as all actions filed in the Eastern Division pursuant to Rules 15.02 through 15.07 . . . Rule 15.07. United States as Defendant (Civil Actions). . . .
. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Instructions § 15.07, at 454-55 (3d ed. 1977). . . . .
. . . Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 15.07(2) at 15-38-39 (1971). . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2], at 15-33 to 15-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[3] (2d ed. 1985); McLellan v. . . .
. . . See also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.07[2], pp. 15-34 through 35 (2nd 1987). In Zaidi v. . . .
. . . Hall, 579 F.2d 120 (1st Cir.1978); Moore’s Federal Practice & Procedure ¶ 15.07[2]. . . .
. . . The parties stipulated that the restrictions on alienation contained in the Plan are as follows: 15.07 . . .
. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 15.07[2] (1985). . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice § 15.07[2]. . . .
. . . Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, for a determination of whether “proposed rules” 16Q-15.01 and 16Q-15.07 . . . published in the March 1, 1985, Florida Administrative Weekly, as proposed rules 16Q-15.01 and 16Q-15.07 . . . 31, 1985. (2) Leases of state-owned lands within the EAA are presently governed by existing Rule 16Q-15.07 . . . the March 1, 1985, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly as “proposed rules” 16Q-15.01 and 16Q-15.07 . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.07 [3] at 15-56—15-57 (1985) (“A conflict may often arise when . . .
. . . Moore, 3 Moore’s Federal Practice II 15.07[2] at 15-51 (1984). . . .
. . . methodology for defining “wetlands” not a substantive rule); Mezines, Stein and Gruff, Administrative Law, § 15.07 . . .
. . . McKee, Federal Taxation of Partnership and Partners, § 15.07[2] at 15-52 (1977). . . .
. . . Wicker, Moores Federal Practice ¶¶ 15.07[3], 41.06-1 (2nd ed. 1982). . . .
. . . University, 299 F.2d 368, 369-70 (4th Cir.1962); Wright & Miller, § 1483; Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07 . . . Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2]; Wright & Miller, § 1483. . . . See Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2]. . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1983). . . .
. . . Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1483 (1971 & Supp.1982); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[ . . .
. . . course claims asserted solely against the non-answering defendants, ...” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice H 15.07 . . .
. . . of improvements ($1 for clearing, $3.62 for fencing, and $2.50 for water) to obtain a net price of $15.07 . . . Plaintiffs’ appraiser found a net per acre price of $15.07 by the market comparison method, and a net . . .
. . . Percent Deviation from Statewide Average Basic Island Unit
46,451 15,484 - 3.90 Hawaii CO
37,079 18,540 + 15.07 . . . Voters Per Sen.
46,451 15,484 - 3.90 Hawaii CO h-1
37,079 18,540 + 15.07 Maui
. . . “frustrate the desire for certainty in the termination of litigation.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07 . . .
. . . See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] at 45-46. . . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[3] (2d ed. 1980) (most courts follow Rule 21 rather than Rule . . .
. . . Stat. 15.07; Fla. Stat. 27.37(6); Fla. Stat. 39.12(3); Fla. Stat. 39.411; Fla. Stat. 45.241; Fla. . . .
. . . See also 1A Collier on Bankruptcy 115.05-15.07 (14th ed. 1978). . . .
. . . See also 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 15.05-15.07 (14th ed. 1978). . . .
. . . Defendants’ motions to dismiss are not considered responsive pleadings. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07 . . .
. . . .) §§ 15.06, 15.07. The court’s instruction cannot be stretched into an adjudication of guilt. . . .
. . . Eustice, supra, 15.07, at 5-34. . . .
. . . Moore Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d Edition 1980); C. Wright & A. . . .
. . . See generally 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] at 15-54, ¶ 15.07[3], ¶ 15.08[5] (2 ed. 1980); 6 . . . See generally 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[3], at 15-58 (2 ed. 1980); 6 C. Wright & A. . . .
. . . Township of Bass River, 82 F.R.D. 122, 124-25 (D.N.J.1979); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2], at . . .
. . . .”); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra '' 15.07[3]. . . . .
. . . Bowhay, Income Taxation of Natural Resources, par. 15.07, p. 1507 (1980). Exxon Corp. . . .
. . . Bowhay, Income Taxation of Natural Resources, par. 15.07, p. 1507 (1980). . . .
. . . But see 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2], at 15-56 (2d ed. 1979) (“The right to amend a pleading . . .
. . . But see 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2], at 15-56 (2d ed. 1979) (“The right to amend a pleading . . .
. . . and plaintiff therefore was entitled to amend as a matter of course. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice Í, 15.07 . . .
. . . that a motion for summary judgment is not a “responsive pleading,” see 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07 . . .
. . . Appellants could have sought leave to amend if they had so moved, 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶15.07[2 . . .