The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . Penney’s stock price dropped from $36.72 at the end of the first quarter of 2012 to $17.26 a year later . . .
. . . must have “at least one propulsion member to propel the hull at a speed in excess of 15 knots,” or 17.26 . . .
. . . between two majority African-American districts, Districts 5 and 6, which now contain a 24.53% and a 17.26% . . . community between two districts, one with a 24.53% Hispanic voting-age population and the other with a 17.26% . . .
. . . financials and held the above-detailed conference call, LIZ’s share price dropped $7.72 per share, or 17.26% . . .
. . . Court therefore will award fees for 33% of the hours Attorney Casavant has recorded, for a total óf 17.26 . . .
. . . Finally, the gauge at Corning reached a range of 10.5 to 11.5 feet for an average of 17.26 days during . . .
. . . Code INS § 17.26(4)(b). . . .
. . . At this point, Group shares had fallen in value from their post-announcement highs and closed at $17.26 . . .
. . . Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages (Clerk’s No. 1), alleging that Section 17.26 . . . Ames has adopted an ordinance, codified at § 17.26, which reads in pertinent part as follows: Sec. 17.26 . . . On August 9, 2005, Ames enacted Amendments to § 17.26. . . . six months; or if previously convicted of any crime of fraud or violence to persons or property. § 17.26 . . . Plaintiffs next object to § 17.26(13) of the pre-amendment ordinance, which provides that the City Clerk . . .
. . . Air Group responded by declining in price further and sharply to $17.26. . . .
. . . Air Group’s shares would not have closed at $17.26 per share on July 27, 2001 after the announcement . . .
. . . Argora informed Foulston the base annual rent under the renewal clause was $784,125 ($17.26 per rsf based . . .
. . . See 3B Moore, Federal Practice, §§ 17.26 (3d ed.1988) (“forum state restrictions, however, do not apply . . .
. . . trailers, and a 14.32% figure for the last twenty-nine trailers, AAI’s average profit rate comes to 17.26% . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.26[3], at 17-111 (3d ed. 1997) (“[T]he capacity of an entity charted . . . them recognizes them as separate legal entities having capacity to sue or be sued.” 4 Moore, supra, § 17.26 . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.26[1][b] (1998). . . .
. . . Patel asserts that the Par stock fell 17.26% from March 1988 to July 1988 in the absence of specific . . .
. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.26 at 17-219 (1993) (“Rule 17(c) deals only with the protection . . .
. . . See 3A Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, par. 17.26, at 17-210 (2d ed. 1993); 6A Wright, et ah, Federal . . .
. . . Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1570 p. 506 (1990); Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 17.26 p. 17 . . .
. . . 19.05 22.30 20.45 20.95 21.86 U of Ala — Huntsville 15.85 22.08 20.87 18.31 21.15 U of Ala — Birmingham 17.26 . . .
. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.26 at 17-219 (1990); 6A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. . . .
. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.26, at 17-210 (2d ed. 1989) (citing Donnelly v. . . .
. . . 75.02 10/29/84 2.5 41.68 11/28/84 2.5 41.68 Total 1984 31.0 $512.65 1/2/85 2.5 16.67 $ 41.68 2/5/85 2.5 17.26 . . . 60.41 9/26/85 2.5 43.15 10/24/85 2.5 43.15 11/15/85 2.5 43.15 Total 1985 35.5 $654.41 1/31/86 2.5 $17.26 . . .
. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice, If 17.26 (2d Ed.1987). . . .
. . . This amounts to $6.60 for donuts purchased for jurors which could not be returned, $17.26 for telephone . . .
. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.26, at 17-275 to 17-276 (2d ed. 1986). . . . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 17.16, 17.26, at 17-189 to 17-191, 17-272 (2d ed. 1986); Tex.Prob.Code . . .
. . . MOORE FEDERAL PRACTICE, ¶ 17.26, at 17-275 to 17-276. (2d ed. 1986). . . .
. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice, If 17.26 (2d ed. 1985). . . . difference in terminology, “the functions of the two are precisely the same” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.26 . . .
. . . Eglit, supra, at § 17.26. Nonetheless, some courts place the burden upon the plaintiff. . . .
. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.26 at 17-283 (2d ed. 1985); 6 C. Wright & A. . . .
. . . . § 1961 has varied between 17.26% in December 1977 and 9.17% in February 1985. . . .
. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice j| 17.26 (1985). . . .
. . . .; 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.26; In re Air Crash Disaster Near Saigon, Etc., 476 F.Supp. 521 ( . . .
. . . and taxation of such costs, in the absence of contrary federal law. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 17.26 . . .
. . . sue as a representative of another is usually determined by state law. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.26 . . . Id.; 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.26 at 17-280; 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: . . .
. . . plays a hybrid role, advising one or more parties as well as the court. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice H 17.26 . . .
. . . and the decision of the Area Arbitrator shall be final and conclusive except as otherwise provided in 17.26 . . . . . 17.26 The Joint Coast Labor Relations Committee has jurisdiction to consider issues that are presented . . .
. . . charges about EPA’s accounting, intending to show that SSL recovery cost should have been figured at $17.26 . . . Petitioners’ own study from which the $17.26 figure is derived clearly confirms EPA’s contention: the . . . $17.26 figure results from subtracting profits of operation of SSL recovery from the capitalized cost . . .
. . . In addition Sec. 17.26 of the ordinances of the City of Plantation makes it a violation of city ordinance . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.26 (2d ed. 1974); 6 C. Wright & A. . . .
. . . Gentzsch, 355 F.Supp. 349, 350-53 (E.D.Pa.1972); 3A Moore, Federal Practice, fl 17.26, at 908 n.21 (2d . . .
. . . Pa. 1972) ; 3A Moore, Federal Practice, ¶17.26, at 908 n.21 (2d ed. 1974). . . .
. . . Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, H 1560, at 773 (1972); 3A Moore, Federal Practice, [[17.26 . . .
. . . following: the power of eminent domain to acquire land for the construction of school facilities, id., §§ 17.26 . . .
. . . See 3A Moore, Federal Practice, ¶17.26, p. 908 (2d Ed.1970). Compare Berkowitz v. . . .
. . . ITT F & F, 117; GTE F & F, 17.7, but cf. 17.26(b) and GTE Vol. III, Interrog. & Stips., ITT Ex. . . .
. . . See also 3A Moore, Federal Practice, (2d ed., 1969) ¶17.26. . . .
. . . computations of a Garvey representative this resulted in a 1965 average normal yield for his farms of 17.26 . . .
. . . See Orfield, Federal Criminal Rules, § 17.26; cf. Barber v. . . .
. . . and the decision of the Area Arbitrator shall be final and conclusive except as otherwise provided in 17.26 . . . (Emphasis added.) ‘17.26 The Joint Coast Labor Relations Committee has jurisdiction to consider issues . . .
. . . Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure, §§ 486, 488; 3 Moore, Federal Practice §§ 17.18, 17.19, 17.26 . . .
. . . the left ascending side of Cane Branch and along the edge of the 581 acre “leasehold,” and comprise 17.26 . . .
. . . They showed the daily average production of well No. 3 was 17.26 barrels of oil and 342.74 barrels of . . .
. . . controlled by Rule 17(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 17.26 . . .
. . . Sections 17.26 and 17.36 to 17.39, Comp.Laws 1948, §§ 408.66, 408.77-408.80, respondent was required . . .
. . . Supp. 417; Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., § 17.26, pages 1417, 1419. In C. J. Peck Oil Co. v. . . .
. . . See also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., § 17.26, pages 1417-1422. . . .
. . . of the total of all Texas & New Orleans interchange tonnage in 1929, to 14.26 percent in 1936, and 17.26 . . . Connection— 1929 1932 1935 1937 Percent Percent Percent Percent Debtor ................. 8.37 11.95 13.99 17.26 . . .
. . . existing facts and data; in this it succeeded, and the calm water level did not rise above elevation 17.26 . . . their claim on the fact that the maximum calm water lake elevation at the time of the damage was 17 or 17.26 . . .
. . . existing facts and data; in this it succeeded, and the calm water level did not rise above elevation 17.26 . . . their claim on the fact that the maximum calm water lake elevation at the time of the damage was 17 or 17.26 . . .
. . . extent of such earnings, that is, 82.74 per cent of the distribution was taxable, while the residue, 17.26 . . .
. . . plaintiff the sum of $200 as a so-called capital stock tax for the year ending June 30, 1934, and $17.26 . . .