The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 23
MISCELLANEOUS EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 23.22

23.22 Paperwork reduction; activities of departments.—

(1) In order to reduce the amount of paperwork associated with the collection of information from individuals, private sector organizations, and local governments and to provide more efficient and effective assistance to such individuals and organizations in completing necessary paperwork required by the government, each department head shall, to the extent feasible:

(a) Integrate information systems between programs and departments to reduce the paperwork burden on such individuals, private sector organizations, and local governments.

(b) Implement a department-wide paperwork review process designed to achieve the following outcomes:

1. Streamline information-collection processes that balance the cost and efficiency desired by the department with the cost and convenience to the reporting entities.

2. Ensure the reporting entities’ participation in the identification of data elements, the estimation of the paperwork burden on them, and the design of information-collection instruments and processes.

3. Collect information necessary for the performance of agency functions without duplicating other information accessible to the agency.

(d) Design information collection forms and similar instruments to make them easy to understand and “user-friendly” to the individuals, private sector organizations, and local governments that are required to complete and return them. Departmental telephone numbers or electronic mail addresses for the public to obtain assistance in completing the forms must be provided on each form.

(e) Evaluate existing and prospective statutes and rules for the paperwork burden they generate and seek modification of the statutes and rules to reduce the paperwork burden being placed on individuals, private sector organizations, and local government.

(f) Collaborate with the Division of Library and Information Services, pursuant to s. 119.021(2), to identify and index records retention requirements placed on private sector organizations and local governments in Florida, clarify and reduce the requirements, and educate the affected entities through various communications media, including voice, data, video, radio, and image.

(2) Departments shall make available, upon request, a list of the initiatives taken to reduce paperwork associated with collecting information from individuals, private sector organizations, and local governments.

History.—s. 3, ch. 96-390; s. 30, ch. 2004-335; s. 480, ch. 2011-142.

F.S. 23.22 on Google Scholar

F.S. 23.22 on Casetext

Amendments to 23.22

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 23.22

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 23.22.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE ARENS, 588 B.R. 197 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2018)

. . . Here, the Fee Application includes $120.00 in paralegal and attorney time for preparing it, plus $23.22 . . .

POLLAK v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,, 285 F. Supp. 3d 812 (D.N.J. 2018)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice S 23.22[3][a] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1999) ). . . .

A. ABRAHAM, E. v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,, 321 F.R.D. 125 (E.D. Pa. 2017)

. . . , Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[3][a] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1999)). . . .

GROSS, v. UNITED STATES,, 128 Fed. Cl. 745 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . .; see generally 5 Moore, supra, at ¶ 23.22[l][b]. . . .

IN RE MODAFINIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 837 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2016)

. . . (same); 1 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) (same). . . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22; see also 5 William B. . . . See 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22; 5 Newberg on Class Actions § 3.12 (“These factors include: judicial . . . See 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22 (instructing a court to consider “the actual, practical difficulties . . .

G. BROWN As a v. UNITED STATES,, 126 Fed. Cl. 571 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.22[1][b] (3d ed. 2012); 7A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal . . . Geneva Rock Prods., Inc., 100 Fed.Cl. at 787; King, 84 Fed.Cl. at 125; see also 5 Moore et al., supra, ¶ 23.22 . . .

GONZALEZ, On v. CORNING LLC, v. LLC,, 317 F.R.D. 443 (W.D. Pa. 2016)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[3][a] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1999)). . . .

GENTRY, v. FLOYD COUNTY,, 313 F.R.D. 72 (S.D. Ind. 2016)

. . . Practice - Civil § 23.22[l][a] (3d ed. 2011)). . . .

S. FERREIRA v. STERLING JEWELERS, INC. d b a, 130 F. Supp. 3d 471 (D. Mass. 2015)

. . . . §§ 23.0, 23.1, 23.22, 23.23 (2015). . . . . § 23.22, “[i]t is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose that a gemstone has been treated” if the . . . direction of note 2 to § 23.1 and the note to § 23.22. . . . See 16 C.F.R. § 23.22. . . . See 16 C.F.R. § 23.22(b). . . . .

COLBERT, v. UNITED STATES, 785 F.3d 1384 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . §§ 23.13(a)-(f) and 23.22(a)(6)(2014). . . . Section 23.22 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations identifies the purpose of tribal government . . . Section 23.22 reads in part: The objective of every Indian child and family service program shall be . . . to Indian families involved in tribal, state, or Federal child custody proceedings .... 25 C.F.R. § 23.22 . . .

PREAP, v. JOHNSON,, 303 F.R.D. 566 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[l][b] (3d ed. 2004)). . . .

MIRI, A d b a v. CLINTON,, 300 F.R.D. 319 (E.D. Mich. 2014)

. . . that “[a] class of twenty or fewer is usually insufficiently numerous. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice at § 23.22 . . .

In NEXIUM ESOMEPRAZOLE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 296 F.R.D. 47 (D. Mass. 2013)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[1][a]-[f] (3d ed. 1999) (listing subjective factors to . . .

SYSTEM FUELS, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 110 Fed. Cl. 583 (Fed. Cl. 2013)

. . . acceptance rights in 1998, and acceptance rights for Unit 1 beginning in 1999, totaling 50 assemblies, or 23.22 . . .

MOORE, v. NAPOLITANO,, 926 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . Co., 251 F.R.D. 51, 55 (D.D.C.2008) (citing 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[3][a] at 23-63 (3d ed.2002 . . .

GROSS, v. UNITED STATES,, 106 Fed. Cl. 369 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

. . . King, 84 Fed.Cl. at 124; Jaynes, 69 Fed.Cl. at 454; see generally 5 Moore, supra, at ¶ 23.22[l][bj. . . .

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IBEW- NECA DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION,, 287 F.R.D. 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . . § 23.22(l)(b), In deciding whether joinder is practicable, courts consider the number of class members . . .

LOCAL I. B. OF T. GROCERY AND FOOD EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND, v. REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION,, 282 F.R.D. 607 (N.D. Ala. 2012)

. . . The price of Regions shares, traded on the New York Stock Exchange, were $23.22 per share on February . . .

GUY, Sr. IV, v. LEXINGTON- FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT,, 488 F. App'x 9 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . A class of twenty or fewer is usually insufficiently numerous. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice at § 23.22( . . .

HAGGART a v. UNITED STATES,, 104 Fed. Cl. 484 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[1][b] (3d ed. 2011). . . .

GREKO, v. DIESEL U. S. A. INC. a, 277 F.R.D. 419 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . DOT, 249 F.R.D. 334, 346 (N.D.Cal.2008); 5-23 Moore’s Federal Practice, Civil § 23.22 (Moore’s § 23.22 . . . New York Univ., 179 F.R.D. 112, 114-115 (S.D.N.Y.1998); Moore’s § 23.22. . . .

GENEVA ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. a v. UNITED STATES,, 100 Fed. Cl. 778 (Fed. Cl. 2011)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[1][b], at 23-56 to -59 (3d ed.2011). . . .

KALOW SPRINGUT, LLP, v. COMMENCE CORPORATION,, 272 F.R.D. 397 (D.N.J. 2011)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice S 23.22[3][a] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.1999)); Leeseberg v. . . .

VAN METER, v. HARVEY,, 272 F.R.D. 274 (D. Me. 2011)

. . . Solovy, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.22 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) . . .

CARD, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND,, 270 F.R.D. 280 (N.D. Ohio 2010)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22 (3d ed.1998)). . . .

BARNES, v. AT T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN- NONBARGAINED PROGRAM,, 270 F.R.D. 488 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[l][b] (3d ed.2004))). . . . .

ABU DHABI COMMERCIAL BANK, SEI On v. MORGAN STANLEY CO. INCORPORATED, Co. f k a QSR s s s, 269 F.R.D. 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . . § 23.22(1)(b) ("Many courts have found that classes numbering fewer than 21 fail to meet the numerosity . . . Prac. § 23.22[7]). . . .

R. RASMUSON S. v. UNITED STATES,, 91 Fed. Cl. 204 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[l][b] (3d ed.2004) (emphasis added). . . . Id. at 330, 100 S.Ct. 1698; see also Moore’s Federal Praotioe § 23.22[l]|b] (“To the extent that any . . .

L. PERKINS, v. SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE CO., 669 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D. Conn. 2009)

. . . . § 23.22[2]). . . .

HAGGART a v. UNITED STATES,, 89 Fed. Cl. 523 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[3][a] (3d ed.1999)). . . .

TEAMSTERS LOCAL PENSION AND WELFARE FUNDS, v. APOLLO GROUP, INC. G. S. B. E. R. III E. J., 633 F. Supp. 2d 763 (D. Ariz. 2009)

. . . , the FAC alleges that on September 21, 2001, “[defendants dated Apollo’s ... option grants ... at $23.22 . . .

B. KING, A. J. J. a v. UNITED STATES,, 84 Fed. Cl. 120 (Fed. Cl. 2008)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[l][b] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.2004). . . .

LINDSAY, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,, 251 F.R.D. 51 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . See 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[3][a] at 23-63 (3d ed.2002). . . .

ALBERTO, v. GMRI, INC. d b a, 252 F.R.D. 652 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 23.22(3) (2008); see Sherman v. . . .

DAVIS, v. J. ASTRUE,, 250 F.R.D. 476 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[l][b] (3d ed.2004). . . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[3] (3d ed.2004). . . .

CAMPBELL LLP, v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, a, 253 F.R.D. 586 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[1][b] (Daniel R. . . .

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BLIND, F. v. TARGET CORPORATION,, 582 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[1][b] (3d ed.2004). . . .

In SEITEL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 245 F.R.D. 263 (S.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . circumstances of the case, not merely the sheer numbers of putative class members. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22 . . . Id.; 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[3][b]. . . .

In FOUNDRY RESINS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 242 F.R.D. 393 (S.D. Ohio 2007)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[1][a], at 23-57 (3d ed.2006) [hereinafter Moore’s]. . . . proportions ... the impracticability requirement is usually satisfied by the numbers alone.”); Moore’s § 23.22 . . . See Moore’s § 23.22[1][c], at 23-62; see also Tomlison v. Kroger Co., No. . . . Id., § 23.22[1][d], at 23-62 to 23-63. 2. . . .

ELLIS, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,, 240 F.R.D. 627 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[1][b] (3 d ed.2004). . . .

NEWMAN, v. RCN TELECOM SERVICES, INC., 238 F.R.D. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . Litig., 210 F.R.D. 476, 479 (S.D.N.Y.2002); see generally 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[1], . . . . Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 144 F.R.D. 193, 198 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); 5 Moore's Federal Practice § 23.22[l][b] . . .

In WORLDCOM, INC., 343 B.R. 412 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . establish that joining all class members would be impracticable.” 5-23 Moore’s Federal Practice — Civil § 23.22 . . .

JAYNES, v. UNITED STATES,, 69 Fed. Cl. 450 (Fed. Cl. 2006)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[l][b] (3d ed.1997) (internal citation omitted). . . . terms requires that the number of potential class members make joinder impracticable____”); Moore § 23.22 . . .

LAWSON, v. STATE, 898 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . His argument is that the record did not include documentation to support 23.22 additional points which . . .

SUEOKA R. v. UNITED STATES US US H. O R. v. US US H. O, 101 F. App'x 649 (9th Cir. 2004)

. . . allegations regarding numerosity are sufficient to permit class certification.” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22 . . .

PETROLITO, v. ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,, 221 F.R.D. 303 (D. Conn. 2004)

. . . . § 23.22[2]). An estimate that is based on speculation is insufficient. Deflumer v. . . .

In RELAFEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 218 F.R.D. 337 (D. Mass. 2003)

. . . (citing 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[3][a], at 23-63). . . .

E. FOX H. J. On v. CHEMINOVA, INC. A S, 213 F.R.D. 113 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . for prospective or injunctive relief affecting future class members. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.22 . . .

BOLANOS, v. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINES LIMITED, d b a, 212 F.R.D. 144 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . May 13, 1992); see generally 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22; 7A C. Wright & A. . . .

C. LAWRENCE, v. TOWN OF IRONDEQUOIT,, 246 F. Supp. 2d 150 (W.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.22[3][a] (3d ed.1997). . . .

In COMMONPOINT MORTGAGE COMPANY,, 283 B.R. 469 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2002)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.22, at 23-63 (3d ed.1997) (noting that potential classes . . .

NEIBERGER, v. HAWKINS,, 208 F.R.D. 301 (D. Colo. 2002)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[2] (3d ed.1999); Nicodemus v. Union Pac. . . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[2] (3d ed.1999); Nicodemus v. Union Pac. . . .

OWNER- OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. NEW PRIME, INC. d b a, 213 F.R.D. 537 (W.D. Mo. 2002)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[3][a] (3d ed.1997). . . .

STEWART, v. ABRAHAM, s, 275 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[3][a] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.1999). . . .

D. NICODEMUS, D. v. UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION, a a N. B. H. v. a a, 204 F.R.D. 479 (D. Wyo. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moores Federal Practice § 23.22[2] (3d ed.1999). . . .

MARTIN, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY LLC,, 198 F.R.D. 580 (D. Conn. 2000)

. . . . § 23.22[2]). However, an estimate that is based on speculation is insufficient. See Deflumer v. . . .

HENRY v. CASH TODAY, INC. v. a., 199 F.R.D. 566 (S.D. Tex. 2000)

. . . individuals as plaintiffs would be “extremely difficult or inconvenient.” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22 . . .

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. M. ANTAR, A. M. v. R. A. S. L. P. S. T. L. P., 97 F. Supp. 2d 576 (D.N.J. 2000)

. . . $4.5 million Oct., 1985 450,000 A ys -li/J M to O $24.00 $1.44 million Feb., 1986 60,000 A W to O $23.22 . . .

SLAVEN, v. BP AMERICA, INC., 190 F.R.D. 649 (C.D. Cal. 2000)

. . . 179 F.R.D. 112, 114 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (citing a thorough review of cases in 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22 . . .

WEBSTER, v. FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA,, 51 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (N.D. Ga. 1999)

. . . Post-Disparity Study shows minority utilization of 13.50% in 1990, 24.03% in 1991, 19.12% in 1992, and 23.22% . . .

FARM LABOR ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, v. OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL,, 184 F.R.D. 583 (N.D. Ohio 1998)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[2], [5], [7] (3d ed.1998). . . .

ANSARI, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, G. s, 179 F.R.D. 112 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.22[3][a] (3d ed.1997) (hereinafter “Moore’s”); see also . . . Celeni, 987 F.2d 931, 936 (2d Cir.1993); see also Moore’s, § 23.22[2] (listing factors). . . . (quotations omitted); see also Moore’s, § 23.22[5]. . . . Moore’s, § 23.22[7]. . . .

JERRY ENTERPRISES OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY, INC. N. s, v. ALLIED BEVERAGE GROUP, L. L. C. H. F A Co. Co. Co. d b a Co. d b a Co. J J Co. R R L. L. C. D. DUBIN d b a II, t a s v. ALLIED BEVERAGE GROUP, L. L. C. H. F A Co. Co. Co. d b a Co. d b a Co. J J Co. R R L. L. C., 178 F.R.D. 437 (D.N.J. 1998)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[3] at 23-63 to 23-68, 23-71 to 23-72 (3d ed.1997). . . .

LESZCZYNSKI, E. v. ALLIANZ INSURANCE, 176 F.R.D. 659 (S.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . between pure speculation and common sense assumptions, is not entirely clear. 5 Moore, supra, section 23.22 . . .

DOOR SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, v. PRO- LINE DOOR SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,, 83 F.3d 169 (7th Cir. 1996)

. . . Euroquilt, Inc., 772 F.2d 1423, 1428 (7th Cir.1985); 3 McCarthy, supra, § 23.22[2][f], pp. 23-146 to . . .

SARA LEE CORPORATION, v. KAYSER- ROTH CORPORATION,, 81 F.3d 455 (4th Cir. 1996)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 23.22 (1995). . . .

PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP, a v. INTERNATIONAL TELESIS COMMUNICATIONS, a, 994 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1993)

. . . McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition § 23.22 (2nd ed. 1984). . . .

TRANSPORTATION LEASING COMPANY v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 861 F. Supp. 931 (C.D. Cal. 1993)

. . . At all pertinent times, South Gate prescribed the type of waste to be collected [23.22] and established . . .

NOVELTY TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. C. T. EASTERN, INC. d b a, 743 F. Supp. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . Freight cost to the finisher is 10 cents per yard and finishing itself is $1 per yard, totaling $23.22 . . .

R. SCHNEIDER Jr. v. UNITED STATES, 734 F. Supp. 239 (E.D. La. 1990)

. . . general proposition that the owner of a building has the nondelegable duty under La.Civ.C. article 23.22 . . .

BEAN DREDGING CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES,, 19 Cl. Ct. 561 (Cl. Ct. 1990)

. . . $29.10 Watch Engr. 3 8.63 25.89 Dredge Mates 2 8.38 16.76 Tug Masters 2 8.28 16.56 Tug Mates 3 7.74 23.22 . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 18.49 19.66 23.44 26.76 24.17 25.61 27.85 35.80 29.61 29.23 24.57 28.75 31.65 Tanglewood (SW) 20.24 23.22 . . .

FIRST VIRGINIA BANK- COLONIAL v. PROVIDENT STATE BANK, 582 F. Supp. 850 (D. Md. 1984)

. . . See BRADY ON BANK CHECKS § 23.22 (H. Bailey 5th ed. 1979). . . .

CALIFORNIA v. ARIZONA, 452 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1981)

. . . S 01°33'17" E 23.22 feet; 796. S 37°48,53" E 271.36 feet; 797. S 36°17/19// E 318.41 feet; 798. . . .

RSMC v., 84 Cust. Ct. 96 (Cust. Ct. 1980)

. . . This regulation reads as follows (16 CFR 23.22): § 23.22 Misrepresentation as to gold content (a) It . . .

A. GABRILOWITZ, v. NEWMAN,, 582 F.2d 100 (1st Cir. 1978)

. . . Section 23.22. . . .

UNITED STATES v. COPIES OF a MAGAZINE ENTITLED EXCLUSIVE UNITED STATES v. COPIES OF a MAGAZINE ENTITLED REVIEW INTERNATIONAL VOL. UNITED STATES v. COPIES OF a MAGAZINE ENTITLED INTERNATIONAL NUDIST SUN VOL., 253 F. Supp. 485 (D. Md. 1966)

. . . appropriate cases the material may be released pendente lite in accordance with the provisions of 19 C.F.R. 23.22 . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. BLAND, SACHS,, 159 F. Supp. 395 (D. Md. 1958)

. . . follows: $-with order and balance upon completion of said work in 36 equal monthly installments of about $23.22 . . . After making one payment of $23.22 on March 8, 1954, the Blands sought legal advice, and on April 14, . . .

MEYER v. UNITED STATES, 213 F.2d 278 (7th Cir. 1954)

. . . Partnership Act, State of Wisconsin, §§ 123.22, 123.23, Wisconsin Statutes of 1945, provided: Sec. ] 23.22 . . .

BAKEWELL v. UNITED STATES, 28 F. Supp. 504 (E.D. Mo. 1939)

. . . fineness of the gold dollar was changed to .900 thus increasing its pure gold content from 23.20 to 23.22 . . .

LOMB v. SUGDEN,, 11 F. Supp. 472 (W.D.N.Y. 1935)

. . . tax liability of $1,785.49 as disclosed by said return and a later assessment of a deficiency tax of $23.22 . . .

WATT SHAND, INC., 2 B.T.A. 1273 (B.T.A. 1925)

. . . liability as determined by the Commissioner for the years 1918 and 1919 represents 48.69 per cent and 23.22 . . .

v., 12 F. 478 (C.C.D. Or. 1882)

. . . shillings) has been 113.001 grains ever since the year 1717; and as the United States dollar contains 23.22 . . .

v., 90 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1874)

. . . shillings) has been 113.001 grains ever since the year 1717; and as the United States dollar contains 23.22 . . .