The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . Section 21.01 reads: "Any violation or alleged violation of Section 22.01 or 22.03 shall not be subject . . . There is no Section 22.03 in the CBA, but Section 22.02 contains the relevant text. . . . We assume that the reference to 22.03 is a typographical error. . . .
. . . or all of the claims against the stake are prospective." 4 Moore's Federal Practice, Interpleader § 22.03 . . .
. . . See generally-4-22 Goods in Transit § 22.03-22.04, Samrat does acknowledge the maritime rule that a consignee . . . Transit § 22.03-22.04. . . . .
. . . claims (all unsecured) were .filed, one for $3,845.07, one for $99.34, one for $881.19, and one for $22.03 . . .
. . . (references to "office or officer” includes persons authorized to perform duties of the office); § 22.03 . . .
. . . See Moore, et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[l][a]. . . . See Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[2][a]. . . .
. . . Viscuso, 569 F.Supp.2d 355, 359 (S.D.N.Y.2008); see also Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[l][a] (same . . .
. . . See generally 4-22 Goods in Transit §§ 22.03-22.04. . . .
. . . In 2010, the total population of District 26 was underpopulated by 11.64 percent and was 22.03 percent . . . In 2010, District 26 was underpopulated by 11.64 percent and had a total population that was 22.03 percent . . .
. . . See 8 Chisum on Patents § 22.03[3]. . . .
. . . The lease provides, at § 22.03: Owner and Tenant agree that any controversy between them, pursuant to . . .
. . . Chisum on Patents, § 22.03[2], The evidence presented in this case establishes that Skycam identified . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[1][c] (3d ed. 1997) (“In most cases, it is not difficult for . . .
. . . Disputes, "Potentially Collusive Settlements Involving Assignment of Insured’s Rights to Injured Party,” § 22.03 . . .
. . . . # 1 at 12, § 22.03. . . .
. . . Bev.Code § 22.03 (Vernon 2006) (amended Sept. 1, 2007). . . . Id. §§ 22.03 & 24.03 (Vernon 2009). . . . Code § 22.03 (Vernon 2006, adopted Sept. 1, 1977). . . . The provisions as listed by the district court were Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code sections 22.03, 24.03 . . . Code §§ 22.03(a), 24.03. . . . .
. . . Commerce preliminarily calculated a company-specific dumping margin for Winner (22.03 percent), which . . .
. . . Commerce preliminarily calculated a company-specific dumping margin for Winner (22.03 percent), which . . .
. . . Bev.Code § 22.03 (Vernon 2006) (amended Sept. 1, 2007). . . . Id. §§ 22.03 & 24.03 (Vernon 2009). . . . Bev.Code § 22.03 (Vernon 2006, adopted Sept. 1, 1977). . . . provisions as listed by the district court are Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code sections 6.01, 11.01, 22.01, 22.03 . . . Bev.Code §§ 22.03(a); 24.03. . . . .
. . . Id. at 26 (citing Chisum on Patents, § 22.03[2] (“The burden of proof is on the employer who claims ownership . . .
. . . Bev.Code §§ 6.01, 6.03, 11.01, 11.03, 11.46(a)(ll), 11.61(b)(19), 22.01, 22.03, 24.01, 24.03, 41.01, . . . Bev.Code §§ 22.03, 24.03, 54.12, and 107.07(f). . . . Prior to its amendment, § 22.03 of the Code allowed licensed retailers to ship alcoholic beverages to . . . Determining the constitutionality of the amended version of § 22.03 is vitally important to this case . . . Code §§ 22.03, 24.03, 54.12, and 107.07(f). . . .
. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, § 22.03(l)(a) at 1358 (2005 ed.). [¶ 17] This legacy is borne . . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, § 22.03 (1982 ed.) . . .
. . . See 4 Moore et al., supra § 22.03[2][a]. The case at bar is a classic interpleader action. . . .
. . . Missouri Approved Instruction 22.03 sets out the elements that plaintiff must prove in order to establish . . .
. . . R. 22.02 and 22.03). . . . R. 22.03 (1981) (current version at Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 22.04). . . . R. 22.03 (1981) (current version at Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 22.04). . . . . R. 22.01-22.03; see State v. . . .
. . . verdict director for their premises liability claim was modeled after Missouri Approved Instruction No. 22.03 . . . the claim was submitted to the jury with instructions modeled after Missouri Approved Instruction No. 22.03 . . .
. . . See also Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[2][b] (“In a proceeding in the nature of interpleader, the . . .
. . . . § 22.03 and N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 14, § 1020.9. . . . Mental Hyg. § 22.03 and N.Y. Comp. . . .
. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[l][d] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). . . . See generally 4 Moore's Federal Practice § 22.03[1][d], n. 13. . 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a). . . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[1][g], The Second Circuit explained: it is well recognized . . .
. . . Robinson, Environmental Regulation of Real Property § 22.03[2] (1998). . . .
. . . .” §§21.03, 22.03. . . . Regs. §§21.03, 22.03 (2000). . . .
. . . . §§ 21.03, 22.03 (defining “advertisement”). . . .
. . . for off-premises consumption not to exceed 25,-000 gallons annually .Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code § 22.03 . . .
. . . . §§ 22.03, 22.04. The warning area may be allocated to other required warning uses. . . .
. . . Missouri Supreme Court Rule 22.03 provides in relevant part that "[u]pon the filing of a complaint and . . .
. . . Moore, et al , Moore's Federal Practice § 22.03[1] (3d ed.1999). . . .
. . . The values submitted by Sichuan included, a factory overhead rate of 22.03%, a general expenses rate . . .
. . . The values submitted by Sichuan included, a factory overhead rate of 22.03%, a general expenses rate . . .
. . . The bills ranged from $22.03 to $32.70 for each three month period. . . .
. . . Def.’s May 12, 1995 mot. to dismiss (docket no. 3) ex. 2A (section 22.03 of the collective bargaining . . .
. . . Chisum, Patents § 22.03 (1995). . . .
. . . See generally 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.03, at 22-12 to 22-13 (2d ed. 1994); 7 C. Wright, A. . . .
. . . See generally 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.03, at 22-12 to 22-13 (2d ed. 1994); 7 C. Wright, A. . . .
. . . B.R. 404 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1987); In re Frost, 47 B.R. 961, 965 (D.Kan.1985); 1A CollieR on Bankruptcy ¶ 22.03 . . .
. . . From 1989 through 1991, there were 5872 such calls, representing 22.03% of all EMS dispatches. . . . We note that by combining the police co-response figure of 22.03% with the firefighter co-response figure . . .
. . . Of the original 18,157 known claimants, this amounts to 22.03/1000 of one percent (.0002203%). . . . Thus, of the 18,157 known claimants, only 22.03/1000 of one percent appeared before the court at the . . .
. . . To enforce these regulations, DNR promulgated rule 16N-22.03(1), which provides that any person who violates . . . Rule 16N-22.03(1) specifically states that any person who violates rule 16N-22.012 shall be guilty of . . .
. . . 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Water block 299A 0 0 0 Total Block Group 2 59 100.00% 13 22.03% . . . 46 77.97% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Tract 9577 59 13 100.00% 22.03% 46 77.97% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block . . .
. . . Furthermore, Rule 22.03 VAMR requires an independent finding of the issuing court that the felony complaint . . .
. . . Paragraphs 4.03a and 22.03 of M21-1 specifically deal with VA’s duty to assist as elaborated in Littke . . . Paragraph 22.03 lists specific instructions for VA to obtain medical information from non-VA hospitals . . . M21-1 paragraph 22.03. . . .
. . . Chisum, supra § 22.03. . . . See also Chisum, supra, § 22.03. . . . Lipscomb, supra, § 22.03[4]; see Aetna-Standard, 343 Pa.Super. at 68, 493 A.2d 1375 (state court may . . .
. . . of the 10.4% debentures, $25.00, exceeded the original consideration paid for the preference stock, $22.03 . . . asserts that the basis of the 10.4% debentures should be the original basis of the preference stock, $22.03 . . . Fidata argues alternatively that the value AI received when it originally issued the preference stock, $22.03 . . .
. . . . § 22.03(a), and each party has the right to call and to cross-examine witnesses, 40 C.F.R. § 22.22( . . .
. . . approximately 1,474,000 and 1,803,000 daily wear soft contact lenses in 1981 and 1982 at ARP’s of $22.03 . . .
. . . Instruction 7, which was virtually identical to MAI 22.03, provided: INSTRUCTION 7 Your verdict must . . . Four days later, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the second paragraph of MAI 22.03 was erroneous . . . The committee did not modify MAI 22.03 to accord with this change in law. . . . The trial court erred in giving [MAI 22.03]. Id. at 30 (quoting Gustafson, 661 S.W.2d at 15). II. . . . In general, precedent seems to allow a form of MAI 22.03 in this context. . . . as to the duty owed invitees, by eliminating the second element of the Missouri Approved Instruction 22.03 . . . MAI 22.03 required the jury to find that “plaintiff did not know and by using ordinary care could not . . . years Missouri courts considered the knowledge element, as submitted in the second paragraph of MAI 22.03 . . .
. . . The AM/PM agreement, ¶ 22.03, also provides that in “the event any provisions of this agreement ... provide . . .
. . . challenge the following rules: 33-3.02, 33-3.05, 33-3.06, 33-3.081, 33-4.02(9) and (13), 33-22.01(c) and 33-22.03 . . . 33-3.07, 33-3.05, 33-3.06, 33-3.025, 33-3.125, 33-4.01, 33-402, 33-3.066, 33-302, 33-22.01, and 33-22.03 . . . 33-3.07, 33-3.05, 33-3.06, 33-3.025, 33-3.125, 33-4.01, 33-4.02, 33-3.066, 33-3.02, 33-22.01(c), 33-22.03 . . . are invalid: 33-3.05, 33-3.06, 33-3.025, 33-3.125, 33-401, 33-4.02, 33-3.066, 33-3.02, 33-2201(c), 33-22.03 . . .
. . . attention, for the first time, provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, Section D26-22.03 . . .
. . . Officer Chief—The highest ranking correctional officer employed at the institution or facility. 33-22.03 . . . application of Rule 33-22.12(9-17), Florida Administrative Code, and the procedures specified by Rule 33-22.03 . . .
. . . At that time, bromine cost 21.98
. . . S 24°53'23" E 22.03 feet; 595. S 85°54'52" E 72.28 feet; 596. N 82°15'33" E 50.78 feet; 597. . . .
. . . Analysis of Interpleader, 52 Calif.L.Rev. 706, 735-49 (1964); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, supra H 22.03 . . .
. . . EVENT March 1,1968 Present Mayor took office as Mayor of the Consolidated City of Jacksonville (Section 22.03 . . . , Chap. 67-1320, Laws of Florida) (A — 1—17) March 1, 1968 Charter transitional period (Section 22.03 . . .
. . . 27.30 39,795.20 26.49 200.00 to 299.99.. 116 11.35 29,110.16 19.38 300.00 to 399.99.. 95 9.30 33,099.99 22.03 . . .
. . . shall begin their term of office on the effective date of this charter, except as provided in section 22.03 . . . Section 22.03. Certain Early Assumption of Duties. . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 22.03 at 3010-11 (1974 ed.) quoting 4 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence: § 1322 . . .
. . . Davis at 22.03-4. . Jaffe at 515. . 264 U.S. 258, 44 S.Ct. 317, 68 L.Ed. 667 (1924). . . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 22.01 and 22.03 (1958). . . . .
. . . Lusby, 295 F.Supp. 660 (W.D.Va.1969); 3A Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.03, p. 3006. . . .
. . . State of Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 59 S.Ct. 563, 83 L.Ed. 817 (1939); 3A Moore, Federal Practice, f[ 22.03 . . .
. . . . $22.03 $20.41 $29.32 Miscellaneous .— 17.00 17.00 Medical__— 25.67 25.67 35.68 Clothing. 39.00 41.52 . . .
. . . See also, 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.03, p. 3006. . . . . The Federal Interpleader Act of 1936: I, 45 Yale L.J. 963, 970. . 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.03 . . . Maryland Casualty Co., supra, 69 F.2d 939. . 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.03, p. 3006; Para. 22.07 . . .
. . . Supp., par. 22.03, pp. 292-294; Begs. 118, sec. 39.117 (b)-l. . . .
. . . but having been developed in equity practice, see 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., p. 3005, Sec. 22.03 . . .
. . . See Committee Note to Rule 22 and § 22.03 of Moore’s Federal Practice. Finally, Mrs. . . .
. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 22.03, page 2198. . . .
. . . Expenses Period Gross Sales Amount Percentage of Gross Sales 4 years average 1936-39 $6,187,268 $1,363,154 22.03 . . .