The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . , 66 n. 1, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (quoting 3 James Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .
. . . , 66 n. 1, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (quoting 3 James Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .
. . . OmniVision’s stock price dropped to $14.26 per share at the close of trading on November 7, 2011 on a . . .
. . . By the time that statement was filed, Motorola stock had dropped to $14.26 per share. . . .
. . . the price of KV’s common stock closed at $5.90, falling $8.36 per share from its previous close of $14.26 . . .
. . . KV’s (1) Class A common stock closed at $5.90, falling $8.36 per share from its previous close of $14.26 . . . ; (2) Class B common stock closed at $5,875, falling $8,385 per share from its previous close of $14.26 . . .
. . . 625 89.16 0.89 Tom Limited 34,375 4,903.71 49.04 Kim Limited 34,375 4,903.71 49.04 Trust Limited 100 14.26 . . . Custodianship Limited 1,426.53 14.26 Total 10,000.00 100.00 Each petitioner timely filed a Form 709, . . .
. . . Beaufort Counties, with a deviation of 5.42% above the ideal, for a “maximum population deviation” of 14.26% . . .
. . . See 2 Milgrim on Licensing § 14.26 (2007) ("Often a licensor will desire to restrict the use or uses . . .
. . . The court observes that Motorola shares fell from a close of $14.52 on March 29 to a close of $14.26 . . .
. . . . § 14.26 requires the NPS to assess a fair market value charge for the use and occupancy of NPS lands . . .
. . . per capita basis, Brooklyn’s homicide rate in 2000 was 9.57 per 100,000 people, lower than the Bronx (14.26 . . .
. . . 1.04, at 1-170 (2002); 2 Rudolf Callmann, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 14.26 . . .
. . . (citing Bailey at 14.25-14.26, 11.05-11.06). . . .
. . . (citing Bailey at 14.25-14.26, 11.05-11.06). . . .
. . . ” for which there does not appear to be a definitive name. 3 Moore's Federal Practice, §§ 14.06[2], 14.26 . . .
. . . In August of 1999, MEMAX shares were selling for $14.26. . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 14.26 (2d ed.1996) (footnotes omitted)); Chestnut Run Fed. . . .
. . . Id. at 14.25-14.26, 11.05-11.06; see id. at 9.03-9.31 (sampling techniques). . . .
. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 14-116 (2d ed. 1996) (“The fact that [plaintiff] . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, p. 14-116 (2d ed. 1996) (footnotes omitted): “Once federal subject . . .
. . . 10.41 52 weeks 11.92 26 weeks 11.13 52 weeks 11.83 Mechanic III 13.07 Mat.Handler III 13.07 Mechanic IV 14.26 . . .
. . . required Athens to dispose of refuse at a place legally empowered to accept garbage for disposal. [14.26 . . .
. . . Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 14-118 (1991). . . .
. . . The percentage of black freshman enrollment in the College of Engineering has grown from 14.26% in 1980 . . .
. . . of limitations will have run ... the court should retain jurisdiction. 3 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .
. . . Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice § 14.26 at 14-118 (1991) (citing United States v. . . .
. . . Hill was found to be in possession of 14.26 pounds of marijuana plant material and 6.43 pounds of marijuana . . .
. . . Plaintiff proffered the figure of $14.26 per hour, and there is no evidence rebutting this. . . .
. . . spent on this case: Attorneys Hours Wester 246.60 Coenen 399.80 Ratteree 46.10 Sasser 1,288.80 Bebber 14.26 . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, 4 14.26 (1982). . . .
. . . Overhead Totals 1983 32.8 X "$15785 X 2 $1,039.76 1984 2.3 X 17.31 X 2 = 79.63 1985 0.4 x 17.83 X 2 14.26 . . .
. . . Id. at ¶ 14.26. . . .
. . . Id. at ¶ 14.26. . . .
. . . See generally, The Law of Nichols’ Eminent Domain (Rev. 3d ed. 1985), § 14.26, at 14-649 to 654. . . . result in serious damages to the other. 4A Nichols, The Law of Eminent Domain (Rev. 3d ed. 1985), § 14.26 . . .
. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 14.26. . . . .
. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice It 14.26, at 14-113 (1985) and cited cases. . In Dery v. . . .
. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶14.26, at 14-113 (1985) and cited cases. In Dery v. . . .
. . . Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1444 at 224-25; Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice II 14.26 . . .
. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at p. 14-108 (2d ed. 1983); Waylander-Peterson Co. v. . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 14.26, at 14-108 & n. 6 (1982). B. . . .
. . . Wyer, 265 F.2d 804, 806-07 (2d Cir.1959); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 (1982 rel.); Lyons v. . . .
. . . . § 14.26. . . . See id. § 14.26, at 14-649 to 654; United States v. 105.40 Acres of Land, 471 F.2d 207, 212 (7 Cir. 1972 . . . the leading authority on the subject, however, see 4A Nichols’ The Law of Eminent Domain, supra, § 14.26 . . .
. . . federal ancillary jurisdiction under Rules 13 and 14, Fed.R.Civ.P. 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 13.36; 14.26 . . . claim, and these fall within the court’s ancillary jurisdiction. 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 13.36, 14.26 . . .
. . . Bernard Sirot-ta Co., 344 F.2d 583 (2d Cir. 1965); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, H 14.26. . . .
. . . presence would otherwise destroy diversity for jurisdictional purposes. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .
. . . See generally 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶¶ 14.26, 14.-40 and 17.16[3] (14th ed. 1979). . . .
. . . Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, 441 F.Supp. 1235, 1246 (E.D.Va.1977); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice H 14.26 at 14 . . .
. . . fraudulently made a false oath in connection with the bankruptcy. 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 14.25 and ¶ 14.26 . . .
. . . Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1444 at 237 (1972); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .
. . . Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1433, 1436; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 13.36, 14.26 . . .
. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 14-527 (1974). As stated in Eikel v. . . . Wyer, 265 F.2d 804 (2d Cir. 1959); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 14-532 (1974). . . .
. . . action and need not be supported by an independent basis of jurisdiction. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .
. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶1 14.26. . . . .
. . . Manon Power Shovel, 520 F.2d 737 (7th Cir. 1975); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, n. 6 and cases . . .
. . . Moore, 3 Federal Practice §§ 14.25, 14.26 (2d ed. 1974). . . .
. . . Employers M.L.I. of Wis., 392 F.Supp. 76 (D.Del.1975); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 14.26. . . . Alan Wood Steel Co., 201 F.Supp. 203 (E.D.Pa.1962); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 14.25, § 14.26. . . .
. . . jurisdiction is appropriate if the requirements of Rule 14 are met, see 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 14.26 . . .
. . . Moore, supra ¶ 14.26 at 14-532—14-533. . . .
. . . the main claim and no independent jurisdictional ground is required. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 'I 14.26 . . .
. . . construct projects under the relevant law, P.L. 566, unless the benefits of such project exceed the costs. 14.26 . . .
. . . 5.38 $ 3.85 $ 4.15 Value of Commingled helium at Lessee-Producer delivery point $ 2.74 $11.39 $13.04 $14.26 . . . Commingled Helium at Lessee-Producer delivery point $12.74 $12.74 $14.10 $15.49 $16.20 $14.83 $14.37 $14.26 . . .
. . . Wyer, 265 F.2d 804, 807 (2nd Cir. 1959); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice If 14.26 (1974). . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 (2d ed. 1974); see also Lawrence v. Great Northern Ry. . . .
. . . and third party defendant will not deprive the court of jurisdiction. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice, 1f 14.26, at 703 (2d ed. 1970). . . .
. . . See Moore, Federal Practice, ff 14.26 at 703 and cases cited therein. . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 at 701-702 (1968). . . . .
. . . See: 3 Moore, Federal Practice If 14.26, p. 708 (1968 ed.). . . . .
. . . Burke, 344 F.2d 393, 395 (6th Cir. 1965); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 701 (1965). . . .
. . . Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 14.26 (Emphasis supplied). . . .
. . . 22nd District, 13.58%. over-represented by 25th District, 10.66%. under-represented by 29th District, 14.26% . . .
. . . jurisdiction of this Court as to the third-party claim of Schreiber, see: 3 Moore, Federal Practice, 1U 14.25, 14.26 . . .
. . . Creek to the northwest corner of Anchorage Townsite; thence East 89.06 chains; thence North 0° 08' West 14.26 . . .
. . . Maryland Casualty Company, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 241; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 14.26; Williams, et al v. . . .
. . . See generally 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 (2d Ed.1968). . . .
. . . that the third-narty claim should involve a Federal question. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 499, Par. 14.26 . . . See generally 3 Moore, Federal Practice If 14.26 (2d Ed.1968). . . .
. . . .-04, ¶ 14.26 (2d ed. 1964). . . .
. . . During that time the client was living with her parents and her earnings were $14.26 per week as a beautician . . .
. . . See 3 Moore, Federal Practice para. 14.26, at 701; Railey v. Southern Ry. . . .
. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, Vol. 3, § 14.25, § 14.26, and eases there cited. . . .
. . . Wyer, supra, 265 F.2d at 807; 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 703 (2d ed. 1966). . . .
. . . F.2d 583; Barron & Holtzoff (Wright Ed., 1960) § 424, pp. 650-651; 3 Moore, Federal Practice, par. 14.26 . . .
. . . See 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 n. 6 and accompanying text at 703 (1964). But see Fed.R. . . .
. . . Graves, 337 F.2d 486, 489, C.A.6th; Moore’s Federal Practice, Volume 3, Section 14.26, page 701. . . .
. . . there was subject-matter jurisdiction of Agrashell’s suit against Sirotta. 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .
. . . See Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 424; Moore’s Federal Practice, Vol. 3, § 14.26 . . .
. . . Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 424 at 650-51 (Rules ed. 1960); 3 Moore Federal Practice f[ 14.26 . . .
. . . vast majority of federal courts view a third-party claim as ancillary to the main action, 3 Moore f[ 14.26 . . .
. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., para. 14.26; Foster v. Brown, D.Md., 22 F.R.D. 471. . . .
. . . This gave a total weighted value of $14.26. . . . 7.50 @ 16%% ...................... 1.25 100% ..................................................... 14.26 . . .
. . . This gave a total weighted value of $14.26. . . . on invested capital — 31.34 @ 16%%_ 5.22 Value based on stock sales — 7.50 @ 16%%___ 1.25 100%...... 14.26 . . .
. . . as this where there is no controversy between those parties. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., f 14.26 . . .
. . . that the third-party claim should involve a Federal question. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 499, Par. 14.26 . . .
. . . C.Minn., 12 F.R.D. 69; Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., secs. 14.25, 14.26, especially p. 495. . . . Brown, D.Md., 22 F.R.D. 471, Chesnut, J„ Moore, sec. 14.26. . . .
. . . This appears from the cases listed in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 14.26 n. 6 and 1958 Supplement, page . . .
. . . . #61821 962053 1 Enlarger Foeomat Ila $248.40 46% $134. 14 Accessory lens 26.40 46 % 14.26 Printing . . . boards 13. 92 46% 7.52 973413 3 Enlargers Foeomat Ila 214. 56 46% 115.86 Accessory lens 26. 40 46% 14.26 . . . 65,47-55— -Abs. #61825 WH 100763 14 Enlargers Foeomat Ila 214.56 46% 115.86 Accessory lens 26.40 46% 14.26 . . . Printing boards 13. 92 46% 7.52 796865 2 Enlargers Foeomat Ila 214.80 46%' 115.99 Accessory lens 26.40 46% 14.26 . . .
. . . ._ $213.96 46% 116.54 Accessory lens_ 26.40 46% 14.26 Printing boards_ 13. 92 46% 7. 52 IT IS FURTHER . . .
. . . Milby, 4 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 137, and 3 Moore, Federal Practice, 2d Ed. s. 14.26. . . .
. . . Sec. 14.26 at p. 1326. . . .