Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 28.36 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 28.36 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 28.36

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Chapter 28
CLERKS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 28.36
28.36 Budget procedure.There is established a budget procedure for the court-related functions of the clerks of the court.
(1) Only those functions listed in s. 28.35(3)(a) may be funded from fees, service charges, court costs, and fines retained by the clerks of the court.
(2) Each proposed budget shall further conform to the following requirements:
(a) On or before June 1, the proposed budget shall be prepared, summarized, and submitted by the clerk in each county to the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation in the manner and form prescribed by the corporation. The proposed budget must provide detailed information on the anticipated revenues available and expenditures necessary for the performance of the court-related functions listed in s. 28.35(3)(a) of the clerk’s office for the county fiscal year beginning October 1.
(b) The proposed budget must be balanced such that the total of the estimated revenues available equals or exceeds the total of the anticipated expenditures. Such revenues include revenue projected to be received from fees, service charges, court costs, and fines for court-related functions during the fiscal period covered by the budget, plus the total of unspent budgeted funds for court-related functions carried forward by the clerk of the court from the previous county fiscal year and plus the portion of the balance of funds remaining in the Clerks of the Court Trust Fund after the transfer of funds to the General Revenue Fund required pursuant to s. 28.37(4)(b) which has been allocated to each respective clerk of the court by the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “unspent budgeted funds for court-related functions” means undisbursed funds included in the clerk of the courts’ budget for court related functions established pursuant to s. 28.35 and this section. The anticipated expenditures must be itemized as required by the corporation.
(3)(a) The Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation shall establish and manage a reserve for contingencies within the Clerks of the Court Trust Fund which must consist of an amount not to exceed 16 percent of the total budget authority for the clerks of court during the current county fiscal year, to be carried forward at the end of the fiscal year. Funds to be held in reserve include transfers of cumulative excess, as provided in s. 28.37(4)(b), from the Clerks of the Court Trust Fund and may also include revenues provided by law or moneys appropriated by the Legislature.
(b) The corporation shall provide a reporting of the balance and use of these funds during each county fiscal year as part of the corporation’s annual report submitted under s. 28.35(2)(h).
(c) The corporation may use the reserve to ensure the clerks of court can perform the court-related functions as provided in s. 28.35(3)(a). Moneys in the Clerks of the Court Trust Fund which are held in reserve may be used by the corporation under the following circumstances:
1. To offset a current deficit between the revenue available and the original budget authority. A deficit is deemed to occur when the revenue available to the clerks of court falls below the original revenue projection for that county fiscal year.
2. To provide funding for an emergency, as defined in s. 252.34(4). The emergency must have been declared by the Governor, pursuant to s. 252.36, or otherwise declared by law.
3. To provide funds in the development of the total aggregate budget of the clerks of court to ensure that a minimum continuation budget is met. For purposes of this subparagraph, a minimum continuation budget is the budget approved for the current county fiscal year or some lesser amount adopted by the corporation.
(d) To use the reserve, the corporation must request a budget amendment pursuant to s. 216.292.
(4) If a clerk of the court estimates that available funds plus projected revenues from fines, fees, service charges, and costs for court-related services are insufficient to meet the anticipated expenditures for the standard list of court-related functions in s. 28.35(3)(a) performed by his or her office, the clerk must report the revenue deficit to the corporation in the manner and form prescribed by the corporation. The corporation shall verify that the proposed budget is limited to the standard list of court-related functions in s. 28.35(3)(a). If the corporation verifies that a revenue deficit is projected, the corporation shall certify a revenue deficit and notify the Department of Revenue that the clerk is authorized to retain revenues, in an amount necessary to fully fund the projected revenue deficit, which he or she would otherwise be required to remit to the Department of Revenue for deposit into the department’s Clerks of the Court Trust Fund pursuant to s. 28.37. If a revenue deficit is projected for that clerk after retaining all of the projected collections from the court-related fines, fees, service charges, and costs, the corporation shall certify the amount of the revenue deficit to the Executive Office of the Governor and request release authority for funds from the department’s Clerks of the Court Trust Fund. Notwithstanding s. 216.192 relating to the release of funds, the Executive Office of the Governor may approve the release of funds in accordance with the notice, review, and objection procedures set forth in s. 216.177 and shall provide notice to the Department of Revenue and the Chief Financial Officer. The Department of Revenue shall request monthly distributions from the Chief Financial Officer in equal amounts to each clerk certified to have a revenue deficit, in accordance with the releases approved by the Governor.
(5) The corporation may approve increases or decreases to the previously authorized budgets approved for clerks of the court pursuant to s. 28.35 for court-related functions, if:
(a) The additional budget authority is necessary to pay the cost of performing new or additional functions required by changes in law or court rule; or
(b) The additional budget authority is necessary to pay the cost of supporting increases in the number of judges or magistrates authorized by the Legislature or increases in the use of hearing officers and senior judges assigned by the courts.
History.s. 37, ch. 2003-402; s. 24, ch. 2004-265; s. 3, ch. 2005-2; s. 11, ch. 2005-236; s. 10, ch. 2008-111; s. 4, ch. 2009-204; s. 14, ch. 2010-162; s. 2, ch. 2011-4; s. 7, ch. 2013-44; s. 4, ch. 2017-126; s. 3, ch. 2019-58; s. 9, ch. 2020-2; s. 6, ch. 2021-116.

F.S. 28.36 on Google Scholar

F.S. 28.36 on Casetext

Amendments to 28.36


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 28.36
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 28.36.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

MATTHEWS v. CAIN,, 337 F. Supp. 3d 687 (E.D. La. 2018)

. . . card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services and in 1969 of passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP s v. MCCRORY, K. D. a a a A. M. E. M. J. M. M. N. v. B. a K. a D. a J. a a L. v. W., 182 F. Supp. 3d 320 (M.D.N.C. 2016)

. . . American/7.88% white in 2000, 5.21% white/4.93% African American in 2002, and 28.53% African Ámerican/28.36% . . .

UNITED STATES v. MARSHALL,, 736 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . goods and services, a felony punishable by two to ten years in prison; and passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

D. SMITH, v. HOWERTON,, 509 F. App'x 476 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . card to obtain $80 in goods or services” and another for “passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. NIGG,, 667 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2012)

. . . obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses and the loss amount of the two previous fraud felonies was $80.00 and $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MORROW a k a, 432 F. App'x 52 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . and the [defendant] had committed two previous fraud felonies where the amount obtained was $80 and $28.36 . . .

In PARIKH, v., 456 B.R. 4 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . The Internal Revenue Sendee filed a proof of claim asserting a $1,451.33 priority claim and a $28.36 . . .

F. GLASER, v. LTD., 772 F. Supp. 2d 573 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . The9’s ADS increased from $4.92 to $28.36, a twenty-one percent rise, on November 16. (Id. ¶ 47.) . . .

UNITED STATES v. WELLMAN,, 716 F. Supp. 2d 447 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)

. . . credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services,” and of "passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

STADLER, v. S. CURTIN,, 682 F. Supp. 2d 807 (E.D. Mich. 2010)

. . . goods and services, a felony punishable by two to ten years in prison, and passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

B. MOORE, v. CHRONES,, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . fraudulent use of a credit card (for $80 worth of goods and services) and passing a forged check (for $28.36 . . .

ROGERS, Jr. v. K. WONG,, 637 F. Supp. 2d 807 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods and passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. NAGEL,, 559 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2009)

. . . obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses and the loss amount of the two previous fraud felonies was $80, and $28.36 . . .

GONZALEZ, v. W. A. DUNCAN,, 551 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2008)

. . . credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services and for passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

EDWARDS, v. L. OLLISON,, 621 F. Supp. 2d 863 (C.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services and passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

DELGADO, v. A. YATES,, 622 F. Supp. 2d 854 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . and having prior convictions for fraud involving $80 worth of goods and passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

CAMPBELL, v. T. POOLE,, 555 F. Supp. 2d 345 (W.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

HANEY, v. ADDISON,, 275 F. App'x 802 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, (2) passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. POLIZZI,, 549 F. Supp. 2d 308 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . recidivist statute of fraudulent use of a credit card in the amount of $80, passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

In NVE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 551 F. Supp. 2d 871 (D. Minn. 2007)

. . . Plaintiffs allege that, after this announcement, NVE’s common stock price fell from $28.36 per share . . .

HYATT v. WEBER,, 468 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (D.S.D. 2006)

. . . obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses and the loss amount of the two previous fraud felonies was $80 and $28.36 . . .

BARBOZA, v. L. CAREY,, 203 F. App'x 25 (9th Cir. 2006)

. . . had previously been convicted of fraudulently obtaining $80 in goods and writing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

v., 30 Ct. Int'l Trade 1152 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006)

. . . refers to explanatory notes regarding titanium oxides, number 28.23, and calcium carbonates, number 28.36 . . . Note 28.36 advises that, when the particles of calcium carbonate powder are coated with a water-repellant . . .

DEGUSSA CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 452 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006)

. . . refers to explanatory notes regarding titanium oxides, number 28.23, and calcium carbonates, number 28.36 . . . Note 28.36 advises that, when the particles of calcium carbonate powder are coated with a water-repellant . . .

TAYLOR, v. LEWIS,, 460 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2006)

. . . of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services; passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CUNNINGHAM,, 191 F. App'x 670 (10th Cir. 2006)

. . . credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, (2) passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GILLESPIE,, 452 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2006)

. . . credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, (2) passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. E., 445 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006)

. . . and the appellant had committed two previous fraud felonies where the amount obtained was $80 and $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. EZELL, 417 F. Supp. 2d 667 (E.D. Pa. 2006)

. . . credit card to obtain $ 80 worth of goods or services, (2) passing a forged check in the amount of $ 28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GROSS,, 437 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2006)

. . . obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses and the loss amount of the two previous fraud felonies was $80, and $28.36 . . .

D. McPHAIL, v. RENICO,, 412 F. Supp. 2d 647 (E.D. Mich. 2006)

. . . goods and services, a felony punishable by two to ten years in prison; and passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ANGELOS, M. T. Jr. L. B. J. K. A. S. R. B. III A. B. C. R. A. III W. Jr. N. J. A. J. W. R. J. R. J. W. J. F. F. B. E. E. G. J. H. E. W. D. Jr. L. Jr. F. S. W. Jr. B. Jr. J. J. J. L. M. E. A. D. Jo J. B. C. Jr. A. Jr. G. M. A. J. E. G. R. J. J. J. W. A. Jr. E. R. N. C. K. I. J. F. J. J. S. Jr. S. L. P. A. B. Jr. J. M. H. J. J. B. F. A. K. O O O. F. O M. A. M. D. L. R. J. J. C. Jr. C. S. W. Jr. S. Jr. L. B. H. G. De W. K. A. A. J. J. W. H. H. M. Jr. S. D. L. R. K. J. W. Jr. J. Jr. P. W. R. Jr. A. Jr. F. M. W. G. J. L. E. W. M. M. D. G. J. E., 433 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2006)

. . . credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, (2) passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HILDENBRANDT,, 378 F. Supp. 2d 44 (N.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . offenses were fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods, passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

BANYARD, v. A. DUNCAN,, 342 F. Supp. 2d 865 (C.D. Cal. 2004)

. . . Rummel’s second felony conviction was for passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36, punishable . . .

RAMIREZ, v. R. A. CASTRO,, 365 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2004)

. . . released from prison, Rummel committed his second felony — passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

LARIOS, v. COX,, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2004)

. . . the House, Republicans in single-, two-, and three-member districts retained an average of 56.73%, 28.36% . . .

CLARK, v. A. A. LAMARQUE,, 82 F. App'x 522 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . obtaining $120.75, when the defendant had previous convictions for passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

SANDERS, v. MCKEE, 276 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. Mich. 2003)

. . . and services, a felony punishable by two to ten years in prison; and (2) passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

BARTLETT, v. W. A. DUNCAN,, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . a life sentence imposed under a recidivist statute where the three felonies were passing a forged $28.36 . . .

EWING v. CALIFORNIA, 538 U.S. 11 (U.S. 2003)

. . . worth of goods or services,” and a 1969 felony conviction for “passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

DEDMON, v. ROE,, 49 F. App'x 718 (9th Cir. 2002)

. . . fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services and passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

CESC PLAZA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. UNITED STATES, LCOR LLC,, 52 Fed. Cl. 91 (Fed. Cl. 2002)

. . . The amended contract sets the rent at $28.36 rent per square foot. AR at 27. . . .

HUTTO, v. WEBER, W., 275 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services and for passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

FRIDAY, v. STRAUB,, 175 F. Supp. 2d 933 (E.D. Mich. 2001)

. . . and services, a felony punishable by two to ten years in prison; and (2) passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

ANDRADE, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA B., 270 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . to obtain $80 worth of goods or services; and (2) a 1969 conviction for passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. MURGAS, a k a a k a E. a k a a k a a k a A. a k a a k a a k a A. a k a a k a J. Jr., 31 F. Supp. 2d 245 (N.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . fraudulently using a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

SMALLWOOD, v. JOHNSON,, 73 F.3d 1343 (5th Cir. 1996)

. . . credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods and services and (2) passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

MOORE, v. IRVIN,, 908 F. Supp. 200 (N.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods, passing a forged cheek in the amount of $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. G. SANTOS,, 64 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1995)

. . . fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CARR,, 56 F.3d 38 (9th Cir. 1995)

. . . under a “recidivist statute” where the three felonies involved were (1) passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

A. THOMPTO, v. COBORN S INCORPORATED,, 871 F. Supp. 1097 (N.D. Iowa 1994)

. . . the deli for only a little over two of the three months, the Mason City deli showed gross profits of 28.36% . . .

UNITED STATES v. SPENCER,, 25 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1994)

. . . on a recidivist whose three offenses consisted of obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses, passing a $28.36 . . .

ATKINS, v. OVERTON,, 843 F. Supp. 258 (E.D. Mich. 1994)

. . . with intent to defraud another of about $80, feloniously passing a forged check with a face value of $28.36 . . .

ELLIS, v. CITY OF LA MESA, PAULSON, T. v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, MURPHY, v. BILBRAY,, 990 F.2d 1518 (9th Cir. 1993)

. . . See id. at § 28.36. The reverter clause may no longer be applicable. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CURTIS, UNITED STATES v. M. THOMPSON, UNITED STATES v. M. THOMPSON,, 965 F.2d 610 (8th Cir. 1992)

. . . card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services and another for passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. BLAND,, 961 F.2d 123 (9th Cir. 1992)

. . . sentence of a recidivist convicted of fraudulent use of a credit card for $80, passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

HARMELIN v. MICHIGAN, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991)

. . . of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

BURT, v. W. PUCKETT,, 933 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1991)

. . . of using a credit card fraudulently (to obtain $80 worth of goods) and of passing a forged check ($28.36 . . .

BAKER, v. COWLEY,, 931 F.2d 1394 (10th Cir. 1991)

. . . credit card to obtain $80.00 worth of goods and services and passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

DAINES, v. CITY OF MANKATO,, 754 F. Supp. 681 (D. Minn. 1990)

. . . to June 6, 1984, based on standard and accepted statistical sources for employment data, ranges from 28.36% . . . Ser. 31.65% female 6.96 0 2.96 Minnesota, All Executives 28.36% female 6.24 0 2.71 Minnesota, Administrator . . . relevant positions, based on standard and accepted statistical sources for employment data, ranges from 28.36% . . .

HATTER, v. WARDEN, IOWA MEN S REFORMATORY,, 734 F. Supp. 1505 (N.D. Iowa 1990)

. . . credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods and services and passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. WHYTE, A. a k a, 892 F.2d 1170 (3d Cir. 1989)

. . . of stealing items worth $80 through the fraudulent use of a credit card, passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

YOUNG, v. MILLER,, 883 F.2d 1276 (6th Cir. 1989)

. . . of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods and services; passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

COCIO, v. BRAMLETT,, 872 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1989)

. . . use of a credit card to obtain $80.00 worth of goods or services and for passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

ALFORD, v. ROLFS,, 867 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1989)

. . . fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80.00 worth of goods or services; (2) passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

In BROADY A. MINER, v. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF NORTHWEST MISSOURI, f k a Sr. G., 96 B.R. 218 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1988)

. . . The percentage of payment would be 28.36%. . . .

WILLIAMS, v. E. JOHNSON,, 845 F.2d 906 (11th Cir. 1988)

. . . card to obtain $80 worth of goods, and in 1969, he had been convicted of passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

In TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC., 674 F. Supp. 337 (M.D. Fla. 1987)

. . . Stine 1986 - 0.2 hours @ $28.36/hr. 1987 - 44.4 hours @ $29.22/hr. . . .

In BEVERLY HILLS FIRE LITIGATION., 639 F. Supp. 915 (E.D. Ky. 1986)

. . . lounge 16.69 #56 ” ” lobby lounge 16.69 #57 ” ” Banquets Cont. breakfast 185.50 #60 12/1/84 Brasserie 28.36 . . .

UNITED STATES v. RHODES, a k a UNITED STATES v. CHEEK, Jr., 779 F.2d 1019 (4th Cir. 1985)

. . . a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services and passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

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

. . . 29.11 Total Middle Schools All Grades 22.98 21.38 22.69 23.50 22.55 23.75 24.57 26.23 26.95 27.19 26.38 28.36 . . .

S. FOSTER, v. UNITED STATES, 2 Cl. Ct. 426 (Cl. Ct. 1983)

. . . Armor stone delivered to the project from the Riverside quarry was estimated to cost approximately $28.36 . . . Avila $28.36/Ton Cost from Tract 83 to 2. . . .

HELM, v. SOLEM,, 684 F.2d 582 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . At the time, Rummel had two prior felony convictions— passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36, . . .

HUTTO, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1982)

. . . He had previously been convicted of passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36, and of fraudulently . . . to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, and in 1969 for passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

J. TERREBONNE, v. BLACKBURN,, 646 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

R. G. BRITTON v. ROGERS,, 631 F.2d 572 (8th Cir. 1980)

. . . ’s conviction as a recidivist involved the use of fraud to obtain small sums of money ranging from $28.36 . . .

GOVERNMENT OF VIRGIN ISLANDS v. BERRY,, 631 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1980)

. . . of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 . . .

X. CHAPMAN, v. PICKETT, 491 F. Supp. 967 (C.D. Ill. 1980)

. . . fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services and passing a forged check for $28.36 . . .

RUMMEL v. ESTELLE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, 445 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1980)

. . . In 1969, he was convicted for the felony of passing a forged check with a face value of $28.36. . . . conviction as a habitual offender involves the use of fraud to obtain small sums of money ranging from $28.36 . . . In 1969 the State of Texas charged Rummel with passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36, a crime . . . imprisonment in 49 States and the District of Columbia, even though the amount in question was only $28.36 . . .

J. CORBETT, v. E. BORDENKIRCHER,, 615 F.2d 722 (6th Cir. 1980)

. . . the felonies were three fraud crimes (over a period of about ten years) involving $120.75, $80, and $28.36 . . .

RUMMEL, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., 587 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1978)

. . . $120.75 by false pretences, he had previously been convicted in 1969 for passing a forged check for $28.36 . . . intent to defraud of approximately $80, and in 1969 he passed a forged instrument with a face value of $28.36 . . .

CARMONA v. WARD,, 576 F.2d 405 (2d Cir. 1978)

. . . credit card with the intent to defraud of $80 and passing a forged instrument with a face value of $28.36 . . .

In PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, In OPINION APPROVING PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, 458 F. Supp. 1234 (E.D. Pa. 1978)

. . . Of the 30 million preference shares authorized, it is expected that 28.36 million will be issued to secured . . .

RUMMEL, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., 568 F.2d 1193 (5th Cir. 1978)

. . . intent to defraud of approximately $80, and in 1969 he passed a forged instrument with a face value of $28.36 . . .

HART, a v. COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK SCHOOL DISTRICT a COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK SCHOOL DISTRICT By J. v. V. LINDSAY,, 383 F. Supp. 699 (E.D.N.Y. 1974)

. . . O’Dwyer was a city moderate income project, charging $28.36 per rental room. 45% of the apartments at . . .

Co. v., 64 Cust. Ct. 598 (Cust. Ct. 1970)

. . . c.i.f. prices per thousand sq. ft. in dollars ($29.09 each for three orders, $30.00 for one order, and $28.36 . . . sale on April 22 was at that price and the other at $30.00, and the sale of October 22,1953 was at $28.36 . . .

v., 26 Ohio Misc. 192 (6th Cir. 1969)

. . . -65, 17.05 percentage of the Walnut Hills senior high school was Negro, and of Walnut Hills junior, 28.36% . . .

P. KINSEY, a a G. Co. a v. S. KNAPP, E. A. B. W. J., 154 F. Supp. 263 (E.D. Mich. 1957)

. . . the Michigan Restraint of Trade Law, Comp.Laws Mich.1948, §§ 445.701(5), 445.708, M.S.A. 28.31(5) and 28.36 . . . M.S.A. 28.36 declares that any contract violation of sub-paragraph (5) is against public policy and absolutely . . .

BROOKSIDE THEATRE CORP. v. TWENTIETH CENTURY- FOX FILM CORP., 11 F.R.D. 259 (W.D. Mo. 1951)

. . . The next item in the sum of $28.36 to the “U. S. . . .

KOPPERS UNITED CO. v. SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION KOPPERS CO. v. SAME EASTERN GAS FUEL ASSOCIATES v. SAME, 138 F.2d 577 (D.C. Cir. 1943)

. . . the pyramid, Koppers United owns the entire voting stock of Fuel Investment Associates, which owns 28.36 . . . and Koppers Company holds half as much stock in Eastern (14.59 per cent) as Fuel Investment holds (28.36 . . .

SILAS MOORE v. ALEX LITTLEFIELD,, 153 Fla. 476 (Fla. 1943)

. . . He was sentenced on December 10, 1941, to pay a fine of $100.00 and costs taxed at the sum of $28.36, . . .

v., 43 B.T.A. 423 (B.T.A. 1941)

. . . Steknhagen: The Commissioner determined a deficiency for 1936 of $967.36 in income tax and $28.36 in . . .

SANTA MONICA MOUNTAIN PARK CO. v. UNITED STATES, 99 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1938)

. . . As pointed out in Paul and Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation (1934), Vol. 3, § 28.36, p. 427, in . . .

SANTA MONICA MOUNTAIN PARK CO. v. UNITED STATES, 20 F. Supp. 209 (S.D. Cal. 1937)

. . . See Paul & Mertcns, Law of Federal Income Taxation (1934) §§ 28.26, 28.36; American Savings Bank & Trust . . .

ALEXANDER GARRETT v. UNITED STATES, 21 F.2d 547 (S.D. Ga. 1927)

. . . . $9,262.38 Less profit and loss account ...... 28.36 $9,234.02 9,234.02 December 31, 1918........... . . .