The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 22
EMERGENCY CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 22.03

22.03 Definitions.—Unless otherwise clearly required by the context, as used in ss. 22.01-22.10:

(1) “Attack” means any attack or series of attacks by an enemy of the United States causing, or which may cause, substantial damage or injury to civilian property or persons in the United States in any manner by sabotage or by the use of bombs, missiles, shellfire, or atomic, radiological, chemical, bacteriological, or biological means or other weapons or processes.

(2) “Emergency interim successor” means a person designated pursuant to ss. 22.01-22.10, in the event the officer is unavailable, to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of an office until a successor is appointed or elected and qualified as may be provided by the constitution, statutes, charters, and ordinances or until the lawful incumbent is able to resume the exercise of the powers and discharge the duties of the office.

(3) “Office” includes all state and local offices, the powers and duties of which are defined by the constitution, statutes, charters, and ordinances, except the office of Governor and the Legislature.

(4) “Political subdivision” includes counties, cities, towns, villages, townships, districts, authorities, and other public corporations and entities whether organized and existing under charter or general law.

(5) “Unavailable” means either that a vacancy in office exists or that the lawful incumbent of the office is absent or unable to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the office.

History.—s. 3, ch. 59-447; s. 9, ch. 2023-8.

F.S. 22.03 on Google Scholar

F.S. 22.03 on Casetext

Amendments to 22.03

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 22.03

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 22.03.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD v. MIRAGE CASINO- HOTEL, INC., 911 F.3d 588 (9th Cir. 2018)

. . . Section 21.01 reads: "Any violation or alleged violation of Section 22.01 or 22.03 shall not be subject . . . There is no Section 22.03 in the CBA, but Section 22.02 contains the relevant text. . . . We assume that the reference to 22.03 is a typographical error. . . .

LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. RIDGWAY,, 293 F. Supp. 3d 1254 (W.D. Wash. 2018)

. . . or all of the claims against the stake are prospective." 4 Moore's Federal Practice, Interpleader § 22.03 . . .

A. P. MOLLER- MAERSK A S, TRADING AS MAERSK LINE, v. SAFEWATER LINES PVT, LTD., 276 F. Supp. 3d 700 (S.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . See generally-4-22 Goods in Transit § 22.03-22.04, Samrat does acknowledge the maritime rule that a consignee . . . Transit § 22.03-22.04. . . . .

IN RE SALAZAR,, 543 B.R. 669 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2015)

. . . claims (all unsecured) were .filed, one for $3,845.07, one for $99.34, one for $881.19, and one for $22.03 . . .

R. CREWS, v. STATE, 183 So. 3d 329 (Fla. 2015)

. . . (references to "office or officer” includes persons authorized to perform duties of the office); § 22.03 . . .

H. WILLIAMS, Jr. v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. LLC, a a, 121 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (D. Or. 2015)

. . . See Moore, et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[l][a]. . . . See Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[2][a]. . . .

GREAT WALL DE VENEZUELA C. A. v. INTERAUDI BANK, v. ICA, 117 F. Supp. 3d 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Viscuso, 569 F.Supp.2d 355, 359 (S.D.N.Y.2008); see also Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[l][a] (same . . .

WESTERN HOME TRANSPORT, INC. v. HEXCO, LLC d b a HC, 28 F. Supp. 3d 959 (D.N.D. 2014)

. . . See generally 4-22 Goods in Transit §§ 22.03-22.04. . . .

ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS, v. ALABAMA, v., 989 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (M.D. Ala. 2013)

. . . In 2010, the total population of District 26 was underpopulated by 11.64 percent and was 22.03 percent . . . In 2010, District 26 was underpopulated by 11.64 percent and had a total population that was 22.03 percent . . .

J. BERIONT, v. GTE LABORATORIES, INC. GTE GTE H., 535 F. App'x 919 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

. . . See 8 Chisum on Patents § 22.03[3]. . . .

FRANKFORD CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER DALLAS, TX. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. PHO PARTNERS, LLC,, 942 F. Supp. 2d 366 (W.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . The lease provides, at § 22.03: Owner and Tenant agree that any controversy between them, pursuant to . . .

SKYCAM, LLC, a v. J. BENNETT, LLC,, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (N.D. Okla. 2012)

. . . Chisum on Patents, § 22.03[2], The evidence presented in this case establishes that Skycam identified . . .

MICHELMAN, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 685 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[1][c] (3d ed. 1997) (“In most cases, it is not difficult for . . .

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY v. FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., 862 F. Supp. 2d 382 (E.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . Disputes, "Potentially Collusive Settlements Involving Assignment of Insured’s Rights to Injured Party,” § 22.03 . . .

PRESTON FRANKFORD SHOPPING CENTER DALLAS, TX. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. BUTLER DINING SERVICES, LLC d b a s E. M., 757 F. Supp. 2d 248 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . . # 1 at 12, § 22.03. . . .

WINE COUNTRY GIFT BASKETS. COM K L L. L. R. v. T. STEEN, Jr. Jr., 612 F.3d 809 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . Bev.Code § 22.03 (Vernon 2006) (amended Sept. 1, 2007). . . . Id. §§ 22.03 & 24.03 (Vernon 2009). . . . Code § 22.03 (Vernon 2006, adopted Sept. 1, 1977). . . . The provisions as listed by the district court were Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code sections 22.03, 24.03 . . . Code §§ 22.03(a), 24.03. . . . .

L. P. USA v., 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 478 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)

. . . Commerce preliminarily calculated a company-specific dumping margin for Winner (22.03 percent), which . . .

BRISTOL METALS L. P. USA v. UNITED STATES,, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)

. . . Commerce preliminarily calculated a company-specific dumping margin for Winner (22.03 percent), which . . .

SIESTA VILLAGE MARKET LLC, Dr. v. T. STEEN, Jr. Jr. K L L. L. R. v., 595 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . Bev.Code § 22.03 (Vernon 2006) (amended Sept. 1, 2007). . . . Id. §§ 22.03 & 24.03 (Vernon 2009). . . . Bev.Code § 22.03 (Vernon 2006, adopted Sept. 1, 1977). . . . provisions as listed by the district court are Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code sections 6.01, 11.01, 22.01, 22.03 . . . Bev.Code §§ 22.03(a); 24.03. . . . .

ESN, LLC, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. LLC,, 685 F. Supp. 2d 631 (E.D. Tex. 2009)

. . . Id. at 26 (citing Chisum on Patents, § 22.03[2] (“The burden of proof is on the employer who claims ownership . . .

SIESTA VILLAGE MARKET, LLC, d b a v. PERRY,, 530 F. Supp. 2d 848 (N.D. Tex. 2008)

. . . Bev.Code §§ 6.01, 6.03, 11.01, 11.03, 11.46(a)(ll), 11.61(b)(19), 22.01, 22.03, 24.01, 24.03, 41.01, . . . Bev.Code §§ 22.03, 24.03, 54.12, and 107.07(f). . . . Prior to its amendment, § 22.03 of the Code allowed licensed retailers to ship alcoholic beverages to . . . Determining the constitutionality of the amended version of § 22.03 is vitally important to this case . . . Code §§ 22.03, 24.03, 54.12, and 107.07(f). . . .

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, v. KEMPTHORNE,, 496 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (D.S.D. 2007)

. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, § 22.03(l)(a) at 1358 (2005 ed.). [¶ 17] This legacy is borne . . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, § 22.03 (1982 ed.) . . .

HUDSON SAVINGS BANK, v. C. AUSTIN, III,, 479 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2007)

. . . See 4 Moore et al., supra § 22.03[2][a]. The case at bar is a classic interpleader action. . . .

LIDGE, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK CO., 318 F. Supp. 2d 830 (W.D. Mo. 2004)

. . . Missouri Approved Instruction 22.03 sets out the elements that plaintiff must prove in order to establish . . .

BECK, Jr. v. BOWERSOX,, 362 F.3d 1095 (8th Cir. 2004)

. . . R. 22.02 and 22.03). . . . R. 22.03 (1981) (current version at Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 22.04). . . . R. 22.03 (1981) (current version at Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 22.04). . . . . R. 22.01-22.03; see State v. . . .

MOUSER v. CATERPILLAR, INC. a, 336 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2003)

. . . verdict director for their premises liability claim was modeled after Missouri Approved Instruction No. 22.03 . . . the claim was submitted to the jury with instructions modeled after Missouri Approved Instruction No. 22.03 . . .

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALITY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS OWNERS AND PROFESSIONALS, Of W. St. P. C. A. LLP, P. d b a DAR B. d b a d b a G. D. C. M. W W Co. B. A. D s W. H. a A- E. C. R. Sr. L. L. J. T. L. L. K. G. A. M. PA. v. L. E. Jr. D. W. B. A. W W Co., 253 F. Supp. 2d 468 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . See also Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[2][b] (“In a proceeding in the nature of interpleader, the . . .

GALLOWAY, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, v. Lt. J. v., 232 F. Supp. 2d 4 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . . § 22.03 and N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 14, § 1020.9. . . . Mental Hyg. § 22.03 and N.Y. Comp. . . .

HUSSAIN, J. A. v. BOSTON OLD COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, 311 F.3d 623 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[l][d] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). . . . See generally 4 Moore's Federal Practice § 22.03[1][d], n. 13. . 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a). . . . .

BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. UNITED APOSTOLIC LIGHTHOUSE, INC., 200 F. Supp. 2d 689 (E.D. Ky. 2002)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03[1][g], The Second Circuit explained: it is well recognized . . .

HORSEHEAD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 258 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2001)

. . . Robinson, Environmental Regulation of Real Property § 22.03[2] (1998). . . .

LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS,, 533 U.S. 525 (U.S. 2001)

. . . .” §§21.03, 22.03. . . . Regs. §§21.03, 22.03 (2000). . . .

CONSOLIDATED CIGAR CORPORATION Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. REILLY, R. J. R. J. v. F. Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. R. J. Co. L. J. Co. USA R. J. Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. R. J. Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. R. J. L. J. Co. USA v. F. Co. L. J. Co. USA RJ. v. F., 218 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2000)

. . . . §§ 21.03, 22.03 (defining “advertisement”). . . .

C. A. DICKERSON, R. v. BAILEY,, 87 F. Supp. 2d 691 (S.D. Tex. 2000)

. . . for off-premises consumption not to exceed 25,-000 gallons annually .Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code § 22.03 . . .

LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. R. J. Co. Co. v. REILLY, Co. L. J. Co. USA v., 84 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D. Mass. 2000)

. . . . §§ 22.03, 22.04. The warning area may be allocated to other required warning uses. . . .

TOKAR, v. BOWERSOX,, 198 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 1999)

. . . Missouri Supreme Court Rule 22.03 provides in relevant part that "[u]pon the filing of a complaint and . . .

NOELLER, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. W., 190 F.R.D. 202 (E.D. Tex. 1999)

. . . Moore, et al , Moore's Federal Practice § 22.03[1] (3d ed.1999). . . .

v., 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 433 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998)

. . . The values submitted by Sichuan included, a factory overhead rate of 22.03%, a general expenses rate . . .

AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 14 F. Supp. 2d 737 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998)

. . . The values submitted by Sichuan included, a factory overhead rate of 22.03%, a general expenses rate . . .

In R. T. CRYSTIAN, Jr. R. T. CRYSTIAN, Jr. v. MELLON BANK, N. A. MELLON BANK, N. A. v. R. T. CRYSTIAN, Jr., 210 B.R. 956 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1997)

. . . The bills ranged from $22.03 to $32.70 for each three month period. . . .

FACHA v. G. CISNEROS, U. S., 914 F. Supp. 1142 (E.D. Pa. 1996)

. . . Def.’s May 12, 1995 mot. to dismiss (docket no. 3) ex. 2A (section 22.03 of the collective bargaining . . .

SIM KAR LIGHTING FIXTURE CO. v. GENLYTE, INC., 906 F. Supp. 967 (D.N.J. 1995)

. . . Chisum, Patents § 22.03 (1995). . . .

E. BRADLEY, G. v. KOCHENASH, 44 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 1995)

. . . See generally 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.03, at 22-12 to 22-13 (2d ed. 1994); 7 C. Wright, A. . . .

E. BRADLEY, G. v. KOCHENASH, 44 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 1995)

. . . See generally 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.03, at 22-12 to 22-13 (2d ed. 1994); 7 C. Wright, A. . . .

In BURGESS, 171 B.R. 227 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1994)

. . . B.R. 404 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1987); In re Frost, 47 B.R. 961, 965 (D.Kan.1985); 1A CollieR on Bankruptcy ¶ 22.03 . . .

WOUTERS, H. T. S. R. D. H. R. L. G. N. Jr. L. Jr. L. S. M. L. D. D. V. M. K. L. v. MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA,, 9 F.3d 924 (11th Cir. 1993)

. . . From 1989 through 1991, there were 5872 such calls, representing 22.03% of all EMS dispatches. . . . We note that by combining the police co-response figure of 22.03% with the firefighter co-response figure . . .

In SHELL OIL REFINERY, 155 F.R.D. 552 (E.D. La. 1993)

. . . Of the original 18,157 known claimants, this amounts to 22.03/1000 of one percent (.0002203%). . . . Thus, of the 18,157 known claimants, only 22.03/1000 of one percent appeared before the court at the . . .

STATE v. RAWLINS,, 623 So. 2d 598 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . To enforce these regulations, DNR promulgated rule 16N-22.03(1), which provides that any person who violates . . . Rule 16N-22.03(1) specifically states that any person who violates rule 16N-22.012 shall be guilty of . . .

WESCH, v. HUNT,, 785 F. Supp. 1491 (S.D. Ala. 1992)

. . . 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Water block 299A 0 0 0 Total Block Group 2 59 100.00% 13 22.03% . . . 46 77.97% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Tract 9577 59 13 100.00% 22.03% 46 77.97% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block . . .

J. SALES, Jr. v. SMITH,, 779 F. Supp. 1006 (E.D. Mo. 1991)

. . . Furthermore, Rule 22.03 VAMR requires an independent finding of the issuing court that the felony complaint . . .

J. FERRARO, v. J. DERWINSKI,, 1 Vet. App. 326 (Vet. App. 1991)

. . . Paragraphs 4.03a and 22.03 of M21-1 specifically deal with VA’s duty to assist as elaborated in Littke . . . Paragraph 22.03 lists specific instructions for VA to obtain medical information from non-VA hospitals . . . M21-1 paragraph 22.03. . . .

UNIVERSITY PATENTS, INC. v. M. KLIGMAN, TRUSTEES OF UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON BABY PRODUCTS COMPANY, M., 762 F. Supp. 1212 (E.D. Pa. 1991)

. . . Chisum, supra § 22.03. . . . See also Chisum, supra, § 22.03. . . . Lipscomb, supra, § 22.03[4]; see Aetna-Standard, 343 Pa.Super. at 68, 493 A.2d 1375 (state court may . . .

In ALLEGHENY INTERNATIONAL, INC., 100 B.R. 247 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1989)

. . . of the 10.4% debentures, $25.00, exceeded the original consideration paid for the preference stock, $22.03 . . . asserts that the basis of the 10.4% debentures should be the original basis of the preference stock, $22.03 . . . Fidata argues alternatively that the value AI received when it originally issued the preference stock, $22.03 . . .

CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. v. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY M., 873 F.2d 1477 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 22.03(a), and each party has the right to call and to cross-examine witnesses, 40 C.F.R. § 22.22( . . .

v., 92 T.C. 525 (T.C. 1989)

. . . approximately 1,474,000 and 1,803,000 daily wear soft contact lenses in 1981 and 1982 at ARP’s of $22.03 . . .

M. BERSETT, v. K- MART CORPORATION,, 869 F.2d 1131 (8th Cir. 1989)

. . . Instruction 7, which was virtually identical to MAI 22.03, provided: INSTRUCTION 7 Your verdict must . . . Four days later, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the second paragraph of MAI 22.03 was erroneous . . . The committee did not modify MAI 22.03 to accord with this change in law. . . . The trial court erred in giving [MAI 22.03]. Id. at 30 (quoting Gustafson, 661 S.W.2d at 15). II. . . . In general, precedent seems to allow a form of MAI 22.03 in this context. . . . as to the duty owed invitees, by eliminating the second element of the Missouri Approved Instruction 22.03 . . . MAI 22.03 required the jury to find that “plaintiff did not know and by using ordinary care could not . . . years Missouri courts considered the knowledge element, as submitted in the second paragraph of MAI 22.03 . . .

AURIGEMMA, d b a AM- PM v. ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS COMPANY,, 698 F. Supp. 1035 (D. Conn. 1988)

. . . The AM/PM agreement, ¶ 22.03, also provides that in “the event any provisions of this agreement ... provide . . .

HORTON v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 25 Fla. Supp. 2d 266 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1987)

. . . challenge the following rules: 33-3.02, 33-3.05, 33-3.06, 33-3.081, 33-4.02(9) and (13), 33-22.01(c) and 33-22.03 . . . 33-3.07, 33-3.05, 33-3.06, 33-3.025, 33-3.125, 33-4.01, 33-402, 33-3.066, 33-302, 33-22.01, and 33-22.03 . . . 33-3.07, 33-3.05, 33-3.06, 33-3.025, 33-3.125, 33-4.01, 33-4.02, 33-3.066, 33-3.02, 33-22.01(c), 33-22.03 . . . are invalid: 33-3.05, 33-3.06, 33-3.025, 33-3.125, 33-401, 33-4.02, 33-3.066, 33-3.02, 33-2201(c), 33-22.03 . . .

STERLING v. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD OF CITY OF NEW YORK, 795 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1986)

. . . attention, for the first time, provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, Section D26-22.03 . . .

REDMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 10 Fla. Supp. 2d 162 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1985)

. . . Officer Chief—The highest ranking correctional officer employed at the institution or facility. 33-22.03 . . . application of Rule 33-22.12(9-17), Florida Administrative Code, and the procedures specified by Rule 33-22.03 . . .

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, v. GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL CORPORATION,, 528 F. Supp. 84 (N.D. Ill. 1981)

. . . At that time, bromine cost 21.9822.03

CALIFORNIA v. ARIZONA, 452 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1981)

. . . S 24°53'23" E 22.03 feet; 595. S 85°54'52" E 72.28 feet; 596. N 82°15'33" E 50.78 feet; 597. . . .

LUMMIS, R. Jr. v. WHITE, H. B. H. B., 629 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . Analysis of Interpleader, 52 Calif.L.Rev. 706, 735-49 (1964); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, supra H 22.03 . . .

In ADVISORY OPINION TO THE GOVERNOR REQUEST OF JULY, 336 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1976)

. . . EVENT March 1,1968 Present Mayor took office as Mayor of the Consolidated City of Jacksonville (Section 22.03 . . . , Chap. 67-1320, Laws of Florida) (A — 1—17) March 1, 1968 Charter transitional period (Section 22.03 . . .

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 208 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1975)

. . . 27.30 39,795.20 26.49 200.00 to 299.99.. 116 11.35 29,110.16 19.38 300.00 to 399.99.. 95 9.30 33,099.99 22.03 . . .

P. VIEIRA v. S. SLAUGHTER G. Jr., 318 So. 2d 490 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . shall begin their term of office on the effective date of this charter, except as provided in section 22.03 . . . Section 22.03. Certain Early Assumption of Duties. . . .

AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY v AHRENS, 414 F. Supp. 1235 (S.D. Tex. 1975)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 22.03 at 3010-11 (1974 ed.) quoting 4 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence: § 1322 . . .

D. SCHIAFFO, No. v. HELSTOSKI, No., 492 F.2d 413 (3d Cir. 1974)

. . . Davis at 22.03-4. . Jaffe at 515. . 264 U.S. 258, 44 S.Ct. 317, 68 L.Ed. 667 (1924). . . . .

CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS CENTER v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAMPTON ROADS TELEVISION CORPORATION v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WTAR TV RKO RKO CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS CENTER v. BURCH,, 447 F.2d 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1971)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 22.01 and 22.03 (1958). . . . .

JOHNSON SERVICE COMPANY, a v. H. S. KAISER COMPANY, Co., 324 F. Supp. 745 (N.D. Ill. 1971)

. . . Lusby, 295 F.Supp. 660 (W.D.Va.1969); 3A Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.03, p. 3006. . . .

MFA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. LUSBY, R. Jr. L. A. C. C., 295 F. Supp. 660 (W.D. Va. 1969)

. . . State of Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 59 S.Ct. 563, 83 L.Ed. 817 (1939); 3A Moore, Federal Practice, f[ 22.03 . . .

E. L. v., 46 T.C. 515 (T.C. 1966)

. . . . $22.03 $20.41 $29.32 Miscellaneous .— 17.00 17.00 Medical__— 25.67 25.67 35.68 Clothing. 39.00 41.52 . . .

PAN AMERICAN FIRE CASUALTY COMPANY, v. F. REVERE, Sr. Ad F. Jr., 188 F. Supp. 474 (E.D. La. 1960)

. . . See also, 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.03, p. 3006. . . . . The Federal Interpleader Act of 1936: I, 45 Yale L.J. 963, 970. . 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.03 . . . Maryland Casualty Co., supra, 69 F.2d 939. . 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.03, p. 3006; Para. 22.07 . . .

A. v., 26 T.C. 270 (T.C. 1956)

. . . Supp., par. 22.03, pp. 292-294; Begs. 118, sec. 39.117 (b)-l. . . .

LIBERTY NAT. LIFE INS. CO. v. BROWN, 119 F. Supp. 920 (M.D. Ala. 1954)

. . . but having been developed in equity practice, see 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., p. 3005, Sec. 22.03 . . .

BLACKMAR v. MACKAY, 65 F. Supp. 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1946)

. . . See Committee Note to Rule 22 and § 22.03 of Moore’s Federal Practice. Finally, Mrs. . . .

GIRARD TRUST CO. v. VANCE, 5 F.R.D. 109 (E.D. Pa. 1946)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 22.03, page 2198. . . .

INTERWOVEN STOCKING CO. v. BOWLES,, 141 F.2d 696 (Emer. Ct. App. 1944)

. . . Expenses Period Gross Sales Amount Percentage of Gross Sales 4 years average 1936-39 $6,187,268 $1,363,154 22.03 . . .