The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 17.05. . . . Doc. 13 at 3; Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 17.05. . . .
. . . The remaining payroll of $175,630 would only be sufficient to pay 17.05 additional full-time employees . . .
. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.05 at 17-39 (1994) ("The applicable law is the copyright law of the . . .
. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.05 at 17-39 (1994) ) ("The applicable law is the copyright law of the . . .
. . . . §§ 5/1.01-5/17.05, is not as explicit as the Georgia Business Corporation Code in delineating the duties . . .
. . . 16.077%. . 3.00% = $323.87-r-$10,790 . 34.57% = $2,700-$7,809.44 . 82.95% = $2,100,000 h- $2,531,568 . 17.05% . . .
. . . equivalent residents for the purpose of calculating Rush’s non-patient care activities would increase by 17.05 . . .
. . . . §§ 17.01-17.05. . . .
. . . Wildey calculated that 17.05% of the veneer that would have been produced would be A grade veneer, and . . .
. . . of HomeBanc’s preferred stock dropped 18.4 percent from $20.90 on May 9, 2007 to a closing price of $17.05 . . .
. . . Rule 17.05(3) provides: 17.05 Manner of Service Outside Ontario 17.05(1) In this rule, “contracting state . . . and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters signed at The Hague on November 15,1965. 17.05 . . . P. 17.05(3). . . . Rule 17.05, of course, relates to documents transmitted to other countries for service, and not documents . . . Further, since Rule 17.05 provides that process outside Canada must be effected in accordance with the . . .
. . . Laws, ch. 486, § 17.05 (1987), as recognized in S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. . . .
. . . O'Malley, et al., Federal Jury Practice & Instructions § 17.05 (6th ed.2008); see also United States . . .
. . . City of El Paso to set reasonable bail for both misdemeanor and felony arrestees pursuant to articles 17.05 . . .
. . . City of El Paso to set reasonable bail for both misdemeanor and felony arrestees pursuant to articles 17.05 . . .
. . . District Rule 17.04(C), 17.05(B). . . .
. . . Franklin’s fee request (17.05 total hours claimed — 6.75 hour reduction = 10.3 hours x $25.00)_-$257.50 . . .
. . . Pattern Jury Instr., Civ., Nos. 17.01, 17.05 (2d ed. 1993) (railroad negligence “proximately caused, . . .
. . . Bond Surety (Under Contract of Suretyship), in Moelmann & Harris 123, 128-29; 5 Construction Law ¶ 17.05 . . .
. . . days after the hearing, but an extension of time, if required, may be agreed upon by both parties. 17.05 . . .
. . . Code tit. 456, § 17.05. Moreover, the letters to Mr. . . .
. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright [hereinafter “Nim-mer” ] § 17.05[B][4]. . . . See Nimmer § 17.05[B][4], Plaintiffs locate a somewhat more decisive authority in the Second Circuit’ . . .
. . . Id. at § 17.05[1]. . . .
. . . . § 17.05. . . .
. . . In Hernandez, we reiterated this suggestion, and noted that the same language now appeared in § 17.05 . . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 17.05 (2d. ed. 1970); W. Mathes & E. . . .
. . . . § 17.05 (5th ed.); Black’s Law Dictionary 1434 (5th ed.1979). . . .
. . . Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82, 89 (2d Cir.1998); 4 Nimmer, supra, § 17.05. . . .
. . . Massachusetts (15.49% or 362,029 pounds), Rhode Island (60.57% or 1,415,425 pounds), and New York (17.05% . . .
. . . 17.05, at 17-37 (1997) (hereinafter Nimmer). Accord, e.g., Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Comm. . . .
. . . Nimmer on Copyright § 17.05 (1998) (“Nimmer”) (footnote omitted). . . .
. . . D.Vi.1995) (citing Cooke, The Law of Hazardous Waste: Management, Cleanup, Liability and Litigation, § 17.05 . . .
. . . Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 17.05 (3d ed.1992) (noting that modern courts are increasingly . . .
. . . Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 17.05 (3d ed.1992) (noting modern trend has been to . . .
. . . F.2d 252, 259 (5th Cir.1980), such uses are not relevant to a finding of abandonment. 2 McCarthy § 17.05 . . .
. . . of which the author is a citizen or in which the work was first published. 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 17.05 . . .
. . . Cooke, The .Law of Hazardous Waste: Management, Cleanup Liability and Litigation, § 17.05[4][6], p 17 . . . The Law of Hazardous Waste § 17.05[4][c], at 17-260. . . . The Law of Hazardous Waste § 17.05[4][c], at 17-261 n. 55; Miller, 858 F.2d at 1453-56; Cutchin v. . . .
. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.05 at 17-39 (1994)). . . . and territoriality are choice of law principles, See Subafilms, 24 F.3d at 1097; 3 Nimmer, supra § 17.05 . . . See also 3 Nimmer, supra, § 17.05, at 17-39 (“The applicable law is the copyright law of the state in . . .
. . . Rohan, Powell on Real Property § 17.05[1], at 17-77 to -78 (1994). . . .
. . . Jury Prac. and Instr., §§ 17.04 and 17.05. . . .
. . . O’Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.05 (4th ed. 1992). . . . .
. . . Intercontinental Communications, Inc., 580 F.Supp. 47, 50 n. 6 (S.D.N.Y.1984); see also 3 Nimmer, supra, § 17.05 . . . See 3 Nimmer, supra, § 17.05, at 17-39 (noting that the “national treatment” principle has resulted in . . .
. . . Weiss also carefully billed the 17.05 hours she spent doing paralegal work — drafting and updating a . . .
. . . The special master pared 17.05 hours of attorney time from petitioner’s requested amount and 23.30 hours . . . Special Master Wright denied petitioner 17.05 hours of attorney time as unreasonable. . . .
. . . See Miss.Laws 1987, ch. 486, § 17.05, eff. Jan. 1, 1988. . . . .
. . . 45 S.Ct. 357, 69 L.Ed. 739 (1925), 1A Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1978) ¶¶ 17.02, 17.03, 17.04, 17.05 . . . debts also non-provable and therefore non-dischargeable, 1A Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1978) ¶ 17.05 . . .
. . . Id. at ¶¶ 17.05 and 17.07. . . .
. . . more than fifteen (15) days provided that the extension does not cause the Commitment to expire____ 17.05 . . . Fourth, Section 17.05 states that if the transaction is not closed for specified reasons, “buyer may . . . Clearly, Section 17.05 implies that the buyer is required to give notice to the seller if the buyer elects . . .
. . . m.p.h. speed limit its trains can travel up to 60 m.p.h. or 88 feet per second which would result in 17.05 . . .
. . . Simplicity, and Economic Growth— Vol. 2 — General Explanation of the Treasury Department Proposals,” Chapter 17.05 . . .
. . . See Collier, supra, at ¶ 17.05, p. 1587 (pre-Code practice held that “[f lines for violation of law, . . .
. . . See Collier, at ¶[ 17.05, p. 1587 (pre-Code practice held that “[fjines for violation of law, and forfeitures . . .
. . . .” § 17.05(9). . . .
. . . E-II announced that E-II had agreed to be acquired by AMBR at an increased price per common share of $17.05 . . .
. . . has become “well settled” that “fines and penalties are not affected by a discharge.” 1A Collier ¶ 17.05 . . .
. . . Callman, Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies § 17.05 at 21-22 (4th ed. 1983) [hereafter Callman . . .
. . . The difference of $17.05 amounts to $24,000.00 (rounded) and may be explained by the fact that the appraisal . . .
. . . assignment and was not a complete stranger to the transaction.” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, Para. 17.05 . . .
. . . See also 3 Callmann, supra, § 17.05. . . . See also 3 Callmann, supra § 17.05. . . .
. . . See generally 3A Moore’s Federal Practice II 17.05[3] (1985) (discussing the problem of assignments improperly . . .
. . . Archway charged a daily rate of $23.00 per day for the fleeting of a barge, and earned a net profit of $17.05 . . .
. . . interstate fare would be $31.00, or .1422 cents per bus mile in revenue, while the intrastate fare would be $17.05 . . .
. . . See 1 O’Reilly supra, § 17.05 at 17-18 (1983). . . .
. . . denied, 444 U.S. 842, 100 S.Ct. 82, 62 L.Ed.2d 54 (1979); 2 O’Reilly, Federal Information Disclosure 17.05 . . .
. . . its assumption that the laws of several countries will be involved in the case. 3 Nimmer, supra at § 17.05 . . .
. . . Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals § 17.05, at 17-27. . . .
. . . See cases at 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.05[3 — 1] n.7, (2d ed. 1979), and 75 ALR2d 717 § 3(a). . . . that predated the assignment and was not a complete stranger to the transaction.” 3A Moore’s, supra, ¶ 17.05 . . .
. . . See also 1 Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, §§ 17.04 and 17.05 (3rd ed. 1977 . . .
. . . The comptroller has specific authority to hold' such hearings under Sections 17.03 and 17.05, Florida . . . Section 17.05 provides: The Comptroller of this state may demand and require full answers on oath from . . .
. . . See 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.05 at 1587 n. 5 (14th ed. 1978). . . .
. . . The balance was spent furthering the state’s special interests (17.05) or reviewing papers (11.0), which . . .
. . . s The Federal Courts and the Federal System at 1100-01 (2d ed. 1973); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice H 17.05 . . .
. . . Acrow Janitorial . 47.50 American Building Maintenance . 258.00 X = Check Mark . 258.00 Diners Club . 17.05 . . .
. . . At the judge’s direction, see § 17.05 (b) (2) (Supp. 1978-1979), the Department filed a “Suit Affecting . . . care and protection of the child and may appoint a temporary managing conservator for the child.” § 17.05 . . . That Section 17.05 is unconstitutional on its face insofar as it fails to require the State to hold a . . .
. . . With respect to §§ 17.05 and 17.06, Sims found that they also violated constitutional guarantees because . . . Instead, §§ 17.05 and 17.06 place an unconstitutional burden on the parents to seek modification of the . . . The 10-day period provided for in § 17.05 was held to be constitutionally acceptable, but the Sims court . . . The Sims decision itself found § 17.01 to be valid, and parts of §§ 17.02 and 17.05 passed successfully . . . Notice The proceeding under Section 17.02 of this code may be held without notice. § 17.05. . . .
. . . See 8 Moore’s Federal Practice H 17.05, at 17-15 (2d. ed. 1976). . . .
. . . Section 17.05 provides that such an order is of ten days in duration, and, upon the expiration of the . . . Later on April 5, at Judge Lowry’s direction pursuant to Section 17.05(b)(2), the Harris County Child . . . By the terms of Section 17.05(b)(2), the State may then institute a “Suit affecting the parent-child . . . It is Sections 17.05 and 17.06 that are fraught with constitutional defects. . . . Section 17.05. Duration of Order. . . .
. . . Ch. 70-12, Laws of Florida. . 1A Collier on Bankruptcy § 17.05 (14th ed. rev. 1976). . . . .
. . . .-47, arrived at by multiplying 26 days, 17.05 hours by $1,400.00 per day, or $58.33 per hour. . . .
. . . Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U.S. 434, 452, 60 S.Ct. 1044, 84 L.Ed. 1293 (1940); 9 Collier, Bankruptcy 17.05 . . .
. . . which alleged, inter alia, arbitrary, discriminatory, and retaliatory application of inmate directive 17.05 . . .
. . . (1969)) and are inconsistent with the reforms in criminal pleading (cf. 8 Moore’s Federal Practice 17.05 . . .
. . . initiated on August 30, 1968, the former rule applies in this case. 1A Collier on Bankruptcy, Sec. 17.05 . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 17.01-17.05. . . .
. . . See Devitt and Blackmar, “Federal Jury Practice and Instructions,” 1970, § 17.05. . . .
. . . See Devitt and Blackmar, “Federal Jury Practice and Instructions,” 1970, § 17.05. . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice |f 17.05 at 1319 (1967 ed.). . . . Kramer, 5 Cir., 392 F.2d 387, 389 (1968); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice Tf 17.05 [1] (1970 ed.). . . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 17.05 [3.-1], pp. 158-159 (1970 ed); Ferrara v. . . .
. . . See also the review of this subject in 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.05, pp. 157-207. . . .
. . . Revenue, 319 U.S. 436, 63 S.Ct. 1132, 87 L.Ed. 1499 (1943); Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 17.05 . . .
. . . In 1964-65, 17.05 percentage of the Walnut Hills Senior High School was Negro, and of Walnut Hills Junior . . .
. . . In 1964-65, 17.05 percentage of the Walnut Hills senior high school was Negro, and of Walnut Hills junior . . .
. . . uniformly critical of, and alarmed by, the increasing use of this device. 3A Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.05 . . . Moore, supra, j[ 17.05 [2] at 154 . . . . Moore, supra, If 17.05 [2] at 154 n. 5. . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.05 [3.-1], nn. 7-9 (2d ed. 1968). . . .
. . . See, e. g. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice j[ 17.05 [3.-3], criticizing such rigidity as was spawned by Corabi . . .
. . . See also 3A Moore, Federal Practice, § 17.05 [3-3] (2d ed. 1968). . See McNutt v. . . .
. . . Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 26, pp. 155-156; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., fílf 17.05 . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.05, at 1319 (1967 ed.). . . .
. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 17.05. . . .
. . . See generally 2 Mertens §§ 17.05-.05a, 17.12; 3 Id. §§ 20.161-.163, 20.165; 7 Id. §§ 38.11-.13. . . . .
. . . , however, where such assignment is made to avoid federal jurisdiction. 3 Moore, Federal Practice § 17.05 . . .