The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . See 2 MCCARTHY § 10:17.10 (noting that Rogers 's second prong does not hinge on the junior user "falsely . . .
. . . In support of its argument, AVIC USA cites to Section 17.10 of the Agreement which provides: 17.10 No . . . SWE Agreement at p. 55, ¶ 17.10. . . .
. . . . § 17.10[1], at p. 17-15 (3d ed. 2010)); see also In re Miller, 666 F.3d 1255, 1261 (10th Cir. 2012) . . .
. . . . § 17.10[1], at p. 17-15. (3d ed. 2010)); see also In re Miller, 666 F.3d 1255, 1261 (10th Cir. 2012 . . .
. . . was paid his regular hourly rate for those hours of overtime, and was thus entitled to an additional $17.10 . . .
. . . R. 17.10. . . . R. 17.10 (prior to June 3, 2009). . . . .
. . . From 2004 until March 2012, DCF’s foster care maintenance rates stagnated, lingering at $17.10 per day . . .
. . . CEPS set the price of Flécame LP at 17.10 per unit. (Forey Decl. ¶ 8). . . .
. . . Therefore, when she was terminated in 2011, her salary was $16.80, not the $17.10 it would have been, . . .
. . . , economically or otherwise, is not necessarily a real party. 4-17 Moore’s Federal Practice-Civil § 17.10 . . .
. . . Fourteenth Amendment rights; (4) violation of the Washington State Noxious Weed Statute, RCW Chapter 17.10 . . .
. . . equipment functions properly” and that “BOP maintenance must meet or exceed the provisions of Sections 17.10 . . .
. . . a price of $25.99 per share, and purchased 5,500 additional shares on July 11, 2008, at a price of $17.10 . . .
. . . party who meets the standing requirements is a real party in interest.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practioe § 17.10 . . . See MooRe’s, supra, § 17.10[1], Was, for example, the plaintiff a party to the contract sought to be . . .
. . . party who meets the standing requirements is a real party in interest.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 . . . See Moore’s, supra, § 17.10[1]. . . .
. . . Meineke points to Article 17.10 as further proof that the district court erred, observing that contract . . . (Appellant’s Opening Br. 21, quoting Article 17.10 at J.A. 75.) . . . RLB argues that Meineke's failure to raise the applicability of Article 17.10 in the district court precludes . . . Meineke does not dispute its failure to raise the application of Article 17.10 below, and defends its . . . circumstances in this case, we will not consider Meineke's argument and consider it waived as to Article 17.10 . . .
. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10[1] (3d ed. 2010) (internal references omitted). . . .
. . . Texor Petroleum Co., Inc., 521 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir.2008); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 (3d. . . .
. . . docket no. 229A1, Plaintiffs’ Master Ex. 17.9, at 43, 79-81; docket no. 229-5, Plaintiffs’ Master Ex. 17.10 . . .
. . . 2008, see Id. at ¶¶ 158-63, the price of its stock fell from $28.86 per share on April 30, 2008, to $17.10 . . .
. . . status: Thus, the attorney-in-fact cannot bring suit in its own name.” 4 Moore's Federal Practice § 17.10 . . .
. . . 1990) (applying HRCP 17(a), which is identical to Federal Rule 17(a)); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 . . .
. . . classifications, ranging from highest to lowest in terms of seniority and pay: (1) Natural Team Lead ($17.10 . . .
. . . Section 17.10 of the dealer franchise agreements includes a netting provision that allows GM to debit . . . Section 17.10 of the agreement provides that: All monies or accounts due Dealer are net of Dealer’s indebtedness . . . deduct the amount of its damages, once determined, from the open accounts pursuant to the terms of § 17.10 . . .
. . . , and another 6.11% on March 27, 2006; when Nature was named in a class action suit, it shares fell 17.10% . . .
. . . Moore, et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10[1] (3d ed.2007). . . . in that both address a party’s right to pursue an action as claimant.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.10 . . .
. . . Defendants’ Master Terms Agreement (“MTA”) with Artus, dated November 14, 2005 provides: 17.10 Certain . . .
. . . District Rule 17.10. . . . District Rule 17.10 states that “a decision of the Board concerning a hearing matter may be appealed . . .
. . . From $4.91 to $17.10. . . . .
. . . Specifically, Section 17.10 provides that: Each Borrower hereby ratifies, adopts, confirm and agrees . . . DIP Loan Agreement at § 17.10 (emphasis added). . . .
. . . SteRN et al., SUPREME Court PRACTICE § 17.10, at 769 (8th ed.2002). . . .
. . . possessing the right or interest to be enforced through the litigation.'' 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 . . . 3d Cir.1996) ("There may be multiple real parties in interest for a given claim”); accord 4 Moore § 17.10 . . . See id. § 17.10(1], at 17-13. . See, e.g., VTech Holdings Ltd. v. . . .
. . . persons or entities possessing the right or interest to be enforced through the litigation.” 4 Moore’s § 17.10 . . . also to ensure that the judgment in the action will have preclusive res judi-cata effect.” 4 Moore’s § 17.10 . . . against the real party in interest representative is binding on the person represented.” 4 Moore’s § 17.10 . . .
. . . March 1995 through February 1996 — 162 trips at $17.10 each; e. . . . October 1995 — 2 trips at $17.10 each; . b. . . .
. . . Coquillette et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10[2] (3d ed. 2004) (The Rule “is intended to protect . . .
. . . ; %) Total SPMs (billions; %) 1998 455.22 96.5% 14.12 2.43 0.5% 471.77 00 ^ 1999 422.00 92.3% 18.00 17.10 . . .
. . . See Nim-mer § 17.10[A], at 17-54. . . .
. . . Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 17.10 (3d ed.1992).” Mejdrech v. . . .
. . . every party who meets standing requirements is a real party in interest. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.10 . . .
. . . ) that contained the following handwritten notations. in column format: “7.38 [ + ] 9.72 spread [=] 17.10 . . .
. . . The provision at issue states as follows: 17.10 Waiver of Jury Trial EACH PARTY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST . . . Management Agreement, Section 17.10. . . .
. . . Indeed, “[generally real parties in interest have standing,” Moore, supra § 17.10[1]. . . . MOORE, supra § 17.10[1]. The injury that has generated the suit is theirs to vindicate. . . .
. . . (CALJIC No. 17.10.) . . .
. . . Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 17.10 (3d ed. 1992). . . .
. . . On April 2, 2001, XCO quoted Pacific a price of $17.10 per foot for the 2,000 feet of cable. . . . On April 21, 2001, Pacific submitted a purchase order to XCO for the 2,000 feet of cable at $17.10 per . . .
. . . United States, 463 U.S. 110, 103 S.Ct. 2906, 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 17.10 . . . party is a real party in interest with respect to that right or interest. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 . . .
. . . TheraTx was bought by Vencor, Inc. on a tender offer of $17.10 per share in March 1997. B. . . . shares sold in the range of $13,311 to $18,750 per share until the shares were proffered to Vencor at $17.10 . . . TheraTx was bought by Ven-cor, Inc. on a tender offer of $17.10 per share in March 1997. (3) The questions . . .
. . . See Keeton, Judging in the American Legal System, at §§ 16.2, 17.10. . . .
. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, 3d ed., Vol. 4, Sec. 17.10[I]. See Cinema North Corporation v. . . .
. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.10[1] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) . . . See also 4 Moore's Federal Practice, § 17.10[3][c] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) . . .
. . . Moore’s at ¶ 17.10[1]. . . .
. . . suit as the real party in interest on behalf of a decedent’s estate. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.10 . . .
. . . suit as the real party in interest on behalf of a decedent’s estate. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.10 . . .
. . . Jones 1/5/98 17.10 UPS to R. Delello, Esq. . . . The 5 January 1998 UPS charge of $17.10 was expended on forwarding revised papers to counsel for Okonite . . .
. . . See 4 American Law of Property § 17.10 at 560 (James Casner ed., 1952). . . .
. . . Serv., 556 F.2d at 404; see also 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra 17.10[1]. . . .
. . . unable to either decipher adequately or otherwise to approve: Ex.B Page Date Listed Amount 32 8/8/94 $ 17.10 . . .
. . . unable to either decipher adequately or otherwise to approve: Ex.B Page Date Listed Amount 32 8/8/94 $ 17.10 . . .
. . . retains its impact and symbolizes a continuing commer-eial impression.” 2 McCarthy on Trademarks § 17.10 . . . abandonment where the key elements of the mark continues through new formats.” 2 McCarthy on Trademarks § 17.10 . . . “the dropping of a background design and continuing use of a word mark.” 2 McCarthy on Trademarks § 17.10 . . .
. . . Wallick, 306 U.S. 282, 59 S.Ct. 557, 83 L.Ed. 653 (1939); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 (1993). . . .
. . . See also 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 17.10[A] at 17-54 (1993); Filmvideo Releasing Corp. v. . . . See 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 17.10[A] at 17-54 (1993). . . .
. . . extend to federal claims brought in federal court....” 7 Miller, Colorado Personal Injury Practice § 17.10 . . .
. . . by the appellant, and the assertion that the appellant owed the additional amounts of $194.96 and $17.10 . . .
. . . military pay received by the appellant during the unauthorized absence to which he pleaded guilty, and a $17.10 . . . by the appellant, and the assertion that the appellant owed the additional amounts of $194.96 and $17.10 . . .
. . . Vestal, P, Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .
. . . Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .
. . . Section 17.10(1) of this ordinance permits the city to revoke a cable television franchise if a grantee . . . plaintiff to reinstate USA Network and WWOR within 30 days or face franchise revocation proceedings under § 17.10 . . .
. . . 89.76 56.85 4/23/85 6.84 4.33 19.51 12.36 8/29/85 92.79 61.54 178.85 118.62 9/17/85 13.22 5.99 37.22 17.10 . . .
. . . Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .
. . . contemporaneous time records submitted by Hodgson, Russ indicate, however, that they seek compensation for some 17.10 . . .
. . . . § 17.10 et seq., HACK requested a hearing in Washington and the production of relevant documents pursuant . . . representations, the “recapture” of the excess subsidies would not be effected pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 17.10 . . . pursuant to § 990.110(e), HUD would not be bound by the administrative review provisions of 24 C.F.R. § 17.10 . . . required by law to afford HACK the administrative procedures contained in the Act and at 24 C.F.R. § 17.10 . . .
. . . MOORE, MANUAL OF FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 17.10[3] (1987 ed.). . . .
. . . Vestal, P, Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .
. . . Vestal, P, Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .
. . . . § 17.10 of the Plan provides: Benefits payable under this Plan shall not be subject in any manner to . . .
. . . Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .
. . . Andalman $ 21.00 $ 21.00 Process Server Craig 121.40 $ 121.40 Parking Fees Andalman 17.10 $ 17.10 A request . . .
. . . AMA Exhibits 17.5, 17.10, and 17.18, cited in AMA’s brief, do not relate to the Birch Creek basin. . . .
. . . 434 U.S. 903, 98 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977); 8 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.01[1], at 17-4; ¶ 17.10 . . .
. . . WHITE 17.10 hrs. at $75/hr. (Reduced from $100/hr.). $ 1,282.50 R. . . .
. . . Section 17.10(2). . TSR does not directly challenge this provision. . . .
. . . Moore’s Manual, § 17.10(2) and cases cited at page 17-34 nn. 3, 4 (1981). . . . 2d Cir.1976), cert. den., 430 U.S. 906, 97 S.Ct. 1175, 51 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977); see, Moore’s Manual, § 17.10 . . . Cities Service Corp., 391 U.S. 253, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968); see, Moore’s Manual, § 17.10 . . .
. . . Overmyer Ex. 2) 17.10. Leases Starting Before the Equipment Became Operational. . . .
. . . Robert Flack, the project’s CO, to substitute Condaire for Rock Hill, pursuant to paragraph 17.10 of . . . list its subcontractors and may make a change only with the CO’s consent in accordance with paragraph 17.10 . . . of the subcontractor’s listing clause which states: 17.10 No substitutions for the individuals or firms . . . As paragraph 17.10 states, a CO will allow a contractor to substitute subcontractors after award of the . . . substitution of subcontractors within the context of an “unusual situation” as discussed in paragraph 17.10 . . .
. . . Robert Flack, the project’s CO, to substitute Condaire for Rock Hill, pursuant to paragraph 17.10 of . . . list its subcontractors and may make a change only with the CO’s consent in accordance with paragraph 17.10 . . . of the subcontractor’s listing clause which states: 17.10 No substitutions for the individuals or firms . . . As paragraph 17.10 states, a CO will allow a contractor to substitute subcontractors after award of the . . . substitution of subcontractors within the context of an "unusual situation” as discussed in paragraph 17.10 . . .
. . . Jurisdiction Volvo and White have agreed in paragraph 17.10 of their Agreement that the District Court . . .
. . . Richter bid highest of all at $17.10 p.c.y. Hilltop won the contract. 8. . . .
. . . standard allowance for spouse’s 78.00 needs Less allowance for minor child ($65.00- 268.16 $47.90) 17.10 . . . Norman 140.00 325.16 Less allowance for unmet needs of Thomas ($65.00-47.90) - 17.10 Equals “Medicaid . . .
. . . Lumber, supra refused to apply the de minimus rule and voided an attachment secured by a bond that was $17.10 . . .
. . . very discretionary nature of a motion for summary judgment. 2 Moore, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 17.10 . . .
. . . The agreement provides at 17.10: In the event of termination of this agreement prior to July 1984, HR . . .
. . . Birmingham Bulls signed Linseman before the date of the annual draft in violation of Operating Regulation 17.10 . . .
. . . McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 17.10 (1973); Drexel Enterprises, Inc. v. . . .
. . . Bailey, 79 Me. 195, 9 A. 122 (1887); IV American Law of Property § 17.10 (A. Casner ed. 1952). . . .
. . . This procedure comports with the Medical Practice Act, § 17.10, which provides, in pertinent part, to-wit . . .
. . . covered by claimant’s security interest”, see 3 Collier, Bankruptcy 157.07[3.3], at 181— 82; 9 id. 17.10 . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ¶[ 17.10, at 402-03 (2d ed. 1974). . . .
. . . . §§ 17.10, 17.11, in 35 Fed.Reg. 8493 (June 2, 1970). . . .
. . . . § 17.10(b) and § 17.17 (1970).) . . .
. . . different additions to weekly base.salary were as follows: NAME AMOUNT Habeck $15.22 Lockler None Waid $17.10 . . .