The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . Technology $ ___ $ 4.78 $ 5.71 $ 6.86 $ 8.24 ______ ______ _______ _______ _______ Total 2.62 10.29 17.09 . . .
. . . for health insurance; $28.25 per month for dental insurance; $1.15 per month for life insurance; and $17.09 . . .
. . . Colson’s hourly rate went from $17.09 per hour to $12.21 per hour. (Id.). . . .
. . . Code UWS § 17.09 (“[T]he university may discipline a student for engaging in, attempting to engage in . . .
. . . . §§ 17.00-17.09, and the Massachusetts legislature subsequently removed the limitation from the statute . . .
. . . Postlewaite, United States International Taxation ¶ 17.09. . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice V 17.09 (2d ed. 1982)); Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. . . .
. . . Braspe tro, 369 F.3d at 59 (quoting 5 Construction Law ¶ 17.09[2], at 17-114 (Steven G.M. . . .
. . . four days of use and occupancy charges, namely, $2,965.32 for base rent, plus $118.38 for “Opex,” and $17.09 . . . 118.38 (4 Days Opex) . $ 128.14 (June Electric Charges) 4- 30 (Days in June) $ 4.27 (per diem) x 4 $ 17.09 . . .
. . . O’MALLEY ET AL., FEDERAL JURY PRACTICE AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS, CRIMINAL § 17.09, at 653 (5th ed.2000) . . .
. . . District Rule 17.09. . . .
. . . Percentage Explained ALS N/A 68.43% 43.32% 66.96% 69.73% 50.01% Part B — Contract Rate BLS ($8.86) $13.35 $17.09 . . . Explained ALS Fully explained 56.04% 45.47% 60.48% 45.04% Part B — Contract Rate BLS $(8.86)_$13.35 $17.09 . . .
. . . O’Malley et al., FedeRal Juey PRACTICE AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS, CRIMINAL § 17.09, at 653 (5th ed.2000), . . .
. . . Id. at 17.09. The amortization period may not exceed forty years. Id. . . .
. . . Michael’s Credit Union, 880 F.2d 579, 585 (1st Cir.1989); Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 17.09 . . .
. . . Co., 817 F.2d 956, 964 (2d Cir.1987); see generally 5 Construction Law ¶ 17.09[1], this is not to say . . . the contractor, at least to the extent of the surety's loss on th[e] contract.” 5 Construction Law ¶ 17.09 . . .
. . . in January 1996 was $16.11 per hour; his wages were later increased to $16.59 per hour in May 1996; $17.09 . . .
. . . reply brief in the instant EAJA litigation “is excessive and should be substantially reduced” and that $17.09 . . . However, for the reasons explained above, I recommend that postage expenses of $17.09 be disallowed. . . .
. . . Id. at § 17.09. . . .
. . . he would have worked forty hours per week at the hourly rate of either $18.87, as UPS suggests, or $17.09 . . . It further awarded back pay at $17.09 as a part-time rate between January 26, 1995 and July 31, 1998 . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09(1.-1) at 17-84) (now found at 4 James Wm. . . .
. . . . §§ 17.09(5), 17.11(1). . . .
. . . Devitt, et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.09 (4th ed. 1992); Gabriele, 63 F.3d at 66 . . .
. . . Act of Dec. 11, 1989, 71st Leg., 2nd C.S., Ch. 1, § 17.09(1) 1989 Tex.Gen.Laws 1, 117. . . . .
. . . 18.81% 18.81% 18.80% * 18.80% * 11.77% 11.77% 2 18.35% 17.90% 18.26% * 17.71% * 11.77% 11.77% 3 17.93% 17.09% . . .
. . . Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals § 17.09[1][b] at 17-151 (2d ed. 1975). . . .
. . . CENTREVILLE 2,116 1,681 433 100.00% 79.44% 20.46% 1 1 0 0.05% 0.05% 0.00% RANDOLPH 784 650 134 100.00% 82.91% 17.09% . . .
. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.09 (3rd ed. 1977). . . .
. . . Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals ¶ 17.09[4] (2d ed. 1990). . . .
. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09[2.-4], at 17-91 (2d ed. 1989). . . .
. . . In addition, § 17.09(7) states the Grantee, by the acceptance of any franchise awarded hereunder, agrees . . .
. . . MOORE, supra, § 17.09, at 17-30. . . .
. . . The present worth estimate for this alternative is $17.09 million. . . .
. . . .-04, 17.08 and 17.09. . . .
. . . Cir.1975)); and conviction of a felony is admissible in determining the credibility of a witness (§ 17.09 . . .
. . . Hunt, 183 F.2d 417 (10th Cir.1950); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 [2.-1], at p. 108 (2d ed. 1985 . . .
. . . 12.07 22.64 34.71 16.16 14.60 31.26 18.62 22.81 27.15 38.30 20.80 32.73 26.22 10.85 22.76 32.16 12.62 17.09 . . .
. . . Aetna Acceptance Corp., 293 U.S. 328, 55 S.Ct. 151, 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934). 1 A Collier on Bankruptcy, § 17.09 . . .
. . . As stated in Moore’s Manual, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 17.09 (2d ed. 1984): Affidavits containing . . .
. . . M/T Stolt Lion, 617 F.2d 907, 911 & n. 2 (2d Cir.1980); see generally 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶17.09 . . .
. . . . relation back instead, overriding] state practice to the contrary.” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 . . .
. . . attorney, and not a collusive arrangement to create diversity jurisdiction, 3A Moore’s Federal Practice j[ 17.09 . . .
. . . See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09[2.-1] (2d ed. Supp. 1981); United States v. . . .
. . . Berlin, 356 F.2d 269, 270 (5th Cir. 1966); 3A Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 17.09 [1.-2] at 17-101. . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice, H 17.09[1.1] (2d ed. 1979). . . .
. . . ), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 959, 96 S.Ct. 1741, 48 L.Ed.2d 204 (1976); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, H 17.09 . . .
. . . rights of another, and under mistake or apprehension, is dischargeable, 1A Collier on Bankruptcy, § 17.09 . . .
. . . See also 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.09 (14th Ed.) for an exhaustive review of other illustrative cases . . .
. . . Murphy, Creditors’ Rights in Bankruptcy, § 17.09 at 17-21 (1980). . . .
. . . The meaning of such a requirement is explained in Moore’s, Federal Practice, 17.09(1) at 17-82: The primary . . . restructuring does not generally fall within the purview of the Claims Act as noted by Moore, supra, 17.09 . . .
. . . the amounts they are entitled to receive by principles of subrogation. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 . . .
. . . Jensen, 170 F.2d 348, 351 (9th Cir. 1948); 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.09 at 1600-01 (1978). . . .
. . . See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 at 17-82 (2d ed. 1979). . . .
. . . See generally, Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.09[l.-2] at 17— 100 n.2. . . .
. . . . § 17.09. . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 17.09 at 542-43 (1958), the law in the Third Circuit remains that . . .
. . . reckless disregard of the rights of another, constitute wilful and malicious injuries. 1 A Collier, ¶ 17.09 . . .
. . . courts. 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure ¶¶ 1543, 1544; 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 . . . determining whether diversity exists.” 57 F.R.D. 503 at 505. .See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice Ufl 17.08 and 17.09 . . .
. . . .) § 17.09[2.-1], Southern Pacific did not object and A & R’s insurers were not indispensable parties . . .
. . . jurisdictions that the assignee for collections is the real party in interest. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶[ 17.09 . . .
. . . See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, If 17.08 at p. 262; If 17.09[1.-1], If 17.13[1]. . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice § 17.09 [2.-4] (2d ed. 1974). . . .
. . . holding agrees with the position of the great majority of jurisdictions. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.09 . . . originally intended simply to allow ap^assignee to sue in his own name, 3A Moore's~Federal Practice § 17.09 . . .
. . . Rule 17(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 3A Moore’s Federal Practice jf|f 17.07, 17.09. . . .
. . . Kavanaugh, 242 U.S. 138, 37 S.Ct. 38, 61 L.Ed. 205 (1916), Collier on Bankruptcy, Vol. 1A ¶ 17.09 at . . .
. . . Davis, supra, § 17.09 (1958). . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice J 17.09 [1-1] at 279 (2d ed. 1970). . . .
. . . Cases holding both ways on this question are collected in 3A Moore’s Fed.Prac. 2d ed. 369 ¶¶ 17.09 [2 . . .
. . . E. g., Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 17.01-17.09 (1958) ; Berger, supra at n. 12, Pillsbury, . . .
. . . United States, 287 F.2d 108 (10th Cir. 1961); 2 Barron & Holtzoff § 482; 3A Moore § 17.09 [1. — 1]. . . . Miller, 256 F.Supp. 15 (E.D.Pa.1966); 3A Moore. § 17.09. . . .
. . . Subsection 11 amends §17.09 in full. . . .
. . . See generally 2 Davis, Administrative Law §§ 17.01-17.09 (Chapter 17: “Estoppel and Stare Decisis”) ( . . .
. . . collection under a valid assignment is the real party in interest under Rule 17(a). 3 Moore’s, Sec. 17.09 . . . makes a ‘loan’ agreement with its insured, the insured is the real party in interest. 3 Moore’s, Sec. 17.09 . . .
. . . Hunt, 183 F.2d 417 (10th Cir. 1950); see: 3 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 17.09, pp. 1334-1335, 1346-1349 . . .
. . . required the partial subrogee to be joined as a real party in interest. 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 . . .
. . . Ill; 3 Moore, Federal Practice, 17.09, p. 1339; Wright, Federal Courts, pp. 257-258 (1963). . . .
. . . collection under a valid assignment is the real party in interest under Rule 17 (a). 3 Moore’s, Sec. 17.09 . . . makes a “loan” agreement with its insured, the insured is the real party in interest. 3 Moore’s, Sec. 17.09 . . .
. . . See generally 2 Davis, Admiuistbative Law Teeatise §§ 17.01, 17.02, 17.03, 17.09 (1958, Supp.1963). . . .
. . . Dingfelder, 111 F.2d 406 (2 Cir. 1940); see generally 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 p. 1341 (2 ed . . .
. . . Section 17.09, p. 1349, fn. 35; 157 A.L.R. 1261, 1263. . . . .
. . . Thus, 3 Moore, Federal Practice Par. 17.09, at 1349 (2d ed. 1948), states without qualifications: “An . . .
. . . Cf. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.09, pp. 1343-1345 (2d Ed. 1948). . . .
. . . United States, 5 Cir., 170 F.2d 199; 3 Moore Federal Practice, § 17.09, p. 1349. . . .
. . . See also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice par. 17.09, pp. 1346-1350. . . .
. . . law an insurer-subrogee is generally deemed a real party in interest. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 17.09 . . .
. . . A footnote then refers to 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 17.09, pp. 1334-1351, and to Rogers v. . . .
. . . The subject now before this Court is discussed in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Edition, Section 17.09 . . .
. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., § 17.09, pp. 1348, 1349. . . .
. . . .; Levy’s from 4.03 to 17.09 per cent.; and Saul Kaufmann’s from 4.03 to 23.58 per cent. . . .
. . . Ignacio de Leon was paid and received $13.07 and not $513.00; Eladio Nazario was paid and received $17.09 . . .
. . . donor’s gross estate for purposes of the estate tax See Paul, Federal Estate and Gift Taxation (1942) § 17.09 . . .
. . . of s'aid property as found by the jury, and also his costs in this behalf expended, herein taxed at $17.09 . . . , for all of which said sums, to-wit: $17.09 costs and $25.00 damages for detention of said property . . .