The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . by 97.42, determined his regular rate to be $ 10.26 per hour, and paid him $ 5.13 per hour for the 17.42 . . .
. . . . § 17.42(a)(2). Turtle does not attack the charging language in the Information. . . . Id. at 21,062.The codification of the Interior Department's rule change, 50 C.F.R. § 17.42(a), shows . . . reasonable and necessary conservation measures against members of the Seminole Tribe, and 50 C.F.R. § 17.42 . . .
. . . Id. art. 17.42, § 4(a). Magistrates may postpone, reduce, or waive the fee. Id. art. 17.03(g). . . .
. . . . §§ 17.11(h), 17.42(e); Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status . . .
. . . similar agreements on August 30, 2012, and September 1, 2014, reflecting hourly rates of $16.60 and $17.42 . . .
. . . Dep. 17:20-18:11); 2010 primary election statistics showing 82.58% of ballots cast as Republican and 17.42% . . .
. . . Herrington, who received 165 votes (17.42% of votes cast) and independent Derrick Ware received 212 votes . . .
. . . and a 52 week per year work schedule, Costello earned between $15.38 per hour ($846.15 per week) and $17.42 . . .
. . . Adams Elementary 8/7/09-8/18/09 64 $17.42 $1,114.88 $111.49 $ 67.14 $1,293.51 Pahrump 10/16/09-12/22 . . . /09 19 $17.42 $ 330.98 $ 33.10 $ 17.69 $ 381.77 Reno & Spencer 11/9/2009 9 $17.42 $ 156.78 $ 15.68 $ . . . $ 177.37 Adams Elementary 8/7/09-8/18/09 $17.42 64 $1,114.88 $111.49 $ 67.14 $1,293.51 Pahrump 10/16 . . . /09-12/22/09 $17.42 19 $ 330.98 $ 33.10 $ 17.69 $ 381.77 Reno & Spencer 11/9/2009 $17.42 9 $ 156.78 $ . . . /09 19 $17.42 $ 330.98 $ 33.10 $ 17.69 $ 381.77 Reno & Spencer 11/9/2009 9 $17.42 $ 156.78' $ 15.68 $ . . .
. . . CALJIC 17.42; see Shannon v. . . .
. . . Code Ann § 17.42 (Vernon 1995) (permitting a waiver “of the provisions of this subchapter” provided that . . .
. . . His rate of pay was increased to $17.42 per hour on May 1, 2006. (Id.) . . .
. . . . & CormCode § 17.42(a) (“[a]ny waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this title is contrary to public . . .
. . . compensatory damages, and the ratio of $5 billion punitive damages to $287 million in compensatory damages is 17.42 . . .
. . . compensatory damages, and the ratio of $5 billion punitive damages to $287 million in compensatory damages is 17.42 . . .
. . . We noted that a ratio of 17.42 to 1 (based on the jury’s verdict) or 12 to 1 (using the upper limits . . .
. . . (“Frontier”), with respect to 17.42 acres of Trust property. . . . entered into a Long Term Ground Sublease Agreement (“Sublease”) with Chrysler subletting six of the 17.42 . . . terminated; (2) Frontier was not in default; and (3) Frontier had been and continued to pay rent on the 17.42 . . . terminated; (2) Frontier was not in default; and (3) Frontier had been and continued to pay rent on the 17.42 . . .
. . . (RT 675; CALJIC No. 17.42.) . . .
. . . (RT 227; CALJIC No. 17.42). . . .
. . . that assumption, the check instead reflects compensation for 48 “regular” hours at the hourly rate of $17.42 . . . hourly rate of $26.29 — which represents exactly one- and-one-half times the “regular” hourly rate of $17.42 . . . calculation reflects compensation for both “regular” and “vacation” hours at a uniform hourly rate of $17.42 . . . period reflect compensation for regular, sick, and vacation hours at a uniform rate of approximately $17.42 . . . per hour, (2) vacation and sick hours would be compensated at $17.42 per hour, and (3) overtime hours . . .
. . . adjusted this figure for inflation, and the DBE program’s average gross receipts cap now stands at $17.42 . . . Construction Company Inc., over the preceding three years and since at least 1995, have been in excess of $17.42 . . .
. . . compensatory damages, and the ratio of $5 billion punitive damages to $287 million in compensatory damages is 17.42 . . .
. . . . §§ 17.42 & 17.59 (Vernon Supp.1982). . . .
. . . Appeal correctly held: [The petitioner] contends that the court erred in giving the jury CALJIC No. 17.42 . . . CALJIC No. 17.42, as given to the jury, read: In your deliberations the jury is not to discuss or consider . . .
. . . Therefore, Plaintiff will not be awarded damages for loss of use of the vessel for the 17.42 days. . . .
. . . DTPA § 17.42(a), Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.42(a) (Vernon Supp.1997). . . .
. . . . § 17.42, Historical & Statutory Notes on 1995 Legislation, at 36 (West.Supp.1997). . . .
. . . . & Com.Code § 17.42 (“Any waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this subchapter is contrary to public . . .
. . . . § 17.42 (Vernon Supp.1996). . . .
. . . Koyo: 04-01-1974 to 07-31-1976 11.89% 08-01-1976 to 09-30-1977 4.78% NSK: 06-06-1974 to 06-30-1976 17.42% . . . 07- 01-1976 to 07-31-1977 17.42% 08- 01-1977 to 03-31-1978 18.63% Id. at 10. . . .
. . . Koyo: 04-01-1974 to 07-31-1976. 11.89% 08-01-1976 to 09-30-1977. 4.78% NSK: 06-06-1974 to 06-30-1976. 17.42% . . . 07-01-1976 to 07-31-1977. 17.42% 08-01-1977 to 03-31-1978 . 18.63% Id. at 10. . . .
. . . The Court computed this figure by subtracting $17.42 per 100 pounds, the fair market value of the flour . . .
. . . NST billed subscribers for the first month’s charge of $17.42 within a few days after the decoder was . . . Thereafter, NST billed each subscriber in advance for the $17.42 monthly service charge. . . .
. . . stipulation of fact established that the total service fee for the calls on the commercial telephone, $17.42 . . . The charge for these calls was nominal, $17.42. . . .
. . . Contract § 17.42. . . .
. . . Packaging NA NA SEC NA NA Amoco NA NA Incon/PSP NA NA Total NA NA 1984 Sewell 7.60 7.60 Owens-Illinois 17.42 . . . 17.42 SEC 0.00 0.00 Carolina Packaging 0.01 0.01 Amoco 0.01 0.01 PSP 0.00 0.00 Total 25.05* 25.05* Plaintiff . . .
. . . Tulare San Francisco 17.78 17.03 Seattle 17.78 17.22 Portland 18.16 17.60 Boise 17.90 17.70 Denver 17.42 . . .
. . . Section 17.42. . . . the disclaimer of warranties in the contract was unenforceable under the “no waiver” provision of § 17.42 . . . that none of the various exceptions to the definition of a consumer contained in the DTPA apply. § 17.42 . . . subchapter is contrary to public policy and is unenforceable and void_” Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.42 . . .
. . . . § 17.42, and may appeal the Joint Coast LRC’s decision to the Coast Arbitrator. Id. § 17.43. . . .
. . . Section 17.42 of the DTPA provides: Any waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this subchapter is . . . is unenforceable and void____ The Texas Supreme Court has never explicitly addressed the scope of § 17.42 . . . A seller should not be able to avoid § 17.42 by merely including a limitation-of-liability clause in . . .
. . . .; see also Declaration of Cacy Patton (AMA Exh. 17.42), at 2 (“5 NTU's [of added turbidity] is presently . . .
. . . Section 17.42 of the DTPA, as applicable to this case, provides that “[a]ny waiver by a consumer of the . . . The Court finds that neither of these eases requires a limited application of § 17.42. . . . On appeal, plaintiff argued that under § 17.42, this statement must be considered null and void. . . . The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that § 17.42 does not apply to this situation. . . . In dicta, the Court of Appeals went on to state that § 17.42 was intended only to prevent a release in . . .
. . . before that Court, and this one, is whether Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act preempts section 17.42 . . .
. . . Farmers Home Administration $155,560.00 $28.81 Kanabec State Bank $52,335.00 (Due in full, 9/1/84) $17.42 . . .
. . . and Cleaning 25.00 Newspapers, Periodicals, etc. 15.00 Medical, Dental, Drugs 28.00 Insurance: Auto 17.42 . . .
. . . . § 17.42. . . . It is the conflict between sections 2 and 3 on the one hand, and section 17.42 on the other, that forms . . .
. . . Section 17.42 of the DTPA provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ny waiver by a consumer of the provisions . . . Tex.Bus. & Com.Code, § 17.42. . . . question before the Court, then, is whether section 2 of the federal Arbitration Act preempts section 17.42 . . . arbitration clause of the agreement in question would be enforced as to Marley’s DTPA claims; under section 17.42 . . .
. . . 534,113.96 (30.44%) 600,802 (32.68%) 546,740 (30.28%) Corporate Stocks 292,052.00 (16.64%) 320,198 (17.42% . . .
. . . 534,113.96 (30.44%) 600,802 (32.68%) 546,740 (30.28%) Corporate Stocks 292,052.00 (16.64%) 320,198 (17.42% . . .
. . . Thornton financed this insurance premium together with the finance charge of $17.42, or a total of $202.42 . . .
. . . . § 17.42. . . .
. . . . & Com.Code Ann., § 17.42. . . .
. . . 1.48% 1955 375,357,697 28,678,540 7.64% 1956 420,792,701 48,331,397 11.49% 1957 456,045,074 79,440,465 17.42% . . .
. . . They asserted that the Commissioner lawfully could collect for 1964 only $17.42, the amount allegedly . . . decide the question, taxpayers are right that the assessment and collection for 1964 of amounts over $17.42 . . . Deficiency Per R.A.R. dated January 20, 1965 $35,381.13 Tax on amount in Line ll.d., Page 1 of this Return 17.42 . . .
. . . Rule 17.42. . . .
. . . 21.80 21.13 15.03 30.40 1956- 21.44 20.49 15.10 30.84 1957- 22.13 21.12 16.83 34.77 1958- 21.11 21.17 17.42 . . . 31.27 1959- 20.14 20.24 17.42 29.44 1960- 19.84 20.21 17.07 27.54 1961- 19.85 20.04 17.73 25.23 1962 . . .
. . . restricted stock option certificate for 4,634 shares of National’s class B common stock at a price of $17.42 . . .
. . . Lancaster County is similarly over-represented by 17.42%, Oconee by 15.63% and Calhoun and Orangeburg . . .
. . . Brothers March 6, 1962 for $723.85 to which was added $125.82 carrying charges, $21.72 sales tax, and $17.42 . . .
. . . 48" Overall 15 sets Each 2.66 x 7" — 2.48 x 7"_$20.24 per set 15 sets Each 2.60 x 7"- — -2.42 x 7"_ 17.42 . . . Without Engraving But With Beaded Bevel— 60 x 48" Overall 15 sets Each 2.60 x 7" — 2.42 x 7"_$17.42 per . . . set 15 sets Each 2.60 x 7" — -2.42 x 7"_ 17.42 per set On the basis of the present record, I find that . . .
. . . fixing the relative shares of John and William in the common property, John’s share would have been but 17.42 . . .
. . . .$ 60.63 Seattle Ship Supply...... 22.34 Fisheries Supply Co...... 357.83 Fred Rowe.............. 17.42 . . .
. . . In the case of Strand the defendant sent to her by mail a check in the amount of $17.42, which the plaintiff . . . sign the release and agreement, although she did retain in her possession the check in the amount of $17.42 . . .
. . . name of the Realty Company, was also a depositor of the bank’s, and his account was then overdrav'n $17.42 . . .
. . . Repairs on truck........ 17.42 •12r26 To Paid Earns premium on insurance ......................... 9.20 . . . Carrying charges on resale of truck.............. , 10.00 Repairs on truck ............................ 17.42 . . .