The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . . §§ 572B.25, 549.02, and 549.04. But under Fed. R. Civ. . . .
. . . See also 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 549.04[2] (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. . . .
. . . . § 549.04, subd. 1 (“[i]n every action in a district court, the prevailing party ... shall be allowed . . .
. . . Sommer, 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 549.04[l]-549.05 (16th ed. 2011). . . .
. . . see In re Three Partners, Inc., 199 B.R. 230, 237-38 (Bankr.D.Mass.1995); 5 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 549.04 . . .
. . . transaction suspicious, thus calling for an explanation. 5 Collier, supra, ¶ 548.01[b][1]; see also id. at ¶ 549.04 . . .
. . . interest and would have to be returned to the secured creditor in any event. 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 549.04 . . .
. . . Sommer, 5 Collier On Bankruptcy ¶ 549.04[4] (15th ed. rev. 2007) ("Transfers authorized by the bankruptcy . . .
. . . .1994)); see also In re Hoffman, 51 B.R. 42, 46 (Bankr.W.D.Ark.1985) (same); 5 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 549.04 . . .
. . . determining the § 502(b)(6) cap without regard to the letter of credit); see also 5 Collier on Bankruptcy, § 549.04 . . .
. . . determining the § 502(b)(6) cap without regard to the letter of credit); see also 5 Collier on Bankruptcy, § 549.04 . . .
. . . credit paid to a creditor of the debtor who is a beneficiary of the letter.” 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 549.04 . . .
. . . Hummel 552.75 549.04 $141,090.29 $140,143.20 No money damages were assessed against the Seneca station . . .
. . . . § 549.04); Peterson v. . . . litigation expenses are recoverable in Minnesota under the taxation of disbursements statute, Minn.Stat. § 549.04 . . . Minn.Stat. § 549.04 entitled "Disbursements; taxation and allowance” provides: In every action in a district . . . Minn.Stat. § 549.04 (1990). . See footnote 1, supra. . . .
. . . The jury necessarily found that defendant had wrongfully acquired $549.04 in Medicare funds through his . . . The government asserts that it sustained damages of $549.04 as a result of defendant’s false claims, . . . disputes this method of forfeiture calculation, focusing on the lack of a relationship between the $549.04 . . .
