The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . A § 17.02(c), Ex. B § 17.02(c), Ex. C § 17.02(c), Ex. D § 17.02(c), Ex. E § 17.02(c), Ex. . . . F § 17.02(c), Ex. G § 17.02(c) ). . . . A § 17.02(c), Ex. B § 17.02(c), Ex. C § 17.02(c), Ex. D § 17.02(c), Ex. E § 17.02(c), Ex. . . . F § 17.02(c), Ex. G § 17.02(c) ). . . . R § 17.02(a)-(b). . . .
. . . On November 7, 2016, Commerce preliminarily calculated a 17.02% dumping margin for Deacero, relying on . . .
. . . September 22, 2017, after the Plaintiffs initiated this action, the Commissioner issued MLTC Policy 17.02 . . .
. . . Nimmer, Copyright § 17.02, p. 17-26 (2017). . . .
. . . See Residco Objection at 5; see also Debtors’ Response to Residco Objection ¶ 17 (citing Leases § 17.02 . . . See Debtors’ Response to Residco Objection ¶ 17 (citing Leases § 17.02(c)). . . .
. . . Third Remand Results’s revisions, the antidumping duty margin on CS Wind’s towers was reduced from 17.02% . . .
. . . No. 17, ¶ 17.02 (1970)). . . .
. . . Nimmer on Copyright § 17.02; Tire Eng’g & Distrib., LLC v. . . .
. . . See Felix Cohen, Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 17.02[4] (2012) (“Cohen’s Handbook”). . . . Long-Term Leasing Act, 25 U.S.C. § 415.” 66 Fed.Reg. 7068, 7079 (2001); see also Cohen’s Handbook § 17.02 . . . same” duties on the government as Part 162 does for leases. 66 Fed.Reg. at 7080; Cohen’s Handbook § 17.02 . . .
. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.02 (3d ed.1977)). . . .
. . . See Webster’s Real Estate Law in North Carolina 17.02(3) (6th ed.) (citing Glass v. . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.02 (2d ed.1970)). . . . .
. . . from the Fouts house (1,977.4 grams of powder cocaine, 186 ecstasy pills, 31.5 grams of marijuana, 17.02 . . .
. . . P. 17.02 addresses both complaints and indictments. . . . commentary to Rule 17 observes that “[t]he complaint under Rule 2.01 and the indictment under Rule 17.02 . . .
. . . See 5-17 Chisum on Patents § 17.02 (noting that indirect infringement targets defendants who "appropriate . . .
. . . /kg., which Commerce then inflated to 17.02 Rs. . . .
. . . and Rutledge’s comments, the price of Cablevision stock fell $2.50 per share, or 13%, to close at $17.02 . . .
. . . Nimmer, Copyright § 17.02, pp. 17-18, 17-19 (2012) (hereinafter Nimmer on Copyright) (noting that the . . . Nimmer, Copyright § 17.02, p. 17-18 (2012) (hereinafter Nimmer) (“[C]opyright laws do not have any extraterritorial . . .
. . . 2007 18.39 - 17.60 (2007 Processed Questionnaires .79 / 18.39 = 4.30% _Report) = .79%_ 2008 19.21 - 17.02 . . .
. . . $73.39 for Balasanyan, $10.85 to $43.17 for Nalbandian, $10.85 to $35.38 for Maraventano, and $11.31 to $17.02 . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.02 (3d ed. 2006); see also Weiss v. . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 17.02); see also Weiss v. . . .
. . . Friedman, Products Liability § 17.02[3][a] (1960 & 2011 supp.). . . . .
. . . Section 17.02(3) instructs the Committee and the County Board of Adjustment to “prepare and adopt a public . . .
. . . (Id., ¶ 17.02). On October 5, 2009, QPro filed its state-court suit against RTD (USA). . . .
. . . Brooks, 928 F.2d 1403, 1409 (4th Cir.1991) (quoting Devitt & Blackmar, Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.02 . . .
. . . (Id., Ex. 1, ¶ 17.02). On October 5, 2009, QPro filed its state-court suit against RTD (USA). . . .
. . . within the United States may be rendered liable under American copyright law.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright, § 17.02 . . .
. . . Pharmaceutical, Inc. 50 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1149 (D.Wyo.1999); Derfner & Wolf, Court Awarded Attorney Fees, ¶ 17.02 . . .
. . . offense of possession of a controlled substance), and 2 Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction-Criminal 17.02 . . .
. . . Subafilms, 24 F.3d at 1098 (emphasis added); see 4-17 Nimmer on Copyright § 17.02 (“[A] distinction should . . .
. . . . 403, 407 (S.D.N.Y.1995))); 2 Clark & Clark, Law of Bank Deposits, Collections and Credit Cards, ¶ 17.02 . . .
. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 17.02[7] (noting that "[flour of the five justices ... dissented on the knowledge . . .
. . . Smith, PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE OF FORFEITURE CASES, ¶ 17.02, 17-17 and 17-18, vol 2. (2003)’, this erroneously . . .
. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 17.02 at 17-5). . . .
. . . decision of the Director of Human Resources, said decision shall be final and binding on both parties. 17.02 . . .
. . . Thomas, Thompson on Real Property § 17.02 (David A. Thomas ed., 2d ed.2000). . . . .
. . . Thomas, Thompson on Real Property § 17.02 (David A. Thomas ed., 2d ed.2000). . . . .
. . . The Local 13000 collective bargaining agreement contains the following provision: 17.02. . . . plaintiffs position that the December 12 and December 19, 2002 layoffs were in violation of Section 17.02 . . .
. . . grievance procedure regarding the aforementioned breaches, and (5) violated §§ 12.02, 14.03 16.07 & 17.02 . . .
. . . Young, Business Organizations, § 17.02[3]). . . .
. . . Explanatory Note 17.02(B)(3), which provides examples of sugar syrups that fall under 1702 HTSUS, states . . . Id. at 1333 (quoting HTSUS Explanatory Note 17.02(B)(3)). . . . The court also cited Explanatory Note 17.02(B)(2), which states that “[jjuices and syrups obtained during . . .
. . . No. 17, ¶ 17.02 (1970). . . . No. 17, ¶ 17.02. Goodwill can fluctuate significantly in the marketplace. . . .
. . . O’Malley et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.02 (5th ed.2000). . . .
. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.02 (1999) [hereinafter “Nimmer”]. . . .
. . . . § 17.02 (1977). . . .
. . . Wolf, Court Awarded Attorney Fees, ¶ 17.02 at 17-7 (1998); Conte, supra § 2.17 at 71. . . . Derfner & Wolf, supra ¶ 17.02 at 17-7 & n. 23. . . .
. . . The reaffirmed debt is to be paid in twenty-four monthly instalments of $17.02. . . . The agreement also provides, among other things, that after Tolentino makes the first payment of $17.02 . . .
. . . See 4 Nimmer § 17.02 at 17-20; accord, Subafilms, Ltd. v. . . .
. . . Devitt et al., Federal Jury Practice & Instructions § 17.02, at 606 (4th ed. 1992) (“Most federal criminal . . .
. . . 17.36 3,099,963 NOV 1995 15.28 2,996,094 JULY 1995 12.92 1,795,371 DEC 1995 10.14 3,526,586 AUG 1995 17.02 . . .
. . . Clark & Clark, The Law of Bank Deposits, Collections and Credit Cards ¶ 17.02. . . .
. . . See Manville, 917 F.2d at 553; see also 3 Peter Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals § 17.02[2][a] (2d . . .
. . . retention by the Escrow Agent, as defined in the Contract, of (a) the sum of $500,000.00 as provided in § 17.02 . . . shall be retained by said Escrow Agent to secure performance by Seller of its obligations under said § 17.02 . . .
. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 17.02 (1996). . . .
. . . Ostrager & Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 17.02 (8th ed.1995). . . .
. . . Northwest argues that by that paragraph, the Authority expressly exempted Northwest from the operation of § 17.02 . . . Section 17.02 therefore now plainly applies to Northwest. . . . Instead, the premises reverted to the Authority and § 17.02 once again governed the premises. . . .
. . . The Law of Hazardous Waste, § 17.02[2][b], at 17-101 n. 14. . . .
. . . See 3 Nimmer, supra § 17.02 at 17-21. . . .
. . . At the time the initiative began, the city charter provided in section 17.02 for civil service board . . . charter, and the composition and method of selection of the career service board is addressed in section 17.02 . . .
. . . Kheel, Labor Law § 17.02 (1994). . . .
. . . known as the “Veazeyto-Cascade Junction line,” extending from MP 7.0 near Veazey in King County, to MP 17.02 . . .
. . . Id. at ¶ 8-17.02 through ¶ 8-25.02. . Id. at ¶ 8-17.02 and ¶ 8-26.01 (emphasis added). . . . .
. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyrights, § 17.02, at 17-19. . . .
. . . . § 17.02 (Vernon 1986). . . .
. . . act within the United States may be rendered liable under American copyright law. 3 Nimmer, supra, § 17.02 . . .
. . . by virtue of an assignment in gross, loss of distinctiveness, or non-use of the mark. 1 McCarthy, §§ 17.02 . . .
. . . Id. at ¶ 8-17.02 and ¶ 8-26.01 (emphasis added). . Id. at 11 8-27.01 (emphasis added). . . . .
. . . Section 17.02 of the Lease sets forth the landlord’s remedies in the event of a default by Armco. . . . special interrogatories, rejected Armco’s defenses to the Bank’s claim for rent pursuant to Section 17.02 . . . under the Lease, including the right to assert a cause of action against Armeo for damages under § 17.02 . . . First, as AWH concedes, it is not entitled to recover damages from Armeo pursuant to § 17.02 of the Lease . . . Only the Bank, as substitute landlord, had the right to collect damages from Armeo pursuant to § 17.02 . . .
. . . Cooke, The Law of Hazardous Waste § 17.02[2][b] (1992). Here, Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. . . .
. . . of mandatory retirement], or any employee who retires in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 17.02 . . .
. . . Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure § 17.02(g), R.O. 560/84. See, Perry v. . . .
. . . At 17.02(h), the agreement provides that an event of default occurs on “the failure of the lessee to . . .
. . . reliance on the Simpson, Thacher opinions was unwarranted because the opinions failed to address ,§ 17.02 . . . Section 17.02 (and similar provisions in the Bank of New York and Irving Indentures) sets forth that . . . Thus, omission of any reference to § 17.02 did not render the opinions of counsel unworthy of reliance . . . Pursuant to § 17.02 of the Sterling Indenture — and similar provisions of the Bank of New York, Irving . . .
. . . Roberts, 267 U.S. 467, 45 S.Ct. 357, 69 L.Ed. 739 (1925), 1A Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1978) ¶¶ 17.02 . . .
. . . D & C Contract, ¶ 27; O & M Contract, ¶ 17.02. . . .
. . . Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals § 17.02[2][a] at 17-25 (1991). . . . Rosenberg § 17.02[2][a] at 17-25. . . .
. . . Hastings, 668 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.1981); see generally 3 Nimmer on Copyright, supra, at § 17.02. . . .
. . . Nimmer, Nimtner on Copyright, § 17.02 at 17-5. . . . .
. . . district court to give the cautionary instruction for informer’s testimony as set forth in Section 17.02 . . .
. . . the "direct result” language of paragraph Third of verdict directing instructions such as 17.01 and 17.02 . . .
. . . Kramer & Martin, supra p. 1410, § 17.02[5]. . . . Kramer & Martin, supra p. 1410, § 17.02[5][a] at 17-16. . . .
. . . Oper. 3 9.00 27.00 Welders 2 8.51 17.02 Oilers 3 6.23 18.69 Deckhands 8 6.00 48.00 Electrician 1 8.63 . . . Oper. 3 9.00 27.00 Welders 2 8.51 17.02 Oilers 3 6.23 18.69 Deckhands 8 6.00 48.00 Electrician 1 8.63 . . .
. . . Rule 17.02 of the Kentucky Rules of Civil procedure provides that a “married man or a married woman, . . . Rule 17.02. . . .
. . . Blackmar, supra, § 17.02, at 524 (testimony of informer) (defining informer as one “who provides evidence . . .
. . . on MAI 22.03, was improper under the circumstances of this case and that Instruction A, based on MAI 17.02 . . . indicates that MAI 22.03 is traditionally used for “slip and fall” or passive negligence cases, while MAI 17.02 . . .
. . . Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 17.02. . . .
. . . . § 17.02 on Friday, the day it took possession of the children, but claims that the court could not . . .
. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, Section 17.02 at 17-5. . . .
. . . As of the 1980 census, census tract 1110.02 had a population of 79.44% white, 17.02% black, 11% Hispanic . . .
. . . In the Northern District of Ohio, the SJT has been specifically provided for by Local Rule 17.02, a copy . . .
. . . testimony of an ordinary witness”. 1 Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Section 17.02 . . .
. . . Paragraph 17.02 provides that in order to complete the relocation by May 1,1977, the final design must . . .
. . . voting at such meeting shall decide this issue____ Section 17.01: Subject to the provisions of Section 17.02 . . . ..., there shall be a general membership meeting of this organization once each month____ Section 17.02 . . . Section 17.03: Special Meetings, general or as specified in Section 17.02, may be called by the Executive . . .
. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.02 (1977). . . .
. . . See Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instruction, Instructions No. 17.02, 17.03, 17.-04, . . .
. . . Lucas, supra, ¶¶ 17.02, 17.07. The substantive law (the D.C. . . .
. . . Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals, § 17.02 at 17-10.1 (1985). . . . Id. at § 17.02[1] at 17-10.2, § 17.08 at 17-49 — 17.50.2. . . .
. . . See also 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 17.02 and 17.07 (1985) (discussing real party in interest standard . . .
. . . be served to compel attendance or production in grand jury proceedings. 8 Moore’s Federal Practice f 17.02 . . .