The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . (arrested for asking for money outside of a Shop N Go); October 6, 2016, 15.18 at 30:42, R.W. . . .
. . . Payment filed February 9, 2017, increased Debtor’s confirmed plan payment of $3,565.00 retroactively by $15.18 . . .
. . . E [15.18]; Whitepages Listing, Ex. F [15.19]; Yellowpages Listing, Ex. G [15.20]). B. . . .
. . . Prac., Vested Remainder, § 15.18 ,(4th ed.), and 14C Mass. . . .
. . . Navistar’s stock price dropped. by $4.37 per share (15.18%) that day. . . .
. . . Northrop Grumman Corp., 399 F.3d 876, 878 (7th Cir.2005); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.18[1] (3d ed . . . unpleaded issues in order to render a decision consistent with the trial.” 3 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 15.18 . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.18[1] (3d ed. 2012). . . .
. . . declined $7.84 to close at $23.40 on October 3, 2008, and declined an additional $8.22 to close at $15.18 . . .
. . . .2010); In re Ruderson, 2007 WL 4570581, at *5 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2007); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d, § 15.18 . . .
. . . October 5, 2006, Longwell was hired by Creighton University as a full-time security officer, earning $15.18 . . .
. . . conform to the proof actually presented at trial by express or implied consent of the parties (see § 15.18 . . .
. . . Moore et al., Móore’s FedeRal PRACTICE, ¶ 15.18 (3d ed. 1997) (“[A court should be liberal in allowing . . .
. . . Hispanic population proportion in the County, he calculated high and low absolute disparity figures of 15.18% . . . The 15.18% figure is statistically significant for meeting the second prong of the Duren test. . . . deviations respecting the low, 10.73% absolute disparity figure, and 68 standard deviations for the high, 15.18% . . .
. . . . § 15.18[1]. Indeed, the question of whether Mr. . . .
. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, Civil § 15.18[1] (explaining that some courts find implied consent to . . .
. . . . §§ 15.11— 15.18. . . .
. . . Fisheries Council (RIMFC) duly implemented the latter provision of Amendment 3 as RIMFC Regulation 15.18 . . . In June 2000, over the strong objection of the Governor and the DEM, RIMFC repealed Regulation 15.18, . . . The Equal Protection Claim First, Medeiros claims that Amendment 3 and Regulation 15.18 violate the Equal . . . Regulation 15.18 was designed to ameliorate the unprecedented overfishing of Atlantic lobster stocks, . . . Amendment 3 and Regulation 15.18 reasonably “discriminate” by imposing “output controls” upon non-trap . . .
. . . communications do not relate to the claims involved in the litigation .... ” 3 Newberg on Class Actions § 15.18 . . .
. . . The Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council (“RIMFC”), through its enactment of Regulation 15.18, then . . . Regulation 15.18 was repealed by RIMFC in June 2000. Id., IF 13; Defs.’ . . . Regulation 15.18 provides: Landings of lobsters taken by gear or methods other than trap — Limits. . . . In Count I of his complaint, Medeiros contends that Amendment 3 and Regulation 15.18 are violative of . . . , Congress has impermissibly required the state to impose federal regulations, including Regulation 15.18 . . .
. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.18 (3d ed.1999). . . .
. . . Discount The minority interest discount factors determined above yield a weighted average discount of 15.18 . . . average R.E. partnerships 29.4 23.3 6.85 Real estate 3.3 40.0 1.32 Oil and gas 1.2 33.5 0.40 Discount 15.18 . . .
. . . 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996); see generally 3 Moore’s Federal Practice at § 15.18 . . .
. . . meant that when he worked ten 24-hour shifts his hourly rate for overtime was $15.74, averaging out to $15.18 . . . Potter when it paid him overtime as Shift Chief; instead, it paid him time-and-a-half at the $15.18 rate . . . divided by the average number of hours he worked in each bi-weekly period (160), thus arriving at a $15.18 . . . Fire Department corrected this error by paying him time-and-a-half for all overtime (based on the $15.18 . . .
. . . specified by the court to protect the rights of absent class members. 3 Newberg on Class Actions § 15.18 . . .
. . . Her book club expenses were listed as follows: $11.95 in March, $24.37 in April, $15.18 in June, $18.33 . . .
. . . the request [for admission] was properly served.” 2 Moore’s Manual: Federal Practice and Procedure § 15.18 . . .
. . . state discrimination laws,” id., and to prevent the percentage of “black” sergeants from dropping below 15.18% . . . Amended Complaint does not precisely indicate the importance' of keeping minority representation above 15.18% . . . The letter stated that the effort to keep the percentage of black sergeants above 15.18% was not acceptable . . . promoted, of course, the percentage of "black” sergeants actually decreased to 14.4%, lower than the 15.18% . . .
. . . The lease also contained a radius restriction in section 15.18 which reads as follows: RADIUS: Tenant . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.18[3], at 15-77 (1998) (stating that "a court may not amend . . .
. . . Tourscher worked approximately 69 hours per month or less than 17 hours per week. (22 cents x 69 hours = $15.18 . . .
. . . Complex Litigation, § 30.2 at 234 (3d ed.l995)(emphasis added); see also Newberg on Class Actions, § 15.18 . . .
. . . 1162 10.70 1987-88 1370 11.90 1988-89 1652 12.92 1989-90 1866 13.94 1990-91 2242 14.73 1991-92 2304 15.18 . . .
. . . 1985, FMI Financial Corporation (FMI) purchased 1.1 million shares of UB stock on the open market for $15.18 . . . fungible, Frankel argues that the put constituted a sale of the 1.1 million shares FMI had acquired at $15.18 . . .
. . . On May 21, 1985 FMI purchased on the open market 1.1 million shares of United Brands stock at $15.18 . . .
. . . In Florida Dissolution of Marriage § 15.18 (3d ed. 1990), the author states that a spouse seeking to . . . citing to Ball, and notes that Ball is still cited as the standard for determining a special equity. §§ 15.18 . . .
. . . reviewed the submissions, this Court now finds that the appropriate rate of maintenance in this case is $15.18 . . . Fuel Oil 462.50 1.27 Virginia Power 345 .95 Home Owner’s Ins. 70.50 .19 Real Estate Taxes 397 1.09 $15.18 . . .
. . . $28,464.07, plus interest, and a judgment in favor of Herbert Oliver and against the United States for $15.18 . . .
. . . Cannella, 458 So.2d 1075 (Fla.1984); 5 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, § 15.18; 12 Fla.Jur.2d, Municipal . . .
. . . 888 (1957); In re Solomon, 40 F.Supp. 62 (E.D.Pa.1941); see generally 3 American Law of Property § 15.18 . . .
. . . second-degree murder under MAI-CR2d 15.14 (Instruction No. 6), and on conventional manslaughter under MAICR2d 15.18 . . .
. . . As Blumberg, The Law of Corporate Groups: Bankruptcy Law, (Little Brown 1985) § 15.18, freely acknowledges . . .
. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions §§ 15.18 and 15.19 (3d ed. 1977) (alternative identification . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18, at 198-206 (2d ed. 1980).” Id., at 298. . . . In § 15.18 of his treatise, Professor Davis addresses the question of administrative or official notice . . . The jobs should be identified, their characteristics should be stated. . . .” § 15.18, at 204 (emphasis . . .
. . . Davis, 3 Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18 at 199 (1980). . . .
. . . the average interest rate on such securities was 9.63% for 1979, 11.94% for 1980,14.17% for 1981, and 15.18% . . . with prejudgment interest from March 7,1979, at 9.63% for 1979,11.94% for 1980, 14.17% for 1981, and 15.18% . . .
. . . Davis, supra, § 15.18 (Official Notice In Disability Cases); cf. . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18, at 198-206 (2d ed. 1980). . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18, at 198-206 (2d ed. 1980). . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18, at 198-206 (2d ed. 1980). . . .
. . . White Black Speaking Other 1973 155 37 1974 53 6 1975 (thru 7/30) 4 _§ _a _Q 212 52 20 2 (74.12%) (15.18% . . .
. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 15.18, at 61 (rev. 1974). . . .
. . . [A. 151] In our view, this instruction, Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 15.18 . . .
. . . In Gibraltar, the pre tax profit-to-sales ratio was 15.18%, while the average return during the historical . . .
. . . In Gibraltar, the pre tax profit-to-sales ratio was 15.18%, while the average return during the historical . . .
. . . fiscal 1967, output rose to 53,616 sprockets, sales to $2,735,328.44 and pre-tax profit accounted for 15.18 . . . 30,1967, the first review year, plaintiff’s actual pre-tax profit of $415,-355;83 represented a return of 15.18% . . . As earlier noted, plaintiff achieved pre-tax profits of 15.18% and 23.02% on sales in f.y.e. 6/30/67 . . .
. . . in testing it since 1960; and it has been marketing it since mid-1968 (Pollack J-34 p. 15.15-17 to 15.18 . . .
. . . Articles 15.16 and 15.18 (1966). Additionally, he asserts that Tex.Code Crim. Procedure Ann. . . .
. . . He further stated that the cotton weighed 11.32 grams and the rayon 15.18 grams (1.10.) . . .
. . . He further stated that the cotton weighed 11.32 grams and the rayon 15.18 grams. (1.10.) . . .
. . . Johnson Lumber Corporation, 12 T.C. 348, 363; 2 Mertens, Installment Sales, sec. 15.18; Rev. . . .
. . . for sellers,” 22 J. of Taxation 73 (Feb. 1965), and 2 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 15.18 . . .
. . . Canadian Cost Basis Export Cost Basis 00132 15.65 4.19 00586 14.38 3.89 00652 15.18 4.08 The Customs . . .
. . . Canadian Cost Basis Export Cost Basis 00132 15.65 4.19 00586 14.38 3.89 00652 15.18 4.08 The manufacturer . . .
. . . Estate and Gift Taxation (1961), p. 710; Lown-des and Kramer, Federal Estate and Gift Taxes (1962), § 15.18 . . .
. . . This case involves the loss of a 15.18 carat emerald, valued at $10,626.00, and the liability vel non . . .
. . . Barnes paid the sum of $15.18 as the first premium to J. H. . . .
. . . Barnes paid the sum of $15.18 to J. H. . . . 1940, addressed to the next of kin of George Barnes, Jr., declined the policy and enclosed a check of $15.18 . . .
. . . The book value at this time was $15.18, the difference, $2.96, being due to accumulation of earnings. . . .
. . . assessed upon it, both for state and county purposes, for the fiscal year 1900-1901, for the sum of $15.18 . . .