The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . cocaine offenders (33.86%); 166 of 1,526 crack cocaine offenders (10.88%); 396 of 2,626 heroin offenders (15.08% . . .
. . . Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (citing 3 Moore, Federal Practice §§ 15.08 . . .
. . . Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], . . .
. . . Milgram, Milgram on Licensing § 15.08. . . .
. . . Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir.1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], . . . (citing 3 Moore’s at ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81). In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. . . .
. . . . § 15.08 (“All members of examining boards shall be residents of this state and shall, unless otherwise . . .
. . . Shaked applied a discount rate of 15.08%, which he estimated to be Adelp-hia’s WACC. . . .
. . . Computer-vision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir.1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice P 15.08[4], . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed. 1974) (stating that the proper test to be applied . . .
. . . McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, (3rd Ed. 1968)s 15.08. . . .
. . . Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir.1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], . . . Glassman, 90 F.3d at 623 (citing 3 Moore's ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81). . Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 71. . . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[7] (2d ed. 1993)). . . . .
. . . (citing 3 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81 (2d ed.1993)). . . . .
. . . Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir.1981) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.08(4) at 15-102). . . .
. . . on other grounds, 444 U.S. 959, 100 S.Ct. 442, 62 L.Ed.2d 371 (1979); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .
. . . Doe, 566 F.2d at 720 (quoting Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.08 at 897-900). . . .
. . . Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir.1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], . . . (citing 3 Moore’s at ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81). . . .
. . . Defendants relates back to the filing of the original Complaint under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 15.08 . . .
. . . U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) citing 3 James William Moore, Federal Practice §§ 15.08 . . .
. . . Pittman now earns approximately $15.08 an hour due to merit-based pay raises as a Tech II, but he filed . . .
. . . When Horizon downgraded its earnings forecast on April 25, 2008, its shares again tumbled from a $15.08 . . .
. . . Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir.1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], . . .
. . . See generally, 3 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed.1948), ¶¶ 15.08, 15.10. . . .
. . . Bethlehem Steel Corp., 730 F.2d 929, 938 (3d Cir.1984) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08(2) . . . Rich Housing, Inc., 663 F.2d 419, 425 (3d Cir.1981) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08(2) (2d . . .
. . . (internal quotation marks omitted); 1-15 Larson on Employment Discrimination § 15.08 (2007) (“The mere . . . supports the inference that he was not forced to resign); 1-15 Larson on Employment Discrimination § 15.08 . . .
. . . P. 2.01 ("Except as provided in Rules 11.06 and 15.08, it shall be made upon oath before a judge or judicial . . .
. . . the other party is not prejudiced.’ ” Moore, 790 F.2d at 560 (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08 . . .
. . . remedies for the period following termination of employment.” 1-15 Larson on Employment Discrimination § 15.08 . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice H 15.08[4] (2d ed.1974) (test to be applied when determining the legal . . .
. . . The presentence report (PSR) attributed 15.08 kilograms of methamphetamine to Olivas and recommended . . .
. . . the three occasions on which the drop was significant (ie., net changes of - 13.74%, -39.12%, and -15.08% . . .
. . . Lubecki may exempt $15.08 of interest, as calculated by multiplying accrued interest of $15.83 by a fraction . . . as to this sum, an additional $76.28 is exempt as wages earned within sixty days of bankruptcy, and $15.08 . . .
. . . and March 2001, 16.32 percent in March 2002, 24.46 percent in April 2002, 12.45 percent in May 2002, 15.08 . . .
. . . and those based on Bear Stearns prices more than doubled between June and July 2002, increasing from 15.08 . . . March 2001, 16.32 percent in March 2002, 24.46 percent in April 2002, 12.45 percent in May 2002, and 15.08 . . .
. . . See generally, 3 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed.1948), ¶ 15.08, ¶ 15.10. . . .
. . . 2004, Taggart was informed by the Commission that his operations were in violation of Codes 15.05, 15.08 . . . Code 15.08(C) requires that the exterior boundaries of a game bird shooting resort be clearly defined . . .
. . . prior to confirmation of the plan and which are merely preparatory steps.” 6A Collier on Bankruptcy 1( 15.08 . . .
. . . See 6A Collier on Bankruptcy Para. 15.08 at 837-40 (14th ed.1977). . . . serve to execute or malte effective a plan confirmed under Chapter X.” 6A Collier on Bankruptcy Para. 15.08 . . .
. . . See 6A Collier on Bankruptcy Para. 15.08 at 837-40 (14th ed.1977). . . . serve to execute or make effective a plan confirmed under Chapter X.” 6A Collier on Bankruptcy Para. 15.08 . . .
. . . strong liberality ... in allowing amendments under Rule 15(a)’ ”) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .
. . . (i) Washington agriculture general provisions, chapter 15.04 RCW; (ii) Pests and diseases, chapter 15.08 . . .
. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[7] (2d ed. 1988) (“An amended pleading that is complete in itself . . .
. . . (i) Washington agriculture general provisions, chapter 15.04 RCW; (ii) Pests and diseases, chapter 15.08 . . .
. . . Common Stock increase[d] from 48.03% to 52.18% and National Semiconductor’s increased from 14.80% to 15.08% . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed.1974). . . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed.1974). . . .
. . . In re Jacoby-Bender, Inc., 758 F.2d 840, 842 (2nd Cir.1985) (quoting 6A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 15.08 . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08, 15-8081 (2d Ed.1996); Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed.1974) (proper test to be applied when determining the . . .
. . . Childress, Federal Standards of Review § 15.08 at 15-45 (3d ed., 1999), review is necessarily confined . . .
. . . Disciplinary Profl Conduct 15.08, reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. tit. 2, subtit. G. app. . . . Rule 15.08 simply plays no role in our decision. . . . Rule 15.08: No attorney licensed to practice law in Texas may be disciplined for Professional Misconduct . . .
. . . Webb, supra, 655 F.2d at 980 (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.08(4) at 15-102). . . .
. . . The population in homes less than $150,000 consists of 41,429 blacks, or 15.08%, and 202,453 whites, . . .
. . . amended “would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed.1974)). . . .
. . . the other party is not prejudiced.’ ” Moore, 790 F.2d 557, 560 (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08 . . .
. . . (citing 3 Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[8] (2d ed.1987) and 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice . . .
. . . See generally, 3 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed.1948), 15.08, 15.10. . . .
. . . amended “would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-80 (3d ed.1998); Glassman v. . . .
. . . Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed.1992) (footnotes omitted)). . . .
. . . Savings as well as her other debts, the loan was classified as a consumer loan with an interest rate of 15.08% . . .
. . . (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice & Procedure ¶ 15.08[7] at 15-128 (1982)). . . .
. . . With over $15.08 billion in assets, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico is the largest bank in Puerto Rico, . . .
. . . That Brother Stodghill while President of Local 50 violated Article' XV, Section 15.01 and Section 15.08 . . .
. . . 786, 64 S.Ct. 781, 88 L.Ed. 1077 (1944) (duty to speak arises from superior knowledge); 4 BROMBERG § 15.08 . . .
. . . closed with Discount on November 30, 1994, was classified as a consumer loan with an interest rate of 15.08% . . .
. . . Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at . . .
. . . is not subject to review on appeal except for abuse of discretion ...” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice P 15.08 . . . Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice P 15.08 . . .
. . . Upchurch, Intellectual Property Litigation Guide: Patents and Trade Secrets § 15.08[1] n. 20 (1995) ( . . .
. . . Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶15.08[4], at- . . .
. . . alia, the following on a biweekly basis: —Gross income: $1,822.68 —Deductions “A lot”: $600.00 UN W: $15.08 . . .
. . . .”); 3 Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (“The most common reasons for denying leave to amend . . .
. . . Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 15.08. “ ‘Complainant’ means the person, firm, corporation, or other . . . Rule 15.08 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure does not bar this finding because this court, . . . Specific Findings of Violations of Eastern District’s Local Rules are Barred Respondent argues that Rule 15.08 . . .
. . . Glassman, 90 F.3d at 623 (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶15.08[4], at 15-80 (2d ed.1993)). . . . (citing 3 Moore’s at ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81). . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81 (“If a proposed amendment is objected to on the ground of . . .
. . . Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at . . .
. . . Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at . . .
. . . MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE, ¶ 15.08(4), at 15-64 to 15-81 (2d ed. 1996). . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] at 15-65 (2d ed. 1996) (citing, inter alia, Zenith Radio Corp . . .
. . . See James William Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08, pp. 15-69 et seq. (2d Ed.1995). . . .
. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-80 (2d ed.1993); see also Vargas v. . . . court applies the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 3 Moore’s, ¶ 15.08 . . .
. . . Moore et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[2] (2d. ed. 1995) (noting, inter alia, that amended complaints . . .
. . . sufficient claim or defense, as the case may be, leave should be denied.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .
. . . See also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[2] at p. 15-49. . . .
. . . Practice, ¶15.08[5] (1992)). 2. . . .
. . . $1,634.00 75.06% ■ $43.50 $32.65 $1,666.65 4/93 5/11/93 $1,711.00 $1,553.50 $0.00 $480.00 $1,073.50 62.74% $15.08 . . .
. . . 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)); see generally Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] at 15-76 n.12 (2nd ed. 1995 & Supp. 1994-95) (summarizing . . .
. . . Clark and Smith, The Law of Product Warranties, ¶ 15.08 (1986 Supp.). Id. at 1267. . . .
. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed. 1994); Foman v. . . .
. . . See, e.g., 2 McCarthy §15.08; 1 McCarthy §§11.24-11.25 (“[S]trong” marks, with greater secondary meaning . . .
. . . Moore, 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed. 1994). . . .
. . . . -, 112 S.Ct. 1561, 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (1992 ed.). . . .
. . . . ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-69 to -75 ("The most common reasons for denying leave to amend are- that the amendment . . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-76 (2d ed.1994) ("It should be emphasized, however, . . .
. . . Lloyd ¶ 15.01[A][1], at 15.08. . . .
. . . (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] at 15-64 (2d ed. 1987)). . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 15.08, 0.835, is instructive of this point where the Court of Appeals . . .
. . . shown a strong liberality ... in allowing amendments under Rule 15(a).” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .
. . . Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice jf 15.08[7] (1993). . . .
. . . Freer Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (1993). . . .