The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 22
EMERGENCY CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 22.08

22.08 Period in which authority may be exercised.—Officials authorized to act as Governor pursuant to ss. 22.01-22.10, emergency interim successors, and special emergency judges are empowered to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of an office as herein authorized only after an attack upon the United States, as defined herein, has occurred. The Legislature, by concurrent resolution, may at any time terminate the authority of said emergency interim successors and special emergency judges to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of office as herein provided.

History.—s. 8, ch. 59-447.

F.S. 22.08 on Google Scholar

F.S. 22.08 on Casetext

Amendments to 22.08

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 22.08

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 22.08.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE YOUNG, L. J. v. U. S., 563 B.R. 540 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2016)

. . . Additionally, based on the debtors’ bank statements, they have not one but two Netflix subscriptions totaling $22.08 . . .

IN RE J. FERN, J. v. U. S., 553 B.R. 362 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2016)

. . . $40 Food $600 Clothing/laundry $50 Medical/dental $10 Transportation $140 Car insurance $60 Car tags $22.08 . . .

ESTEE LAUDER, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 815 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012)

. . . foie (heading 16.02), a can of cocktail sausages (heading 16.01); or — a bottle of spirits of heading 22.08 . . .

In REED, 454 B.R. 790 (Bankr. D. Or. 2011)

. . . Reed’s average net bonus, received once a year, is $22.08 per month. . . . Reed expects to receive an annual bonus that will increase then-monthly income by $22.08. . . . Reed to the $4,500.00 salary and the $22.08 bonus that she reports in the Second Amended Schedule I, . . .

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY v. JACOBS INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COMPANY, LLC LLC HOVENSA, LLC v. LLC,, 435 F. App'x 144 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . Grotheer, Jr., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.08[1] (19th ed.1989)); Bierman, 246 F.2d at 202. . . .

ALCON RESEARCH, LTD. f k a Co. v. APOTEX INC., 790 F. Supp. 2d 868 (S.D. Ind. 2011)

. . . (Kaliner Tr. 496:19-^98:8; AA-22.01-.03; AA-22.06; AA-22.08). 36. . . .

SAFEWAY INC. Co. Co. s, LP, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Co- v. HDQTRS JCG PJC USA, LLC d b a CVS LLC, v. d b a v., 761 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . For instance, in December, 2003, Abbott compares the price of Reyataz, which was $22.08, to the price . . .

HOOD, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP,, 744 F. Supp. 2d 590 (N.D. Miss. 2010)

. . . The footnote cites to 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.08[1], n. 9. . . . See also 4 Moore's Federal Practice § 22.08[1], n. 10 (noting that the United States is not a citizen . . .

HANDSCHU, v. SPECIAL SERVICES DIVISION,, 727 F. Supp. 2d 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . $400 = o eg cd $ 25,682 $ 20,546 $25,682 x .8 = Fee Awarded: Siegel Period 1: 25.5 hours + Period 3: 22.08 . . .

CITY OF BROCKTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. SHAW GROUP INC. J. M. Jr. L., 540 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . Shaw’s stock fell 14.25% in one day, from $25, 75 per share on July 7, 2006 to $22.08 per share on July . . .

In EXTRADITION OF EXOO, 522 F. Supp. 2d 766 (S.D.W. Va. 2007)

. . . . § 22.08 provides that “(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to promote or assist the . . .

L. BAIR, v. UNITED STATES, 80 Fed. Cl. 287 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

. . . The loan rate applicable in the region was $22.08 per hundredweight. . . .

In ADELPHIA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., 322 B.R. 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . In addition, the Court notes that both Leases contain the following integration clause: Section 22.08 . . .

FRAIOLI, Jr. D. O. v. M. LEMCKE, III MML, 328 F. Supp. 2d 250 (D.R.I. 2004)

. . . Cox & Thomas Lee Hazen, Cox & Hazen on Corporations, § 22.08, at 1324 (2003 & 2004 Supp.). . . .

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. WELLS FARGO BANK N. A. Co., 374 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2004)

. . . Hagedorn, Brady on Bank Checks: The Law of Bank Checks ¶ 22.08 (2004)) as soon as it discovers that an . . .

COASTAL REHABILITATION SERVICES, P. A. v. COOPER, C. d b a C. d b a P. A., 255 F. Supp. 2d 556 (D.S.C. 2003)

. . . Practice, § 22.08[1]. “An interpleader proceeding does not establish jurisdiction.” . . .

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

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.08[1], n. 9. . . .

In INFOCURE SECURITIES LITIGATION. V. v. a M. D. v. a v. a v. a M. D. v. a v. LLP,, 210 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (N.D. Ga. 2002)

. . . of CDL in exchange for a total of 109,658 shares of Infocure common stock, valued at approximately $22.08 . . .

ARNOLD, v. STATE, 778 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . sentenced without reference to the 1995 guidelines, his score sheet would reflect a range of 13.25 to 22.08 . . .

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

. . . . § 21.06 (and the Cigar Regulations’ companion § 22.08), the point-of-sale advertising provision can . . .

ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, INC. v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USA, 194 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1999)

. . . (citing 3 Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.08, at 241 (1958)). . . . .

WASHINGTON v. GLUCKSBERG, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997)

. . . . § 22.08 (1994); Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.060 (1994); Wis. Stat. § 940.12 (1993-1994). See also P. . . .

AIMCOR, ALABAMA SILICON, INC. v. UNITED STATES, CVG- VENEZOLANA C. A., 957 F. Supp. 289 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)

. . . electricity at preferential rates, and calculated the eountervailable duty rate for that benefit to be 22.08 . . . To determine the overall eountervailable subsidy rate, Commerce added that 22.08 percent to the 21.02 . . .

v. CVG- C. A., 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1481 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . electricity at preferential rates, and calculated the countervailable duty rate for that benefit to be 22.08 . . . To determine the overall countervailable subsidy rate, Commerce added that 22.08 percent to the 21.02 . . .

AIMCOR, ALABAMA SILICON, INC. v. UNITED STATES, CVG- C. A., 960 F. Supp. 305 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

MID- WEST CONVEYOR CO. INC. v. JERVIS B. WEBB COMPANY,, 92 F.3d 992 (10th Cir. 1996)

. . . Brunsvold, Drafting Patent License Agreements § 22.08 (1991). . . . .

COMPASSION IN DYING, a M. D. v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996)

. . . . § 22.08 (West 1989); V.I.CODE ANN. tit. 14, § 2141 (1964); WASH.REV.CODE.ANN. § 9A.36.060 (West 1988 . . .

BLACKFORD, v. WAL- MART STORES, INC., 912 F. Supp. 537 (S.D. Ga. 1996)

. . . deposit was immediately wiped out by pre-May 2nd issued checks, reducing her account to a negative $22.08 . . . but immediately drained it out by previously written checks, knocking her back down to a negative $22.08 . . .

MID- WEST CONVEYOR COMPANY, INC. v. JERVIS B. WEBB COMPANY,, 877 F. Supp. 552 (D. Kan. 1995)

. . . patentability, and (2) determining infringement); Mayers and Brunsvold, Drafting Patent License Agreements, § 22.08 . . .

v. CVG- C. A., 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 1117 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994)

. . . found FESILVEN received electricity at preferential rates, and estimated the antidumping duty rate at 22.08 . . .

AIMCOR, ALABAMA SILICON, INC. v. UNITED STATES, CVG- C. A., 871 F. Supp. 447 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994)

. . . found FESILVEN received electricity at preferential rates, and estimated the antidumping duty rate at 22.08 . . .

TRUCK- A- TUNE, INC. v. C. RE B., 856 F. Supp. 77 (D. Conn. 1993)

. . . Co., supra, 700 F.2d at 95; 3A Moore & Lucas, supra, § 22.08[1]. . . .

WASHINGTON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. PATERSON, WALKE PRATT, P. C. E. Jr. B. R. J., 985 F.2d 677 (2d Cir. 1993)

. . . Grotheer, Jr., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.08[1], at 22-50 to 22-51 (1991) (“if there is no risk of . . .

F. KNIGHT, Jr. S. T. D. S. S. Jr. L. Dr. W. Y. N. S. Dr. Jr. v. STATE ALABAMA M. Jr. S. Jr. B. H. J. P. Dr. D. III, F. A. A. Sr. A. G. A M W. Dr. A M Jr. W. M. H. B. L. A. R. C. Dr. V. Dr. E. B. F. W. Jr. W. T. Jr. R. R. E. W. A. C. J. D. Jr. T. B. Jr. O. H. Jr. T. Jr. E. G. Jr. S. H. Jr. B. Dr. A. UNITED STATES v. STATE OF ALABAMA A M a a a a a a a a a a, 787 F. Supp. 1030 (N.D. Ala. 1991)

. . . 19.75 16.75 16.78 18.88 U of Ala — University 19.05 22.30 20.45 20.95 21.86 U of Ala — Huntsville 15.85 22.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CITY OF NORTH ADAMS, MA,, 777 F. Supp. 61 (D. Mass. 1991)

. . . the state charged the City with repeated violations of the state turbidity MCL regulation, 310 C.M.R. 22.08 . . .

CNA INSURANCE COMPANIES, v. WATERS, T. Jr., 926 F.2d 247 (3d Cir. 1991)

. . . Grotheer, Jr., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.08[1] (19th ed. 1989) (and cases cited therein). . . .

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INSTITUTE, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 881 F.2d 1250 (4th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 22.08, as modified by 40 C.F.R. § 271.23(b)(3)(v). . . .

AVANT PETROLEUM, INC. Co. U. S. A. v. BANQUE PARIBAS, BP BP, 853 F.2d 140 (2d Cir. 1988)

. . . H 22.08[2], at 20-60 to 20-62; 7 C. Wright, A. Miller & M. . . .

MOULTRIE v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 25 Fla. Supp. 2d 208 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1987)

. . . The Petitioner has substantially affected by Rule 33-22.08 and thus has standing to proceed with this . . .

MOULTRIE, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 496 So. 2d 191 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . In 1984 Rule 33-3.08 was amended and renumbered as Rule 33-22.08, but the amendments have no relevance . . . Moultrie therefore has suffered a continuing injury and has standing to challenge that portion of Rule 33-22.08 . . .

GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., 605 F. Supp. 126 (D.D.C. 1985)

. . . Long, The Law of Liability Insurance § 22.08 (1981) (discussing Lamb-Weston and citing other cases). . . . Long, The Law of Liability Insurance § 22.08 (1981) (discussing various judicial approaches to problem . . .

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

. . . . * * * 33-22.08 Disciplinary Action. (1) The Disciplinary Team or the Hearing Officer may take any of . . . required to pay for damaged, destroyed or misappropriated property under the provisions of Rule 33-22.08 . . .

LEAF TOBACCO EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. a U. S. v. BLOCK, U. S. a U. S., 749 F.2d 1106 (4th Cir. 1984)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Text § 22.08 (3rd ed. 1972). . . .

STRUCTURAL RUBBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, v. PARK RUBBER COMPANY, 749 F.2d 707 (Fed. Cir. 1984)

. . . As stated in Moore’s Manual § 22.08[1], at 22-78 to 22-79 (1983): Use of the special verdict eliminates . . .

In Of T. BOHART, MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, v. T. BOHART,, 743 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1984)

. . . interpleaded claimant has an outstanding judgment against the stakeholder. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.08 . . .

In Of T. BOHART, MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, v. T. BOHART,, 743 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1984)

. . . interpleaded claimant has an outstanding judgment against the stakeholder. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.08 . . .

In FLANAGAN BROS. INC. DON ROGERS, INC. v. L. BERRY, Co. Co. A. C., 40 B.R. 183 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1984)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 22.08 (2d ed. 1984). . . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 22.08[1], at p. 22-56 (2d ed. 1984) (footnote omitted). . . .

BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION v. BALTIMORE CONTRACTORS, INC. E. G H S. W., 579 F. Supp. 648 (E.D. Pa. 1984)

. . . Bechtel potentially “subjected to double vexation upon a single liability.” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.08 . . .

TERRAZAS, W. E. D. J. Ed R. A. Jr. v. P. CLEMENTS,, 581 F. Supp. 1329 (N.D. Tex. 1984)

. . . census tract 4 03]: tracts 4 01 (western edge of Little Mexico) (56.16% hispanic); 4 02 (51.70% anglo, .22.08% . . .

F. RYAN, Jr. v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 559 F. Supp. 783 (E.D. Pa. 1983)

. . . Although the City suggests that plaintiff did not comply with its Civil Service Regulation 22.08 regarding . . .

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. CONNECTICUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY C., 700 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . Lucas, supra, (| 22.08[1], at 22-49 to 22-50 (“If one of two parties defendant has withdrawn his claim . . .

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 673 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1982)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.08, at 240. Neither of these situations obtains here. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. L. MORRISON, U. S., 12 M.J. 272 (C.M.A. 1982)

. . . Contrary to his pleas, he was found guilty of possessing on September 15, 1978, 22.08 grams of marihuana . . .

In S. CALLISTER, K., 15 B.R. 521 (Bankr. D. Utah 1981)

. . . ’ Rights in Bankruptcy, Section 5.19 at 5-22 (1980); 1 Nortons Bankruptcy Law and Practice, Section 22.08 . . .

UNITED STATES, v. D. RAVINE, U. S., 11 M.J. 325 (C.M.A. 1981)

. . . 1978, he had possessed 68.7 grams of marihuana while on a train and on the following day had possessed 22.08 . . .

LIBBY, McNEILL, AND LIBBY, a v. CITY NATIONAL BANK a W. C., 592 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1978)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice fl 22.08[1] (2d ed. 1978) (“If one of two parties defendant has withdrawn . . .

KONIAG, INC. VILLAGE OF UYAK v. D. ANDRUS, VILLAGE OF LITNIK KONIAG, INC. v. D. ANDRUS, SALAMATOF VILLAGE ASSOCIATION v. D. ANDRUS, VILLAGE OF ANTON LARSEN BAY KONIAG, INC. v. D. ANDRUS, VILLAGE OF UGANIK KONIAG, INC. v. D. ANDRUS, VILLAGE OF BELLS FLATS KONIAG, INC. v. D. ANDRUS, VILLAGE OF AYAKULIK KONIAG, INC. v. D. ANDRUS, VILLAGE OF PORT WILLIAM KONIAG, INC. v. D. ANDRUS, VILLAGE OF SOLOMON BERING STRAITS NATIVE CORPORATION v. D. ANDRUS, VILLAGE OF ALEXANDER CREEK COOK INLET REGION, INC. v. D. ANDRUS,, 580 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1978)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.08, at 240 (1958). . . .

I. T. O. CORPORATION OF BALTIMORE, v. BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, T. s MARITIME TERMINALS, INC. Co. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, D. MARITIME TERMINALS, INC. Co. v. HARRIS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STEVEDORES v. BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, U. S. DEPT. OF LABOR, T., 542 F.2d 903 (4th Cir. 1976)

. . . Davis, supra, § 22.08 at 242. . . .

F. C. GAINES, Jr. v. SUNRAY OIL COMPANY, AMTEL, INC. v. E. WILKINSON J., 539 F.2d 1136 (8th Cir. 1976)

. . . Co. of America, 322 F.Supp. 190 (S.D.N.Y.1971); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶22.08[1] (1974). . . .

CHISHOLM v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CBS, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 538 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1976)

. . . See generally Sutherland on Statutory Construction, §§ 22.08, 22.33 (1973). . . .

COMMITTEE FOR OPEN MEDIA, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 533 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.08 (1958). . . .

H. SAVAGE, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF TULSA, a a, 413 F. Supp. 447 (N.D. Okla. 1976)

. . . Similarly, in 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶22.08[1] the authors note: “If one of two parties defendant . . .

WRIGHT v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 393 F. Supp. 1149 (S.D. Tex. 1975)

. . . These statutes were codified, apparently unchanged, into the Texas Education Code of 1971 as sections 22.08 . . . Section 22.08 provides that “trustees, in making contracts with teachers, shall not create a deficiency . . .

WOODHAM, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE,, 276 So. 2d 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . Ch. 67-1320, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1967, § 22.08. . . . .

PEPSICO, INC. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION PEPSI- COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF CORVALLIS, INC. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 472 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1972)

. . . States, 281 U.S. 479, 486, 50 S.Ct. 378, 74 L.Ed. 980 (1930), see 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.08 . . .

E. BAKER M. v. UNITED STATES, 460 F.2d 827 (8th Cir. 1972)

. . . See Rabkin & Johnson, Federal Income, Gift and Estate Taxation, Vol. 2, § 22.08(4) and 1 Mertens, supra . . .

NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION v. GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY, 331 F. Supp. 208 (E.D. Pa. 1971)

. . . s Federal Practice (2d Ed.), p. 3080, § 22.10, and Kooman, Federal Civil Practice (1969), p. 479, § 22.08 . . .

NATIONAL WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION v. FINCH, NATIONAL WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION v. FINCH,, 429 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1970)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §22.08 at 241 (1958). . . . .

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. S. BENNETT, H., 299 F. Supp. 451 (S.D. Ga. 1969)

. . . See also Kooman, Federal Civil Practice (1969), p. 479, § 22.08. . . .

R. H. FULTON, d b a R. H. v. KAISER STEEL CORPORATION, 397 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1968)

. . . the ‘stakeholder’ is not the surety but the contract debtor himself. 3A Moore, Federal Practice, § 22.08 . . .

GARDNER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, v. TOILET GOODS ASSOCIATION, INC., 387 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1967)

. . . See 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.08 (1958). . . .

STATE FARM FIRE CASUALTY CO. v. TASHIRE, 386 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1967)

. . . See 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 22.08, at 3025-3026, n. 13. . . . See cases listed in n. 4. 3 Moore', Federal Practice ¶ 22.08, at 3024-3025; Keeton, Preferential Settlement . . .

H. COPPAGE, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a a, 263 F. Supp. 98 (D. Md. 1967)

. . . interpleader relief that the stakeholder have a bona fide fear of adverse claims.” 8 Moore, op. cit., H 22.08 . . .

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S Co. v. R. H. NICHOLS, 363 F.2d 357 (8th Cir. 1966)

. . . the 1948 act and Rule 22, Professor Moore makes the following observations in 3 Moore, supra, par. 22.08 . . .

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

. . . See 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.04(1), p. 3008, n. 4; Para. 22.08(2), p. 3025; Hunter v. . . .

MAULDIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 195 F.2d 714 (10th Cir. 1952)

. . . Oldham Lumber Co., 5 Cir., 178 F.2d 781; Annot. 106 A.L.R. 254; Mertens, Vol. 3, Sec. 22.08. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SENTINEL FIRE INS. CO., 178 F.2d 217 (5th Cir. 1949)

. . . In Moore’s Federal Practice, Volume 2, page 2210, Sec. 22.08, speaking of jurisdiction under the Federal . . .

A. Co. v., 23 C.C.P.A. 131 (C.C.P.A. 1935)

. . . 18.93 cents per square foot for sizes above 384 square inches and not exceeding 720 square inches, and 22.08 . . .

BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, v. MONAHAN, r,, 54 F.2d 349 (1st Cir. 1931)

. . . days for total temporary disability from December 28, 1928 to'June 9, 1929, inclusive, at the rate of $22.08 . . . ; and for fifty-two weeks for permanent partial disability commencing June 10,1929, at the rate of $22.08 . . .

Co. v., 7 B.T.A. 835 (B.T.A. 1927)

. . . that which was paid in for the 3,175 shares of common stock held by them, and results in a value of $22.08 . . .

UNITED STATES, HUDSON RIVER STONE SUPPLY CO. v. VENABLE CONST. CO., 124 F. 267 (C.C.N.D. Ga. 1903)

. . . the number of skips given, and the number of cubic yards pf concrete, it'is found that one skip made 22.08 . . . concrete after this stone had been mixed with sand, cement, and water, and had been tamped into place, was 22.08 . . .

v. v., 28 F. 500 (C.C.D. Neb. 1886)

. . . .: first note, $27.60; second note, $24.84; third note, $22.08; fourth note, $19.82; fifth note, $16.56 . . .