Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 35 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 35 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 35

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Chapter 35
DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL
View Entire Chapter
CHAPTER 35
CHAPTER 35
DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL
35.01 District courts of appeal; districts.
35.02 First Appellate District.
35.03 Second Appellate District.
35.04 Third Appellate District.
35.042 Fourth Appellate District.
35.043 Fifth Appellate District.
35.044 Sixth Appellate District.
35.05 Headquarters.
35.051 Subsistence and travel reimbursement for judges with alternate headquarters.
35.06 Organization of district courts of appeal.
35.065 Review of judgment or order certified by county court to be of great public importance.
35.08 Power to execute its judgments.
35.15 Decisions to be filed; copies to be furnished.
35.20 Retirement of district court of appeal judge.
35.22 Clerk of district court; assistants; filing fees; teleconferencing.
35.23 Location of clerk’s office.
35.24 Maintenance of books, records, and other materials.
35.26 Marshal of district court; appointment; duties.
35.28 District courts of appeal libraries.
35.01 District courts of appeal; districts.Six district courts of appeal are created, and the state is divided into six appellate districts of contiguous circuits.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 1, ch. 65-294; s. 1, ch. 79-413; s. 4, ch. 2022-163.
35.02 First Appellate District.The First Appellate District is composed of the First, Second, Third, Eighth, and Fourteenth Judicial Circuits.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 1, ch. 65-294; s. 1, ch. 79-413; s. 5, ch. 2022-163.
35.03 Second Appellate District.The Second Appellate District is composed of the Sixth, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Judicial Circuits.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 1, ch. 65-294; s. 1, ch. 79-413; s. 6, ch. 2022-163.
35.04 Third Appellate District.The Third Appellate District is composed of the Eleventh and Sixteenth Judicial Circuits.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 1, ch. 65-294; s. 1, ch. 79-413.
35.042 Fourth Appellate District.The Fourth Appellate District is composed of the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Judicial Circuits.
History.s. 2, ch. 65-294; s. 1, ch. 79-413.
35.043 Fifth Appellate District.The Fifth Appellate District is composed of the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighteenth Judicial Circuits.
History.s. 2, ch. 79-413; s. 7, ch. 2022-163.
35.044 Sixth Appellate District.The Sixth Appellate District is composed of the Ninth, Tenth, and Twentieth Judicial Circuits.
History.s. 8, ch. 2022-163.
35.05 Headquarters.
(1) The headquarters of the First Appellate District shall be in the Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Leon County; of the Second Appellate District in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County; of the Third Appellate District in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County; of the Fourth Appellate District in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; of the Fifth Appellate District in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Volusia County; and of the Sixth Appellate District in the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Lakeland, Polk County. Although each district must have a headquarters as set forth in this subsection, the Legislature intends for policies and practices to be implemented to encourage top applicants for judicial vacancies from throughout each entire district and to provide opportunities for remote workplaces for judges and staff who may not live near the headquarters of the district. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that the district courts operate as efficiently as possible through the use of leading technologies and by adopting policies and practices that encourage innovation and workforce flexibility.
(2) A district court of appeal may designate other locations within its district as branch headquarters for the conduct of the business of the court and as the official headquarters of its officers or employees pursuant to s. 112.061.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 1, ch. 65-294; ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, ch. 67-29; s. 8, ch. 71-355; s. 3, ch. 79-413; s. 1, ch. 80-123; s. 22, ch. 2000-237; s. 11, ch. 2008-4; s. 7, ch. 2013-25; s. 9, ch. 2022-163.
35.051 Subsistence and travel reimbursement for judges with alternate headquarters.
(1)(a) A district court of appeal judge is eligible for the designation of a county courthouse or another appropriate facility in his or her county of residence as his or her official headquarters for purposes of s. 112.061 if the judge permanently resides more than 50 miles from:
1. The appellate district’s headquarters as prescribed under s. 35.05(1), if the judge is assigned to such headquarters; or
2. The appellate district’s branch headquarters established under s. 35.05(2), if the judge is assigned to such branch headquarters.

The official headquarters may serve only as the judge’s private chambers.

(b)1. A district court of appeal judge for whom an official headquarters is designated in his or her county of residence under this subsection is eligible for subsistence at a rate to be established by the Chief Justice for each day or partial day that the judge is at the headquarters or branch headquarters of his or her appellate district to conduct court business, as authorized by the chief judge of that district court of appeal. The Chief Justice may authorize a judge to choose between subsistence based on lodging at a single-occupancy rate and meal reimbursement as provided in s. 112.061 and subsistence at a fixed rate prescribed by the Chief Justice.
2. In addition to subsistence, a district court of appeal judge is eligible for reimbursement for travel expenses as provided in s. 112.061(7) and (8) for travel between the judge’s official headquarters and the headquarters or branch headquarters of the appellate district to conduct court business.
(c) Payment of subsistence and reimbursement for travel expenses between the judge’s official headquarters and the headquarters or branch headquarters of his or her appellate district shall be made to the extent that appropriated funds are available, as determined by the Chief Justice.
(2) The Chief Justice shall coordinate with each affected district court of appeal judge and other state and local officials as necessary to implement subsection (1).
(3)(a) This section does not require a county to provide space in a county courthouse for a district court of appeal judge. A county may enter into an agreement with a district court of appeal governing the use of space in a county courthouse.
(b) A district court of appeal may not use state funds to lease space in a county courthouse or other facility to allow a district court of appeal judge to establish an official headquarters pursuant to subsection (1).
(4) The Chief Justice may establish parameters governing the authority provided in this section, including, but not limited to, specifying minimum operational requirements for the designated headquarters, limiting the number of days for which subsistence and travel reimbursement may be provided, and prescribing activities that qualify as the conduct of court business.
(5) If any term of this section conflicts with s. 112.061, this section shall control to the extent of the conflict.
History.s. 2, ch. 2020-61; s. 13, ch. 2022-163.
35.06 Organization of district courts of appeal.A district court of appeal shall be organized in each of the six appellate districts to be named District Court of Appeal,   District. The number of judges of each district court of appeal shall be as follows:
(1) In the first district there shall be 13 judges.
(2) In the second district there shall be 15 judges.
(3) In the third district there shall be 10 judges.
(4) In the fourth district there shall be 12 judges.
(5) In the fifth district there shall be 12 judges.
(6) In the sixth district there shall be 9 judges.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 1, ch. 65-294; s. 1, ch. 67-11; s. 9, ch. 71-355; s. 3, ch. 76-175; s. 3, ch. 77-368; s. 3, ch. 79-312; s. 3, ch. 79-413; s. 4, ch. 80-164; s. 4, ch. 81-220; s. 4, ch. 82-238; s. 1, ch. 88-167; ss. 3, 10, ch. 89-290; s. 3, ch. 93-63; s. 5, ch. 99-151; s. 13, ch. 99-355; s. 12, ch. 2008-111; s. 1, ch. 2014-58; s. 10, ch. 2022-163.
35.065 Review of judgment or order certified by county court to be of great public importance.Pursuant to s. 34.017, a district court of appeal may review any order or judgment of a county court which is certified by the county court to be of great public importance.
History.s. 4, ch. 84-303; s. 7, ch. 2020-61.
35.08 Power to execute its judgments.Each district court of appeal is vested with all the power and authority necessary for carrying into complete execution all of its judgments, decrees, orders, and determinations in the matters before it agreeable to the usage and principles of law.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248.
35.15 Decisions to be filed; copies to be furnished.All decisions and opinions delivered by the district courts of appeal, or any judge thereof, relating to any action or proceeding pending in such court must be filed in the office of the clerk and maintained in the control of the clerk. Such decisions and opinions may not be taken from the clerk’s maintenance or control except by order of the court; however, the clerk must furnish certified copies of such opinions and decisions to any person who makes such a request, upon receiving any required fees.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 200, ch. 95-147; s. 5, ch. 2021-230.
35.20 Retirement of district court of appeal judge.Retirement of a district court of appeal judge shall be as provided by law.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248.
35.22 Clerk of district court; assistants; filing fees; teleconferencing.
(1) The clerk may employ deputies and clerical assistants as may be necessary. Their number and compensation shall be approved by the court, and paid from the annual appropriation for the district courts of appeal.
(2)(a) The clerk, upon the filing of a certified copy of a notice of appeal or petition, shall charge and collect a filing fee of $300 for each case docketed, and service charges as provided in s. 28.24 for copying, certifying or furnishing opinions, records, papers or other instruments and for other services. The state or its agencies, when appearing as appellant or petitioner, is exempt from the filing fee required in this subsection. The clerk shall collect from each attorney appearance pro hac vice a fee of $100 for deposit as provided in this section.
(b) Upon the filing of a notice of cross-appeal, or a notice of joinder or motion to intervene as an appellant, cross-appellant, or petitioner, the clerk shall charge and collect a filing fee of $295. The clerk shall remit the fee to the Department of Revenue for deposit into the General Revenue Fund. The state and its agencies are exempt from the filing fee required by this paragraph.
(3) The opinions of the district court of appeal may not be recorded, but the original as filed shall be preserved with the record in each case.
(4) The clerk may immediately, after a case is disposed of, supply the judge who tried the case and from whose order, judgment, or decree, appeal or other review is taken, a copy of all opinions, orders, or judgments filed in such case. Copies of opinions, orders, and decrees shall be furnished in all cases to each attorney of record and for publication in Florida reports to the authorized publisher without charge, and copies furnished to other law book publishers at one-half the regular statutory fee.
(5) The clerk of each district court of appeal shall deposit all fees collected in the State Treasury to the credit of the General Revenue Fund, except that $50 of each $300 filing fee collected shall be deposited into the State Courts Revenue Trust Fund to fund court operations as authorized in the General Appropriations Act. The clerk shall retain an accounting of each such remittance.
(6) The clerk of the district court of appeal may collect a fee from the parties to an appeal reflecting the actual cost of conducting the proceeding through teleconferencing if the parties have requested that an oral argument or mediation be conducted through teleconferencing. The fee collected for this purpose shall be used to offset the expenses associated with scheduling the teleconference and shall be deposited in the State Courts Revenue Trust Fund.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 1, ch. 73-305; s. 4, ch. 75-124; s. 1, ch. 78-349; s. 2, ch. 85-222; s. 3, ch. 85-249; s. 7, ch. 89-290; s. 1, ch. 93-161; s. 202, ch. 95-147; s. 16, ch. 95-312; s. 35, ch. 2004-265; s. 5, ch. 2006-23; s. 13, ch. 2008-111; s. 18, ch. 2010-162; s. 3, ch. 2011-133; s. 13, ch. 2014-182.
35.23 Location of clerk’s office.Each clerk shall have an office at the headquarters of the district court of appeal.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 203, ch. 95-147; s. 6, ch. 2021-230.
35.24 Maintenance of books, records, and other materials.All books, papers, records, files and the seal of each district court of appeal shall be maintained by, and in the control of, the clerk of the court.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 7, ch. 2021-230.
35.26 Marshal of district court; appointment; duties.
(1) Each of the district courts of appeal shall appoint a marshal who shall hold office during the pleasure of the court.
(2) He or she shall have the power to execute the process of the court throughout the state, and in any county may deputize the sheriff or a deputy sheriff for such purpose.
(3) The marshal shall, under the direction of the district court of appeal be custodian of the headquarters occupied by the court and shall perform such other duties as directed by the court.
(4) The marshal and his or her assistants shall be the conservators of the peace in the headquarters of the district court of appeal, or in any building in which the district court of appeal is sitting, and shall apprehend, without warrant, any person disturbing the peace and deliver that person to the appropriate law enforcement officer of the municipality or county in which further proceedings may be held according to law.
(5) The marshal and his or her assistants shall attend and successfully complete a minimum standards training program approved by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission within the Department of Law Enforcement.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 2, ch. 80-145; s. 5, ch. 83-167; s. 204, ch. 95-147; s. 4, ch. 95-325.
35.28 District courts of appeal libraries.The library of each of the district courts of appeal and its custodian shall be provided for by rule of the Supreme Court. Payment for books, equipment, supplies, and quarters as provided for in such rules shall be paid from funds appropriated for the district courts, on requisition drawn as provided by law.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248.

F.S. 35 on Google Scholar

F.S. 35 on Casetext

Amendments to 35


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 35
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S202.35 5 - TAX REVENUE - ADVERTISE COMMUN SVCS TAX RELIEF OR REFUND - M: S
S202.35 5 - TAX REVENUE - ADVERTIS COMM SVCS TAX RELIEF REFUND SUBSQ OFF - M: F
S319.35 - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: T
S319.35 1a - FRAUD - TAMPER WITH VEHICLE ODOMETER - F: T
S319.35 1b - FRAUD-FALSE STATEMENT - FALSE ODOMETER READING - F: T
S319.35 1c - FRAUD - POSS SELL DISPOSE MTR VEH W TAMPERED ODOMETER - F: T
S319.35 2a - FRAUD - VIOLATION NOTICE REPAIR REPLACEMENT ODOMETER - F: T
S319.35 2b - FRAUD - FAIL ADJUST ODOMETER AFFIX NOTICE AFTER REPAIR - F: T
S319.35 2c - FORGERY OF - REMOVE ALTER AFFIX ODOMETER NOTICE WIT DEFRAUD - F: T
S319.35 3 - FRAUD - UNLAWFULLY OPERATE VEH WITH TAMPER ODOMETER - F: T
S322.35 - MOVING TRAFFIC VIOL - PERMIT UNLICENSED MINOR TO DRIVE - M: S
S327.35 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 6918 - M: S
S327.35 1 - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8694 - M: F
S327.35 1 - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8874 - M: S
S327.35 1a - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - BUI INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS - M: S
S327.35 1b - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - BUI BLOOD ALCOHOL 0.08 OR MORE PER 100 ML - M: S
S327.35 1c - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - BUI BREATH ALCOHOL 0.08 OR MORE PER 210 L - M: S
S327.35 2a - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - REMOVED - M: F
S327.35 2a1b - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 6919 - M: F
S327.35 2a1c - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - REMOVE BY CH 2002-263 - M: F
S327.35 2b1 - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - BUI 3RD VIOLATION WITHIN 10 YEARS - F: T
S327.35 2b3 - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - BUI 4TH OR SUBSQ OFFENSE - F: T
S327.35 3c1 - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - BUI DAMAGE PROPERTY OR PERSON OF ANOTHER - M: F
S327.35 3c2 - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - BUI CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO ANOTHER - F: T
S327.35 3c3a - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - BUI CAUSE DEATH OF HUMAN BEING - F: S
S327.35 3c3b - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - BUI FAIL TO GIVE INFORMATION OR RENDER AID - F: F
S327.35 4 - DUI-UNLAW BLD ALCH - BUI 0.15 OR HIGHER OR PERSON UNDR 18 IN VESSEL - M: F
S450.35 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - EMPLOY CONTRACTOR NOT SHOWING REGIS NO HARM - M: S
S450.35 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - EMPLOY CONTRACTOR NOT SHOWING REGIS CAUSE HARM - F: T
S504.35 - FOOD-HEALTH OR SAFETY - REPEALED 2001-279 - M: S
S550.35 1a - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - REPEALED 1992 UNLAWFUL DISSEMINATE RACE INFO - F: T
S550.35 1b - GAMBLING - REPEALED 1992 TRANSMIT RACE INFO ILLEGAL PURP - F: T
S713.35 - FRAUD-FALSE STATEMENT - REGARDING SUBCONTRACTOR - F: T
S713.35 - FRAUD-FALSE STATEMENT - WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT SUBCONTRACTOR - F: T
S775.35 1 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - AGROTERRORISM SPREAD CONTAG INFECTIOUS DISEASE - F: S
S775.35 2 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - AGROTERRORISM RESULT DEATH SERIOUS BOD INJURY - F: L
S817.35 - FRAUD - SELL CEMETERY LOT W INDUCEMENT SELL FOR PROFIT - M: S
S876.35 - SOVEREIGNTY - LEVY WAR AGAINST OR REMOVE PEOPLE OF THE STATE - F: T
S944.35 3a1 - BATTERY - ON PRISONER MALICIOUS WO GREAT BODILY HARM - M: F
S944.35 3a2 - BATTERY - ON PRISONER MALICIOUS GREAT BODILY HARM - F: T
S944.35 3b - SEX OFFENSE - DOC EMPL SEX MISCONDUCT W INMATE OR OFFENDER - F: T
S944.35 4a - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - FAIL TO MAKE REQUIRED REPORT REGARDING BATTERY - M: F
S944.35 4b - FRAUD-FALSE STATEMENT - PRISON EMPLOYEE SUBMIT INACCURATE REPORT - M: F
S944.35 4c - OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE - THREATEN ANOTHER TO ALTER REPORT - F: T


Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S35
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

S322.35 PERMITTING UNAUTHORIZED MINOR (under 18) to drive (MUST BE PARENT/GUARDIAN to be cited under this statute) - Points on Drivers License: 0


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY v. SISOLAK,, 140 S. Ct. 2603 (U.S. 2020)

. . . . ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 1719, 1731, 201 L.Ed.2d 35 (2018) (quoting Church of Lukumi , 508 U.S. at 534 . . . facilities, § 28, and most notably, casinos, which have operated at 50% capacity for over a month, § 35 . . .

J. TRUMP, v. R. VANCE, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 2412 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Zivotofsky , 576 U.S. at 34-35, 135 S.Ct. 2076 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). . . . Id., at 35-40, 135 S.Ct. 2076. The President has extensive domestic responsibilities as well. . . . Id. , at 35. * * * I agree with the majority that the President has no absolute immunity from the issuance . . . Id. , at 35. . . . Recording of Oral Arg. in No. 19-3204 (CA2, Oct. 23, 2019), at 28:20- 28:40; 36:35-36:45, https://www.ca2 . . .

MCGIRT, v. OKLAHOMA, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Act of May 27, 1908, ch. 199, § 1, 35 Stat. 312. . . . Act of May 27, 1908, § 13, 35 Stat. 316. . . . Act of Mar. 3, 1909, ch. 263, 35 Stat. 781, 805. . . . Id., at 297, 299 35 S.Ct. 764 (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . Act of May 27, 1908, § 13, 35 Stat. 316. . . .

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER AND PAUL HOME, v. PENNSYLVANIA, J. v., 140 S. Ct. 2367 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Brief for Little Sisters 35. . . . T. 2015, Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119, 15-191, pp. 35-41. . . . T. 2015, Nos. 15-35, 15-105, 15-119, 15-191, p. 45. Brief for Petitioners in Zubik v. Burwell , O. . . . T. 2015, Nos. 15-35, 15-105, 15-119, 15-191, at 44. . . .

ESPINOZA, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Cournos, A Modern Plutarch 35 (1928). . . . See Brief for Oklahoma et al. as Amici Curiae 29-31, 33-35; Brief for Petitioners 5. . . . Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n , 584 U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 1719, 1747-1748, 201 L.Ed.2d 35 (2018) . . . See id., at 34-35; D. Drakeman, Church, State, and Original Intent 224-225 (2010). . . .

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO, v. LLC., 140 S. Ct. 2103 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Bolton , 410 U.S. 179, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973), it did so only in dicta, id., at 188-189, . . . Maryland , 235 U.S. 610, 621, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 (1915) ; Massachusetts v. . . . Wade , 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). . . . Bolton , 410 U.S. 179, 221-223, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973) (White, J., dissenting); Akron v. . . . Wade , 410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) ("Pregnancy provides a classic justification . . . Wade , 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). . . . Wade , 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), is not even at issue here. . . .

SEILA LAW LLC, v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Brief for Petitioner 35. I would do just that. . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. THURAISSIGIAM, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (U.S. 2020)

. . . United States , 142 U.S. 651, 660, 12 S.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146 (1892). . . . Rev. 27, 35 (1890) ("England was a complete asylum to the foreigner who did not offend against its laws . . . United States , 142 U.S. 651, 12 S.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146 (1892), required the Court to address the effect . . . United States , 142 U.S. 651, 660, 12 S.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146 (1892). . . . United States , 142 U.S. 651, 12 S.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146 (1892) ( Ekiu ), to preclude only review of . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, J. v., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Co. , 410 U.S. 224, 237-238, 93 S.Ct. 810, 35 L.Ed.2d 223 (1973). . . .

BOSTOCK, v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA v. Jr. Co- R. G. G. R. v., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (U.S. 2020)

. . . . ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 1719, 1727, 201 L.Ed.2d 35 (2018). . . . Eskridge, Interpreting Law 33, 34-35 (2016) (footnote omitted). . . . . § 35 The sensibility of the female sex appears .. to be greater than that of the male. 1814 SCOTT Ld . . .

L. BAXTER v. BRACEY,, 140 S. Ct. 1862 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Anderson , 238 U.S. 368, 378-379, 35 S.Ct. 932, 59 L.Ed. 1349 (1915) (imposing liability); id., at 371 . . . , 35 S.Ct. 932 (argument by counsel that malice was an essential element). . . .

ROGERS, v. GREWAL,, 140 S. Ct. 1865 (U.S. 2020)

. . . .); but see id. , at 34-35 (Lacy, J., dissenting). . . .

ANDRUS v. TEXAS, 140 S. Ct. 1875 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Id. , at 35. . . . inform the jury that the evidence made it "probabl[e]" that Andrus was "a violent kind of guy." 52 Tr. 35 . . . central position in the photo array, as the "[o]nly one ... looking directly up and out." 8 Habeas Tr. 35 . . .

J. LOMAX, v. ORTIZ- MARQUEZ,, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See Brief for Respondents 31-35 (noting that flexible amendment practices "ensure that potentially meritorious . . .

J. THOLE, v. U. S. BANK N. A, 140 S. Ct. 1615 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Drury , 235 U.S. 106, 120, 35 S.Ct. 77, 59 L.Ed. 151 (1914) (under "the principles governing the duty . . . After today's decision, about 35 million people with defined-benefit plans will be vulnerable to fiduciary . . .

GE ENERGY POWER CONVERSION FRANCE SAS, CORP. SAS, v. OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC,, 140 S. Ct. 1637 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Id. , at 34-35 (citing, e.g., Chan v. . . .

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC, LLC, III v. LLC, v. LLC, n De De La El Y v., 140 S. Ct. 1649 (U.S. 2020)

. . . United States , 140 U.S. 118, 128-129, 11 S.Ct. 761, 35 L.Ed. 377 (1891) (same). . . . In re Duncan , 139 U.S. 449, 461, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219 (1891) (discussing the republican governments . . .

LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES, INC. v. MARCEL FASHIONS GROUP, INC., 140 S. Ct. 1589 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Id. , at 26-35. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. SINENENG- SMITH, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Brief for Appellant in No. 15-10614 (CA9), at 9-27, 35-41; Recording of Oral Arg. . . .

MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS, v. UNITED STATES v. v. v., 140 S. Ct. 1308 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach , 523 U.S. 26, 35, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998) (observing . . . Lexecon , 523 U.S. at 35, 118 S.Ct. 956. . . .

GEORGIA, v. PUBLIC. RESOURCE. ORG, INC., 140 S. Ct. 1498 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Nash , 142 Mass. at 35, 6 N.E. at 560 (cited by Banks , 128 U.S. at 253-254, 9 S.Ct. 36 ). . . . See, e.g. , Nash , 142 Mass. at 35, 6 N.E. at 560 (judicial opinions and statutes stand "on substantially . . . Lathrop , 142 Mass. 29, 35, 6 N.E. 559, 560 (1886) (cited in Banks , 128 U.S. at 253-254, 9 S.Ct. 36 . . . Code Revision Comm'n , 244 Ga. 325, 331, 260 S.E.2d 30, 35 (1979) (observation by the Supreme Court of . . .

BARTON, v. P. BARR,, 140 S. Ct. 1442 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Cyr , 533 U.S. 289, 312 n. 35, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (noting that " '[w]here Congress . . .

COUNTY OF MAUI, HAWAII, v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND,, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 33-35. . . .

ROMAG FASTENERS, INC. v. FOSSIL, INC., 140 S. Ct. 1492 (U.S. 2020)

. . . The relevant section of the Lanham Act governing remedies for trademark violations, § 35, 60 Stat. 439 . . . Minnesota Moline Plow Co. , 235 U.S. 641, 644, 650-651, 35 S.Ct. 221, 59 L.Ed. 398 (1915). . . .

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, v. A. CHRISTIAN,, 140 S. Ct. 1335 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Over the past 35 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has worked with the current owner of the . . . In the 35 years since, EPA has managed an extensive cleanup at the site, working with Atlantic Richfield . . .

THRYV, INC. v. CLICK- TO- CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP,, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (U.S. 2020)

. . . presented with a request for inter partes review, the agency must decide whether to institute review. 35 . . . See 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. . . . 314(d) : "A determination by the Director under subsection (a) shall be final and non-appealable." 35 . . . that no substantial new question of patentability has been raised will be final and nonappealable." 35 . . . Compare 35 U.S.C. § 316 with §§ 302, 304, 305. . . .

RAMOS, v. LOUISIANA, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Wade , 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) ; Dred Scott v. . . . Wade , 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), the Court expressly rejected Roe 's trimester . . . Rees , 553 U.S. 35, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008) ; Crawford v. . . . Code § 35-34-1-1(a) (2019) ; Iowa Ct. Rule 2.5 (2020); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3201 (2007); Md. Crim. . . . Code § 35-37-1-1(b)(2) ; Utah Code § 78B-1-104 (2019). . . . See Hickey, Federal Legislation: Improvement of the Jury System in Federal Courts, 35 Geo. L. . . . See n. 35, supra . Cf. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. . . .

BABB, v. WILKIE,, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Suppose that a decision-maker is trying to decide whether to promote employee A, who is 35 years old, . . . Based on the non-discriminatory factors, employee A (the 35-year-old) is given a score of 90, and employee . . .

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,, 140 S. Ct. 1205 (U.S. 2020)

. . . longer, threatening "the opportunity for the voter to receive [the absentee] ballot by mail"); id. , at 35 . . .

CITGO ASPHALT REFINING COMPANY, v. FRESCATI SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., 140 S. Ct. 1081 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, at 35; see also New Oxford American Dictionary, at 47 ("always" means . . . Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach , 523 U.S. 26, 35, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998). . . . Chartering Co. , [2017] UKSC 35 (The Ocean Victory ). . . .

K. KAHLER, v. KANSAS, 140 S. Ct. 1021 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Code § 35-41- 3-6(a) (2019). . . . Code § 35-41-3-6(b) (2019) ("abnormality manifested only by repeated unlawful or otherwise antisocial . . .

GUERRERO- LASPRILLA, v. P. BARR, v. P., 140 S. Ct. 1062 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Id ., at 35. . . .

MONASKY, v. TAGLIERI, 140 S. Ct. 719 (U.S. 2020)

. . . R. 582, 596, ¶35 (Austl.) . . . Id. , at 35, 38. . . . RN , [2015] UKSC 35, ¶18. . . .

PATTERSON v. WALGREEN CO., 140 S. Ct. 685 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. , 575 U.S. 768, 787, n., 135 S.Ct. 2028, 192 L.Ed.2d 35 (2015) (opinion . . .

L. BALDWIN, Et Ux. v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 690 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Co. , 142 U.S. 615, 621, 12 S.Ct. 306, 35 L.Ed. 1134 (1892). . . .

MOJICA, v. UNITED STATES., 140 S. Ct. 911 (U.S. 2020)

. . . No. 19-35 Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

PETER, v. NANTKWEST, INC., 140 S. Ct. 365 (U.S. 2019)

. . . opportunity to file a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 35 . . . Hyatt , 566 U.S. 431, 434, 132 S.Ct. 1690, 182 L.Ed.2d 704 (2012) ; 35 U.S.C. § 144. . . . Act requires applicants who avail themselves of § 145 to pay "[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings." 35 . . . See, e.g. , 35 U.S.C. § 285 ("The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the . . .

R. ISOM v. ARKANSAS, 140 S. Ct. 342 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Larkin , 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975) ). . . .

WATTS, v. WATTS,, 935 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Br. at 35 (citing Whiting , 391 F.3d at 551, and Toren v. Toren, 26 F. Supp. 2d 240, 243-44 (D. . . .

ELHADY, v. H. KABLE,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 562 (E.D. Va. 2019)

. . . Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 35-47, adverse experiences with electronic searches at the border, id. . . . Id. ¶ 35; see Pls.' MSJ Ex. 1 at 181-92. . . . Id. ¶ 35; Pls.' MSJ Ex. 1 at 186-92, 194. . . .

BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC. RX, LLC,, 935 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. moves to dismiss these appeals on the basis that our review is barred by 35 . . . challenged' and 'the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based,' " id. at 1355 (quoting 35 . . . The Board emphasized its discretion to institute IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) even upon a showing of . . . (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ("This part shall be construed to secure . . . See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). . . . The Court held that the IPR statute, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), requires that if an IPR petition is granted . . . For PTO tribunals, 35 U.S.C. § 144 assigns review obligations to the Federal Circuit: The United States . . .

ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, v. SANDOZ, INC., 935 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . combination with timolol ... for treatment of glaucoma or ocular hypertension." '453 patent col. 1 ll. 33-35 . . . See, e.g. , '453 patent col. 2 ll. 35-37. A thrice-daily dosing frequency is referred to as "TID." . . . success analysis turns entirely on claim construction."); Appellee's Br. 56-57; Appellant's Reply Br. 35 . . .

ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 935 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Mink , 410 U.S. 73, 105, 93 S.Ct. 827, 35 L.Ed.2d 119 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting)); see also id. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERRING,, 935 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 35. . . . Id. at 35. . . . Herring also alleged that he expected his attorney to "advise him regarding appeals," id. at 34-35, but . . .

SCHINK, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 935 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Heckler , 748 F.2d 629, 634-35 (11th Cir. 1984). . . .

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ST. LOUIS REGION, INC. P. D. O. M. S. C. I. F. A. C. O. G, v. L. PARSON,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 631 (W.D. Mo. 2019)

. . . Docs. 3 & 35. . . . Doc. 35. . . . Doc. 35. . . .

EDMO, v. CORIZON, INC. Al v. Al, 935 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . AT&T , 319 F.3d 1126, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2003). . . .

RAY, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, v. As, 935 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . commerce in, about and through the port of New York"-did not have Eleventh Amendment immunity. 513 U.S. at 35 . . .

IN RE JUAREZ, v., 603 B.R. 610 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Castaic Partners II, LLC) , 823 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing In re PW, LLC , 391 B.R. at 33-35 . . .

ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH NEPHEW, INC., 935 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . describes a surgical suture anchor used to reattach soft tissue to bone. '541 patent col. 1 ll. 25-35 . . . Id. at col. 2 ll. 31-35. . . .

ALMANZA, v. UNITED STATES,, 935 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 35; see also id . at 13. . . .

CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. v. TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO. OWT ET Co., 935 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . patent-ineligible, we reverse the district court's JMOL decision with respect to the '275 patent on 35 . . .

PANAH, v. CHAPPELL,, 935 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Panah, 35 Cal.4th 395, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790 (2005), and the United States Supreme Court subsequently . . .

NICHOLSON J. H. a J. N. G. a v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES a a, 935 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . the direction of one of the officers in a perceived attempt to run over the officer. 546 F.3d at 1134-35 . . .

GALDERMA LABORATORIES L. P. S. A. S. A. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 390 F. Supp. 3d 582 (D. Del. 2019)

. . . brought this action against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. for infringement of several patents under 35 . . . (D.I. 1); 35 U.S.C. § 271(d)(2)(A). II. . . . McDaniel is prior art to each of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). . . . See DX-16 at 2:35-3:13. . . .

F. DORMAN, a a v. CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION Co. W. III R. R. C., 934 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . II Over 35 years ago, in Amaro v. . . .

SEMPLE, a a k a a v. GRISWOLD, Be USA A., 934 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . district 25 had 85,051 voters, district 21 had 80,499 voters, and five other districts (1, 12, 13, 29, and 35 . . . He notes that "Colorado's 35 state senate districts are approximately equal in total population, deviating . . .

B. VANZANT v. HILL S PET NUTRITION, INC., 934 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Shell Oil Co. , 612 F.3d 932, 934-35 (7th Cir. 2010). . . .

ANDERSON, AS TRUSTEE FOR NEXT- OF- KIN OF ANDERSON v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Dr. M. D. HCMC D. J. A. F. HCMC M. D. s J. L. L. T. D. M. T., 934 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 734-35, 122 S.Ct. 2508. . . .

SCRIMO, v. LEE,, 935 F.3d 103 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) ; see also Crane v. . . . Appellee Br. 35. But the State is confused. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MCCLOUD, II,, 935 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Applying the two-level enhancement yielded a final offense level of 35. . . .

BACA v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, G. T. L. M., 935 F.3d 887 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . App. at 35. . . . Id. at 35, 13 S.Ct. 3. . . . Id. at 35, 13 S.Ct. 3. . . . McPherson , 146 U.S. at 35, 13 S.Ct. 3. . . . McPherson , 146 U.S. at 35, 13 S.Ct. 3. . . .

BURKE, v. REGALADO, v., 935 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 9031-35. As to Mr. . . . Br. at 35. This argument misses the mark. . . . al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3550 (3d ed. 2008); see In re United States , 158 F.3d 26, 34-35 . . .

GUPTA, v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC,, 934 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . . §§ 4301 - 35, and a related defamation claim. . . .

CONILLE v. COUNCIL AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, 935 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA") (Count I); (2) Local 402's deactivation violated Article IX, Section 35 . . . of Local 402 under Article V, Section 6 and not a merger or consolidation under Article IX, Section 35 . . . contending that the termination of its charter was a merger or consolidation under Article IX, Section 35 . . .

SAM K. v. SAUL,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 874 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . (R. 35, 39). . . . The doctor said plaintiff: can lift no more than 45 pounds on an occasional basis and 35 pounds on a . . .

UNITED STATES v. CANO,, 934 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 534-35, 105 S.Ct. 3304. Over the next four days, she passed 88 balloons containing cocaine. . . . Id. at 1234-35. . . .

ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. MUSHKIN, INC., 934 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . damages for patent infringement was barred by the six-year statute of limitations in the Patent Act, 35 . . . Patent No. 7,124,927 ("the '927 patent"), in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and (g). . . . The new complaint alleged that Mushkin had infringed those patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). . . . of "each of the limitations of independent claims 1, 14, and 16 of the '927 patent in violation of 35 . . . amended complaint asserted infringement of "method of use" claims of the '479 and '864 patents under 35 . . .

MYMAIL, LTD. v. OOVOO, LLC, IAC, 934 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . pleadings, asserting that the MyMail patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 . . . California's § 101 Analysis In concluding that the MyMail patent claims are patent ineligible under 35 . . .

SENNE v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP. LLC LLC LP St. LLC LLC LLC LLC L. P. L. P. LLC LLC L. P. AZPB L. P. P LLC LLC LP LLP LLC LLC,, 934 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Op. at 933-35. . . . Kovacic, A Proposal to Simplify Quantum Meruit Litigation , 35 Am. U.L. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CRUM,, 934 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Piper , 35 F.3d 611, 617 (1st Cir. 1994) ; United States v. . . .

MARTINEZ, v. WALGREEN COMPANY,, 935 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Peavy , 89 S.W.3d 30, 35-36 (Tex. 2002) (emphasis added). . . .

NEW YORK STATE CITIZENS COALITION FOR CHILDREN, v. J. POOLE,, 935 F.3d 56 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . P. 35(a). . . .

NALPROPION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC., 934 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . wherein said composition is in a single oral dosage form fixed combination. '111 patent col. 41 ll. 26-35 . . . Id. col. 13 ll. 35-45. . . . See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4 (2010). . . .

MENAKER, v. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY,, 935 F.3d 20 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Vassar Coll. , 35 F.3d 709, 714-15 (2d Cir. 1994). Doe v. Columbia , 831 F.3d at 56-57. Id. at 59. . . . See, e.g. , Yusuf , 35 F.3d at 714 ("[C]ourts have interpreted Title IX by looking to the body of law . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INCORPORATED L. L. C. s v. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, 935 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . corporation" as a corporation "whose shares ... are listed on a public stock exchange" or "in which more than 35 . . .

ZEHENTBAUER FAMILY LAND, LP LP v. CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L. L. C. L. L. C. E P USA,, 935 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . model supporting a 'plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case.' " Id. at 35 . . .

PIZZUTO, Jr. v. BLADES,, 933 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . ."); AAIDD-11 at 35 ("[T]he intellectual functioning criterion for diagnosis of [intellectual disability . . .

TAYLOR, a v. COUNTY OF PIMA, a a, 933 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . P. 35(f). Judge Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case. . . .

ROMO, v. P. BARR,, 933 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ed. 2d 35 (2011). . . .

SANOFI- AVENTIS U. S. LLC, IP, v. DR. REDDY S LABORATORIES, INC. Dr. s USA, LLC, LLC, LLC,, 933 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Decision , slip op. at 34-35. U.S. . . . Synthesis and Biological Properties of Novel C-10 Taxol® Analogues , 35 Tetrahedron Letters 5543 (1994 . . .

LILLY, v. CITY OF NEW YORK NYPD No. NYPD No., 934 F.3d 222 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 734-35 & n.24, 106 S.Ct. 1531 (collecting examples of attorney's fee awards greater than the merits . . .

GOLDEN v. NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v., 934 F.3d 302 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 1034-35 ; see also Spectraserv, Inc. , 7 A.3d at 239, 241-42 (ruling that the agency's actions . . .

MAMMANA, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 934 F.3d 368 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . McKinney , 509 U.S. 25, 35, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) ). Chavarriaga v. N.J. . . .

YOUKHANNA v. CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS C., 934 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Appellants Br. at 35. . . . from describing the history of persecution of Christians in the Middle East); R. 67-17 (Catcho Dep. at 35 . . . R. 69-20 (Rrasi Dep. at 47-49) (Page ID #2963-65); R. 69-14 (Taylor Dep. at 101-02) (Page ID #2634-35 . . .

JEFFERIES, v. UNC REGIONAL PHYSICIANS PEDIATRICS, 392 F. Supp. 3d 620 (M.D.N.C. 2019)

. . . demonstrates that Skeen, who is white, (Doc. 23-4 at 29) and Mary Beth Sullivan, also white, (id. at 35 . . . (Doc. 23-4 at 15, 21-22, 29, 35.) . . .

UNITED STATES v. ROMIG,, 933 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . corpus relief, or by bringing a motion to correct a sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 . . . legality of supervised release conditions must be challenged by a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or Rule 35 . . .

LATURNER, v. UNITED STATES,, 933 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . See Oral Arg. at 35:45-36:00. . . .

KOH, v. USTICH,, 933 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Docket Entry 285-1, Interview Video 1 at 1:35, Interview Tr. at 2. . . .

OWNER OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC. L. B. L. LLC G. v. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION S. PTC K. PTC T. PTC T. Sr. PTC N. PTC P. PTC R. PTC s, 934 F.3d 283 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Nevada, 73 U.S. 6 Wall. 35, 39-40, 46, 18 L.Ed. 745 (1867) (holding unconstitutional a state tax imposed . . .

IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON v. L. L. C. v. Jr. Sr. M. a v. L. L. C. v. Jr. Sr. v. BP v. L. L. C. v. Jr. Sr. In v. L. L. C. v. Jr. Sr. M. a v. v. Jr. Sr. M. a v. L. L. C. v. Jr. Sr. v. BP v. v. Jr. Sr. In v. L. L. C., 934 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Barrera , 907 F.3d at 234-35. . . .

MCMICHAEL, v. TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INCORPORATED RIGP DCL, L. L. C. USA,, 934 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . toolpusher, but both received lower high-grade scores-one is 48 years old and scored 72%, the other is 35 . . .

RAM REZ- P REZ, v. P. BARR,, 934 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Holder, 572 F.3d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 2009) (noting that, although such reports are helpful to assess CAT . . . Lynch, 814 F.3d 35, 39 (1st Cir. 2016) ("To the extent the social group proposed [on judicial review] . . .

IN RE ASCOT FUND LIMITED, a, 603 B.R. 271 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . (Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 34-35; Exs. 6 & 7.) . . . (Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 12, 14, 34, 35.) . . . (Ex. 2 at ¶ 35.) . . .

UNITED STATES v. SAINZ,, 933 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . It filed a motion to reduce Sainz's sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b)(2), and recommended . . . The court concluded that " Rule 35 opens the door to [a sentence] below the mandatory minimum .... . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, INC. v. MANGAN, G. J., 933 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Commissioner from enforcing the compelled-vote-reporting provision of Montana Code Annotated section 13-35 . . . NAGR's first claim as time barred and granted NAGR summary judgment on the third claim, holding § 13-35 . . .

MTD PRODUCTS INC. v. IANCU,, 933 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Board instituted review and, in its final written decision, held the challenged claims obvious under 35 . . . assembly ... configured to" perform certain functions is not a means-plus-function term subject to 35 . . . Whether claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 is a legal question of claim construction that we . . . ever contained a claim with an effective filing date on or after September 16, 2012, the version of 35 . . .

IRIDESCENT NETWORKS, INC. v. AT T MOBILITY, LLC,, 933 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. col. 1 ll. 35-45. . . .

HARDEMAN, v. CURRAN,, 933 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Pineiro , 849 F.3d 17, 34-35 (2d Cir. 2017) (conditions of confinement generally); Castro v. . . .