The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 29
COURT SYSTEM FUNDING

View Entire Chapter

CHAPTER 29

COURT SYSTEM FUNDING

29.001 State courts system elements and definitions.

29.004 State courts system.

29.005 State attorneys’ offices and prosecution expenses.

29.006 Indigent defense costs.

29.007 Court-appointed counsel.

29.008 County funding of court-related functions.

29.0081 County funding of additional court personnel.

29.0085 Annual statement of certain revenues and expenditures.

29.012 Construction.

29.015 Contingency fund; limitation of authority to transfer funds in contracted due process services appropriation categories.

29.016 Contingency fund; judicial branch.

29.017 Pending proceedings; applicability of ch. 2003-402.

29.018 Cost sharing of due-process services; legislative intent.

29.0185 Provision of state-funded due process services to individuals.

29.019 Billings rendered for pre-July 1, 2004, services.

29.0195 Recovery of expenditures for state-funded services.

29.21 Department of Management Services to provide assistance in procuring services.

29.22 State Courts Revenue Trust Fund.

29.23 Salaries of certain positions in the judicial branch.

29.24 Lactation spaces in courthouses.

29.001 State courts system elements and definitions.—

(1) For the purpose of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution, the state courts system is defined to include the enumerated elements of the Supreme Court, district courts of appeal, circuit courts, county courts, and certain supports thereto. The offices of public defenders and state attorneys are defined to include the enumerated elements of the 20 state attorneys’ offices and the enumerated elements of the 20 public defenders’ offices and five offices of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel. Court-appointed counsel are defined to include the enumerated elements for counsel appointed to ensure due process in criminal and civil proceedings in accordance with state and federal constitutional guarantees. Funding for the state courts system, the state attorneys’ offices, the public defenders’ offices, the offices of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and other court-appointed counsel shall be provided from state revenues appropriated by general law.

(2) Although a program or function currently may be funded by the state or prescribed or established in general law, this does not designate the program or function as an element of the state courts system, state attorneys’ offices, public defenders’ offices, or the offices of the circuit and county court clerks performing court-related functions as described in s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2000-237; s. 39, ch. 2003-402; s. 16, ch. 2007-62.

29.004 State courts system.—For purposes of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution, the elements of the state courts system to be provided from state revenues appropriated by general law are as follows:

(1) Judges appointed or elected pursuant to chapters 25, 26, 34, and 35.

(2) Juror compensation and expenses.

(3) Reasonable court reporting and transcription services necessary to meet constitutional requirements.

(4) Construction or lease of facilities, maintenance, utilities, and security for the district courts of appeal and the Supreme Court.

(5) Court foreign language and sign-language interpreters and translators essential to comply with constitutional requirements.

(6) Expert witnesses who are appointed by the court pursuant to an express grant of statutory authority.

(7) Judicial assistants, law clerks, and resource materials.

(8) General magistrates, special magistrates, and hearing officers.

(9) Court administration.

(10) Case management. Case management includes:

(a) Initial review and evaluation of cases, including assignment of cases to court divisions or dockets.

(b) Case monitoring, tracking, and coordination.

(d) Service referral, coordination, monitoring, and tracking for treatment-based drug court programs under s. 397.334.

(e) Service referral, coordination, monitoring, and tracking for treatment-based mental health court programs under chapter 394.

Case management may not include costs associated with the application of therapeutic jurisprudence principles by the courts. Case management also may not include case intake and records management conducted by the clerk of court.

(11) Mediation and arbitration, limited to trial court referral of a pending judicial case to a mediator or a court-related mediation program, or to an arbitrator or a court-related arbitration program, for the limited purpose of encouraging and assisting the litigants in partially or completely settling the case prior to adjudication on the merits by the court. This does not include citizen dispute settlement centers under s. 44.201 and community arbitration programs under s. 985.16.

(12) Basic legal materials reasonably accessible to the public other than a public law library. These materials may be provided in a courthouse facility or any library facility.

(13) The Judicial Qualifications Commission.

(14) Offices of the appellate clerks and marshals and appellate law libraries.

History.—s. 4, ch. 2000-237; s. 40, ch. 2003-402; s. 3, ch. 2004-11; s. 14, ch. 2005-236; s. 104, ch. 2006-120; s. 1, ch. 2016-241.

29.005 State attorneys’ offices and prosecution expenses.—For purposes of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution, the elements of the state attorneys’ offices to be provided from state revenues appropriated by general law are as follows:

(1) The state attorney of each judicial circuit and assistant state attorneys and other staff as determined by general law.

(2) Reasonable court reporting and transcription services necessary to meet constitutional or statutory requirements, including the cost of transcribing and copying depositions of witnesses and the cost of foreign language and sign-language interpreters and translators.

(3) Witnesses, including expert witnesses, summoned to appear for an investigation, preliminary hearing, or trial in a case when the witnesses are summoned by a state attorney, and any other expert witnesses required in a court hearing by law or whomever the state attorney deems necessary for the performance of his or her duties.

(4) Reasonable transportation services in the performance of constitutional and statutory responsibilities.

(5) Travel expenses reimbursable under s. 112.061 reasonably necessary in the performance of constitutional and statutory responsibilities.

(6) Reasonable library and electronic legal research services, other than a public law library.

(7) Reasonable pretrial consultation fees and costs.

History.—s. 5, ch. 2000-237; s. 41, ch. 2003-402; s. 26, ch. 2004-265; s. 15, ch. 2005-236; s. 7, ch. 2019-3.

29.006 Indigent defense costs.—For purposes of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution, the elements of the public defenders’ offices and criminal conflict and civil regional counsel offices to be provided from state revenues appropriated by general law are as follows:

(1)(a) The public defender of each judicial circuit and assistant public defenders and other staff as determined by general law.

(b) The regional counsel of each judicial district, the assistant regional counsel, and other staff as determined by general law.

(3) Witnesses, including expert witnesses, summoned to appear for an investigation, preliminary hearing, or trial in a case when the witnesses are summoned on behalf of an indigent defendant, and any other expert witnesses required in a court hearing by law or whomever the public defender or regional counsel deems necessary for the performance of his or her duties.

(4) Mental health professionals appointed pursuant to s. 394.473 and required in a court hearing involving an indigent, and mental health professionals appointed pursuant to s. 916.115(2) and required in a court hearing involving an indigent.

(5) Reasonable transportation services in the performance of constitutional and statutory responsibilities.

(6) Travel expenses reimbursable under s. 112.061 reasonably necessary in the performance of constitutional and statutory responsibilities.

(7) Reasonable library and electronic legal research services, other than a public law library.

(8) Reasonable pretrial consultation fees and costs.

History.—s. 6, ch. 2000-237; s. 42, ch. 2003-402; s. 27, ch. 2004-265; s. 17, ch. 2007-62; s. 8, ch. 2019-3.

29.007 Court-appointed counsel.—For purposes of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution, the elements of court-appointed counsel to be provided from state revenues appropriated by general law are as follows:

(1) Private attorneys appointed by the court to handle cases where the defendant is indigent and cannot be represented by the public defender or the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel.

(2) When the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel has a conflict of interest, private attorneys appointed by the court to represent indigents or other classes of litigants in civil proceedings requiring court-appointed counsel in accordance with state and federal constitutional guarantees and federal and state statutes.

(3) Reasonable court reporting and transcription services necessary to meet constitutional or statutory requirements, including the cost of transcribing and copying depositions of witnesses and the cost of foreign language and sign-language interpreters and translators.

(4) Witnesses, including expert witnesses, summoned to appear for an investigation, preliminary hearing, or trial in a case when the witnesses are summoned on behalf of an indigent, and any other expert witnesses approved by the court.

(5) Mental health professionals appointed pursuant to s. 394.473 and required in a court hearing involving an indigent, mental health professionals appointed pursuant to s. 916.115(2) and required in a court hearing involving an indigent, and any other mental health professionals required by law for the full adjudication of any civil case involving an indigent person.

(6) Reasonable pretrial consultation fees and costs.

(7) Travel expenses reimbursable under s. 112.061 reasonably necessary in the performance of constitutional and statutory responsibilities.

Subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) apply when court-appointed counsel is appointed; when the court determines that the litigant is indigent for costs; or when the litigant is acting pro se and the court determines that the litigant is indigent for costs at the trial or appellate level. This section applies in any situation in which the court appoints counsel to protect a litigant’s due process rights. The Justice Administrative Commission shall approve uniform contract forms for use in processing payments for due process services under this section. In each case in which a private attorney represents a person determined by the court to be indigent for costs, the attorney shall execute the commission’s contract for private attorneys representing persons determined to be indigent for costs.

History.—s. 7, ch. 2000-237; s. 43, ch. 2003-402; s. 16, ch. 2005-236; s. 18, ch. 2007-62.

29.008 County funding of court-related functions.—

(1) Counties are required by s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution to fund the cost of communications services, existing radio systems, existing multiagency criminal justice information systems, and the cost of construction or lease, maintenance, utilities, and security of facilities for the circuit and county courts, public defenders’ offices, state attorneys’ offices, guardian ad litem offices, and the offices of the clerks of the circuit and county courts performing court-related functions. For purposes of this section, the term “circuit and county courts” includes the offices and staffing of the guardian ad litem programs, and the term “public defenders’ offices” includes the offices of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel. The county designated under s. 35.05(1) as the headquarters for each appellate district shall fund these costs for the appellate division of the public defender’s office in that county. For purposes of implementing these requirements, the term:

(a) “Facility” means reasonable and necessary buildings and office space and appurtenant equipment and furnishings, structures, real estate, easements, and related interests in real estate, including, but not limited to, those for the purpose of housing legal materials for use by the general public and personnel, equipment, or functions of the circuit or county courts, public defenders’ offices, state attorneys’ offices, and court-related functions of the office of the clerks of the circuit and county courts and all storage. The term “facility” includes all wiring necessary for court reporting services. The term also includes access to parking for such facilities in connection with such court-related functions that may be available free or from a private provider or a local government for a fee. The office space provided by a county may not be less than the standards for space allotment adopted by the Department of Management Services, except this requirement applies only to facilities that are leased, or on which construction commences, after June 30, 2003. County funding must include physical modifications and improvements to all facilities as are required for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Upon mutual agreement of a county and the affected entity in this paragraph, the office space provided by the county may vary from the standards for space allotment adopted by the Department of Management Services.

1. As of July 1, 2005, equipment and furnishings shall be limited to that appropriate and customary for courtrooms, hearing rooms, jury facilities, and other public areas in courthouses and any other facility occupied by the courts, state attorneys, public defenders, guardians ad litem, and criminal conflict and civil regional counsel. Court reporting equipment in these areas or facilities is not a responsibility of the county.

2. Equipment and furnishings under this paragraph in existence and owned by counties on July 1, 2005, except for that in the possession of the clerks, for areas other than courtrooms, hearing rooms, jury facilities, and other public areas in courthouses and any other facility occupied by the courts, state attorneys, and public defenders, shall be transferred to the state at no charge. This provision does not apply to any communications services as defined in paragraph (f).

(b) “Construction or lease” includes, but is not limited to, all reasonable and necessary costs of the acquisition or lease of facilities for all judicial officers, staff, jurors, volunteers of a tenant agency, and the public for the circuit and county courts, the public defenders’ offices, state attorneys’ offices, and for performing the court-related functions of the offices of the clerks of the circuit and county courts. This includes expenses related to financing such facilities and the existing and future cost and bonded indebtedness associated with placing the facilities in use.

(c) “Maintenance” includes, but is not limited to, all reasonable and necessary costs of custodial and groundskeeping services and renovation and reconstruction as needed to accommodate functions for the circuit and county courts, the public defenders’ offices, and state attorneys’ offices and for performing the court-related functions of the offices of the clerks of the circuit and county court and for maintaining the facilities in a condition appropriate and safe for the use intended.

(d) “Utilities” means all electricity services for light, heat, and power; natural or manufactured gas services for light, heat, and power; water and wastewater services and systems, stormwater or runoff services and systems, sewer services and systems, all costs or fees associated with these services and systems, and any costs or fees associated with the mitigation of environmental impacts directly related to the facility.

(e) “Security” includes but is not limited to, all reasonable and necessary costs of services of law enforcement officers or licensed security guards and all electronic, cellular, or digital monitoring and screening devices necessary to ensure the safety and security of all persons visiting or working in a facility; to provide for security of the facility, including protection of property owned by the county or the state; and for security of prisoners brought to any facility. This includes bailiffs while providing courtroom and other security for each judge and other quasi-judicial officers.

(f) “Communications services” are defined as any reasonable and necessary transmission, emission, and reception of signs, signals, writings, images, and sounds of intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical, audio equipment, or other electromagnetic systems and includes all facilities and equipment owned, leased, or used by judges, clerks, public defenders, state attorneys, guardians ad litem, criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and all staff of the state courts system, state attorneys’ offices, public defenders’ offices, and clerks of the circuit and county courts performing court-related functions. Such system or services shall include, but not be limited to:

1. Telephone system infrastructure, including computer lines, telephone switching equipment, and maintenance, and facsimile equipment, wireless communications, cellular telephones, pagers, and video teleconferencing equipment and line charges. Each county shall continue to provide access to a local carrier for local and long distance service and shall pay toll charges for local and long distance service.

2. All computer networks, systems and equipment, including computer hardware and software, modems, printers, wiring, network connections, maintenance, support staff or services including any county-funded support staff located in the offices of the circuit court, county courts, state attorneys, public defenders, guardians ad litem, and criminal conflict and civil regional counsel; training, supplies, and line charges necessary for an integrated computer system to support the operations and management of the state courts system, the offices of the public defenders, the offices of the state attorneys, the guardian ad litem offices, the offices of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and the offices of the clerks of the circuit and county courts; and the capability to connect those entities and reporting data to the state as required for the transmission of revenue, performance accountability, case management, data collection, budgeting, and auditing purposes. The integrated computer system shall be operational by July 1, 2006, and, at a minimum, permit the exchange of financial, performance accountability, case management, case disposition, and other data across multiple state and county information systems involving multiple users at both the state level and within each judicial circuit and be able to electronically exchange judicial case background data, sentencing scoresheets, and video evidence information stored in integrated case management systems over secure networks. Once the integrated system becomes operational, counties may reject requests to purchase communications services included in this subparagraph not in compliance with standards, protocols, or processes adopted by the board established pursuant to former s. 29.0086.

3. Courier messenger and subpoena services.

4. Auxiliary aids and services for qualified individuals with a disability which are necessary to ensure access to the courts. Such auxiliary aids and services include, but are not limited to, sign language interpretation services required under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act other than services required to satisfy due-process requirements and identified as a state funding responsibility pursuant to ss. 29.004-29.007, real-time transcription services for individuals who are hearing impaired, and assistive listening devices and the equipment necessary to implement such accommodations.

(g) “Existing radio systems” includes, but is not limited to, law enforcement radio systems that are used by the circuit and county courts, the offices of the public defenders, the offices of the state attorneys, and for court-related functions of the offices of the clerks of the circuit and county courts. This includes radio systems that were operational or under contract at the time Revision No. 7, 1998, to Art. V of the State Constitution was adopted and any enhancements made thereafter, the maintenance of those systems, and the personnel and supplies necessary for operation.

(h) “Existing multiagency criminal justice information systems” includes, but is not limited to, those components of the multiagency criminal justice information system as defined in s. 943.045, supporting the offices of the circuit or county courts, the public defenders’ offices, the state attorneys’ offices, or those portions of the offices of the clerks of the circuit and county courts performing court-related functions that are used to carry out the court-related activities of those entities. This includes upgrades and maintenance of the current equipment, maintenance and upgrades of supporting technology infrastructure and associated staff, and services and expenses to assure continued information sharing and reporting of information to the state. The counties shall also provide additional information technology services, hardware, and software as needed for new judges and staff of the state courts system, state attorneys’ offices, public defenders’ offices, guardian ad litem offices, and the offices of the clerks of the circuit and county courts performing court-related functions.

(2) Counties shall pay reasonable and necessary salaries, costs, and expenses of the state courts system, including associated staff and expenses, to meet local requirements.

(a) Local requirements are those specialized programs, nonjudicial staff, and other expenses associated with specialized court programs, specialized prosecution needs, specialized defense needs, or resources required of a local jurisdiction as a result of special factors or circumstances. Local requirements exist:

1. When imposed pursuant to an express statutory directive, based on such factors as provided in paragraph (b); or

2. When:

a. The county has enacted an ordinance, adopted a local program, or funded activities with a financial or operational impact on the circuit or a county within the circuit; or

b. Circumstances in a given circuit or county result in or necessitate implementation of specialized programs, the provision of nonjudicial staff and expenses to specialized court programs, special prosecution needs, specialized defense needs, or the commitment of resources to the court’s jurisdiction.

(b) Factors and circumstances resulting in the establishment of a local requirement include, but are not limited to:

1. Geographic factors;

2. Demographic factors;

3. Labor market forces;

4. The number and location of court facilities; or

5. The volume, severity, complexity, or mix of court cases.

1. The chief judge of the circuit, in conjunction with the state attorney, the public defender, and the criminal conflict and civil regional counsel only on matters that impact their offices, shall identify all local requirements within the circuit or within each county in the circuit and shall identify the reasonable and necessary salaries, costs, and expenses to meet these local requirements.

2. On or before June 1 of each year, the chief judge shall submit to the board of county commissioners a tentative budget request for local requirements for the ensuing fiscal year. The tentative budget must certify a listing of all local requirements and the reasonable and necessary salaries, costs, and expenses for each local requirement. The board of county commissioners may, by resolution, require the certification to be submitted earlier.

3. The board of county commissioners shall thereafter treat the certification in accordance with the county’s budgetary procedures. A board of county commissioners may:

a. Determine whether to provide funding, and to what extent it will provide funding, for salaries, costs, and expenses under this section;

b. Require a county finance officer to conduct a preaudit review of any county funds provided under this section prior to disbursement;

c. Require review or audit of funds expended under this section by the appropriate county office; and

d. Provide additional financial support for the courts system, state attorneys, public defenders, or criminal conflict and civil regional counsel.

(d) Counties may satisfy these requirements by entering into interlocal agreements for the collective funding of these reasonable and necessary salaries, costs, and expenses.

(3) The following shall be considered a local requirement pursuant to subparagraph (2)(a)1.:

(a) Legal aid programs, which shall be funded at a level equal to or greater than the amount provided from filing fees and surcharges to legal aid programs from October 1, 2002, to September 30, 2003.

(b) Alternative sanctions coordinators pursuant to ss. 984.09 and 985.037.

(4)(a) The Department of Financial Services shall review county expenditure reports required under s. 29.0085 for the purpose of ensuring that counties fulfill the responsibilities of this section. The department shall compare county fiscal reports to determine if expenditures for the items specified in paragraphs (1)(a)-(h) and subsection (3) have increased by 1.5 percent over the prior county fiscal year. The initial review must compare county fiscal year 2005-2006 to county fiscal year 2004-2005. If the department finds that expenditures for the items specified in paragraphs (1)(a)-(h) and subsection (3) have not increased by 1.5 percent over the prior county fiscal year, the department shall notify the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the respective county. The Legislature may determine that a county has met its obligations for items specified in this section if the prior county fiscal year included nonrecurring expenditures for facilities or information technology that is not needed in the next county fiscal year or expenditures or actions that enable a county to attain efficiencies in providing services to the court system. The Legislature may direct the Department of Revenue to withhold revenue-sharing receipts distributed pursuant to part II of chapter 218, except for revenues used for paying the principal or interest on bonds, tax anticipation certificates, or any other form of indebtedness allowed under s. 218.25(1), (2), or (4), from any county that is not in compliance with the funding obligations in this section by an amount equal to the difference between the amount spent and the amount that would have been spent had the county increased expenditures by 1.5 percent per year.

(b) The department shall transfer the withheld payments to the General Revenue Fund by March 31 of each year for the previous county fiscal year. These payments are appropriated to the Department of Revenue to pay for these responsibilities on behalf of the county.

History.—s. 8, ch. 2000-237; s. 1, ch. 2001-265; ss. 44, 45, ch. 2003-402; s. 28, ch. 2004-265; s. 17, ch. 2005-236; s. 105, ch. 2006-120; s. 6, ch. 2006-122; s. 19, ch. 2007-6; s. 19, ch. 2007-62; s. 10, ch. 2010-153; s. 23, ch. 2011-47; s. 20, ch. 2012-119; s. 14, ch. 2013-41; s. 24, ch. 2014-53; s. 2, ch. 2016-11; s. 12, ch. 2022-163.

29.0081 County funding of additional court personnel.—

(1) A county and the chief judge of a judicial circuit that includes that county may enter into an agreement under which the county funds personnel positions to assist in the operation of the circuit.

(2) The agreement shall, at a minimum, provide that:

(a) Funding for the positions is provided on at least a court fiscal-year basis.

(b) The personnel whose employment is funded under the agreement are hired, supervised, managed, and fired by personnel of the judicial circuit. The county shall be considered the employer for purposes of s. 440.10 and chapter 443. Employees funded by the county under this section and other county employees may be aggregated for purposes of a flexible benefits plan pursuant to s. 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The judicial circuit shall supervise the personnel whose employment is funded under the agreement; be responsible for compliance with all requirements of federal and state employment laws, including, but not limited to, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. s. 1983, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, chapters 447 and 760, and ss. 112.3187, 440.105, and 440.205; and fully indemnify the county from any liability under such laws, as authorized by s. 768.28(19), to the extent such liability is the result of the acts or omissions of the judicial circuit or its agents or employees.

(c) The positions terminate upon the expiration of, or substantial breach of, the agreement or upon the expiration of county funding for the positions.

(3) Positions funded under this section shall not count against any formula or similar process used by the Office of the State Courts Administrator to determine personnel needs or levels of a judicial circuit.

(4) Nothing in this section obligates the state to fund any personnel positions.

History.—s. 18, ch. 2005-236; s. 1, ch. 2007-170.

29.0085 Annual statement of certain revenues and expenditures.—

(1) Each county shall submit annually to the Chief Financial Officer a statement of revenues and expenditures as set forth in this section in the form and manner prescribed by the Chief Financial Officer in consultation with the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, provided that such statement identify total county expenditures on each of the services outlined in s. 29.008.

(2)(a) Within 4 months of the close of the local government fiscal year, each county shall submit to the Chief Financial Officer a statement of compliance from its independent certified public accountant, engaged pursuant to s. 218.39, that the certified statement of expenditures was in accordance with s. 29.008 and this section. All discrepancies noted by the independent certified public accountant shall be included in the statement furnished by the county to the Chief Financial Officer.

(b) If the Chief Financial Officer determines that additional auditing procedures are appropriate because:

1. The county failed to submit timely its annual statement;

2. Discrepancies were noted by the independent certified public accountant; or

3. The county failed to file before January 31 of each year the certified public accountant statement of compliance, the Chief Financial Officer may send his or her personnel or contract for services to bring the county into compliance. The costs incurred by the Chief Financial Officer shall be paid promptly by the county upon certification by the Chief Financial Officer.

(c) Where the Chief Financial Officer elects to utilize the services of an independent contractor, such certification by the Chief Financial Officer may require the county to make direct payment to a contractor. Any funds owed by a county in such matters shall be recovered pursuant to s. 17.04 or s. 17.041.

(3) The Chief Financial Officer shall adopt any rules necessary to implement his or her responsibilities pursuant to this section.

History.—s. 46, ch. 2003-402; s. 8, ch. 2006-122; s. 15, ch. 2011-34.

29.012 Construction.—Nothing in this act shall require the Legislature to fund any court function or court-related activities of the court system, the state attorneys’ offices, public defenders’ offices, conflict counsel, the statewide prosecutor, or the clerks of the circuit and county courts.

History.—s. 14, ch. 2000-237.

29.015 Contingency fund; limitation of authority to transfer funds in contracted due process services appropriation categories.—

(1) An appropriation may be provided in the General Appropriations Act in the Justice Administrative Commission to serve as a contingency fund for the purpose of alleviating deficits in contracted due process services appropriation categories, including private court-appointed counsel appropriation categories, that may occur from time to time due to extraordinary cases that lead to unexpected expenditures.

(2) In the event that a state attorney, public defender, or criminal conflict and civil regional counsel incurs a deficit in a contracted due process services appropriation category or conflict counsel category, the following steps shall be taken in order:

(a) The state attorney, public defender, or regional counsel shall first attempt to identify surplus funds from other appropriation categories within his or her office and submit a budget amendment pursuant to chapter 216 to transfer funds from within the office.

(b) In the event that the state attorney, public defender, or regional counsel is unable to identify surplus funds from within his or her office, he or she shall certify this to the Justice Administrative Commission along with a complete explanation of the circumstances which led to the deficit and steps the office has taken to reduce or alleviate the deficit. The Justice Administrative Commission shall inquire as to whether any other office has surplus funds in its contracted due process services appropriation categories which can be transferred to the office that is experiencing the deficit. If other offices indicate that surplus funds are available within the same budget entity, the Justice Administrative Commission shall transfer the amount needed to fund the deficit and notify the Governor and the chair and vice chair of the Legislative Budget Commission 14 days prior to a transfer pursuant to the notice, review, and objection provisions of s. 216.177. If funds appropriated for this purpose are available in a different budget entity, the Justice Administrative Commission shall request a budget amendment pursuant to chapter 216.

(c) If no office indicates that surplus funds are available to alleviate the deficit, the Justice Administrative Commission may request a budget amendment to transfer funds from the contingency fund. Such transfers shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of chapter 216 and shall be subject to review and approval by the Legislative Budget Commission. The Justice Administrative Commission shall submit the documentation provided by the office explaining the circumstances that led to the deficit and the steps taken by the office and the Justice Administrative Commission to identify surplus funds to the Legislative Budget Commission.

(3) In the event that there is a deficit in a statewide contracted due process services appropriation category provided for private court-appointed counsel necessary due to withdrawal of the public defender and criminal conflict and civil regional counsel due to an ethical conflict, the following steps shall be taken in order:

(a) The Justice Administrative Commission shall first attempt to identify surplus funds from other contracted due process services appropriation categories within the Justice Administrative Commission and submit a budget amendment pursuant to chapter 216 to transfer funds from within the commission.

(b) In the event that the Justice Administrative Commission is unable to identify surplus funds from within the commission, the commission shall inquire of each of the public defenders and regional counsel as to whether any office has surplus funds in its contracted due process services appropriations categories which can be transferred. If any public defender or regional counsel office or offices indicate that surplus funds are available, the Justice Administrative Commission shall request a budget amendment to transfer funds from the office or offices to alleviate the deficit upon agreement of the contributing office or offices.

(c) If no public defender or regional counsel office has surplus funds available to alleviate the deficit, the Justice Administrative Commission may request a budget amendment to transfer funds from the contingency fund. Such transfers shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of chapter 216 and shall be subject to review and approval by the Legislative Budget Commission. The Justice Administrative Commission shall submit the documentation provided by the office explaining the circumstances that led to the deficit and the steps taken by the Justice Administrative Commission to identify surplus funds to the Legislative Budget Commission.

(4) In the event that there is a deficit in a statewide appropriation category provided for private court-appointed counsel other than for conflict counsel as described in subsection (3), the following steps shall be taken in order:

(b) In the event that the Justice Administrative Commission is unable to identify surplus funds from within the commission, the commission may submit a budget amendment to transfer funds from the contingency fund. Such transfers shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of chapter 216 and shall be subject to review and approval by the Legislative Budget Commission. The Justice Administrative Commission shall submit documentation explaining the circumstances that led to the deficit and the steps taken to identify surplus funds to the Legislative Budget Commission.

(5) Notwithstanding any provisions in chapter 216 to the contrary, no office shall transfer funds from a contracted due process services appropriation category or from a contingency fund category authorized in this section except as specifically authorized in this section. In addition, funds shall not be transferred from a state attorney office to alleviate a deficit in a public defender office or an office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and funds shall not be transferred from a public defender office or regional counsel office to alleviate a deficit in a state attorney office.

History.—s. 49, ch. 2003-402; s. 19, ch. 2005-236; s. 20, ch. 2007-62.

29.016 Contingency fund; judicial branch.—

(1) An appropriation may be provided in the General Appropriations Act for the judicial branch to serve as a contingency fund to alleviate deficits in contracted due process services appropriation categories that may occur from time to time due to extraordinary events that lead to unexpected expenditures.

(2) In the event that a chief judge incurs such a deficit, the following steps shall be taken in order:

(a) The chief judge shall attempt to identify surplus funds from other appropriation categories within his or her circuit and submit a request to the Chief Justice for a budget amendment pursuant to chapter 216 to transfer funds from within the circuit budget.

(b) In the event that the chief judge is unable to identify surplus funds from within his or her circuit, he or she shall certify this to the Office of the State Courts Administrator along with a complete explanation of the circumstances which led to the deficit and steps taken to reduce or alleviate the deficit. The Office of the State Courts Administrator shall inquire as to whether any other circuit has surplus funds in its contracted due process service appropriation categories which can be transferred to the circuit that is experiencing the deficit. If other circuits indicate that surplus funds are available, the Office of the State Courts Administrator shall notify the Trial Court Budget Commission established within the judicial branch by Rule of Judicial Administration. The Trial Court Budget Commission shall make recommendations to the Chief Justice to alleviate the deficit. The Chief Justice may authorize a transfer of funds among circuits to alleviate the deficit.

(3) If no other circuits indicate that surplus funds are available to alleviate the deficit, the Trial Court Budget Commission may request the Chief Justice to request a budget amendment to transfer funds from the contingency fund. Such transfers shall be requested subject to the notice and review requirements set forth in s. 216.177. The Office of the State Courts Administrator shall include in the budget amendment documentation provided by the chief judge explaining the circumstances that led to the deficit and the steps taken to identify surplus funds to alleviate the deficit.

(4) Notwithstanding any provisions in chapter 216 to the contrary, no circuit shall transfer funds from a contracted due process services appropriation category or from a contingency fund category authorized in this section except as specifically authorized in this section.

History.—s. 50, ch. 2003-402; s. 30, ch. 2004-265.

29.017 Pending proceedings; applicability of ch. 2003-402.—For the purpose of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution, the transfer of the funding responsibility for the state courts system shall not affect the validity of any judicial or administrative proceeding pending on the day of the transfer. The entity providing appropriations on and after July 1, 2004, shall be considered the successor in interest to any existing contracts ratified by the successor entity, but is not responsible for funding or payment of any service rendered or provided, in whole or in part, prior to July 1, 2004.

History.—s. 146, ch. 2003-402.

29.018 Cost sharing of due-process services; legislative intent.—It is the intent of the Legislature to provide state-funded due-process services to the state courts system, state attorneys, public defenders, criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and private court-appointed counsel in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. The state courts system, state attorneys, public defenders, criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and the Justice Administrative Commission on behalf of private court-appointed counsel may enter into contractual agreements to share, on a pro rata basis, the costs associated with court reporting services, court interpreter and translation services, court experts, and all other due-process services funded by the state pursuant to this chapter. These costs shall be budgeted within the funds appropriated to each of the affected users of services.

History.—s. 95, ch. 2004-265; s. 20, ch. 2005-236; s. 21, ch. 2007-62.

29.0185 Provision of state-funded due process services to individuals.—Due process services may not be provided with state revenues to an individual unless the individual on whose behalf the due process services are being provided is eligible for court-appointed counsel under s. 27.40, based upon a determination of indigency under s. 27.52, regardless of whether such counsel is appointed or the individual on whose behalf the due process services are being provided is eligible for court-appointed counsel under s. 27.40 and has been determined indigent for costs pursuant to s. 27.52.

History.—s. 21, ch. 2005-236.

29.019 Billings rendered for pre-July 1, 2004, services.—Billings submitted for payment of due process services, including, but not limited to, court reporter services, court interpreter services, expert witness services, mental health evaluations, and court-appointed counsel services must be paid by the counties if the services were rendered before July 1, 2004. Counties must also pay for the entire cost of any flat-fee-per-case payment pursuant to a contract or professional services agreement with court-appointed counsel for appointments made before July 1, 2004, regardless of whether work on the case is actually concluded prior to July 1, 2004. Except for flat-fee contracts with court-appointed counsel, billings for services on any case that commenced prior to July 1, 2004, but continues past July 1, 2004, must be submitted with an itemized listing of payment due for services rendered before July 1, 2004, and on or after July 1, 2004. The county shall pay the portion of the bill for services rendered before July 1, 2004, and provide a copy of the itemized bill to the Justice Administrative Commission or the Office of the State Courts Administrator as appropriate for payment of the portion of the bill for services provided on or after July 1, 2004.

History.—s. 97, ch. 2004-265.

29.0195 Recovery of expenditures for state-funded services.—The trial court administrator of each circuit shall recover expenditures for state-funded services when those services have been furnished to a user of the state court system who possesses the present ability to pay. The rate of compensation for such services shall be the actual cost of the services, including the cost of recovery. The trial court administrator shall deposit moneys recovered under this section in the Administrative Trust Fund within the state courts system. The trial court administrator shall recover the costs of court reporter services and transcription; court interpreter services, including translation; and any other service for which state funds were used to provide a product or service within the circuit. This section does not authorize cost recovery from entities described in ss. 29.005-29.007.

History.—s. 67, ch. 2005-236; s. 4, ch. 2006-23; s. 16, ch. 2010-162.

29.21 Department of Management Services to provide assistance in procuring services.—In accordance with s. 287.042, the Department of Management Services may assist the Office of the State Courts Administrator and the Justice Administrative Commission with competitive solicitations for the procurement of state-funded services under this chapter. This may include assistance in the development and review of proposals in compliance with chapter 287, and rules adopted under that chapter.

History.—s. 99, ch. 2004-265; s. 4, ch. 2005-2.

29.22 State Courts Revenue Trust Fund.—The State Courts Revenue Trust Fund is created within the state courts system. Moneys credited to the trust fund shall be used for the purpose of funding the activities of the state courts system.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2009-7; s. 2, ch. 2011-19.

29.23 Salaries of certain positions in the judicial branch.—

(1) The salaries of justices, judges of the district courts of appeal, circuit judges, and county judges shall be fixed annually in the General Appropriations Act.

(2) The clerk and the marshal of the Supreme Court, or a clerk or marshal of a district court of appeal, shall be paid an annual salary to be determined in accordance with s. 25.382(3).

History.—s. 11, ch. 2014-182.

29.24 Lactation spaces in courthouses.—

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, by January 1, 2024, each county courthouse must provide at least one dedicated lactation space outside the confines of a restroom for members of the public to express breast milk or breastfeed in private. The space must:

(a) Be hygienic, clean and sanitary, and conducive to maintaining and preventing disease;

(b) Be shielded from public view;

(d) Contain an electrical outlet.

(2) The person responsible for the operation of the facility housing each district court of appeal may use state-appropriated funds or private funding to provide a lactation space as set forth in subsection (1).

(3) The requirements of subsection (1) do not apply to a courthouse if the person who is responsible for the operation of the courthouse determines that:

(a) New construction would be required to create the lactation space; and

(b) The courthouse does not contain a lactation space for employees which may be used by the members of the public and the courthouse does not have:

1. A space that could be repurposed as a lactation space open to the public; or

2. A space that could be made private at a reasonable cost using portable materials, contingent upon private funding being made available for those costs.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2023-88.

F.S. 29 on Google Scholar

F.S. 29 on Casetext

Amendments to 29

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 29

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

S104.29 - ELECTION LAWS - REFUSE TO ALLOW WATCHERS WHILE BALLOTS COUNTED - M: F

S106.29 2 - FRAUD - FILE FALSE POLITICAL PARTY FINANCIAL REPORT - F: T

S106.29 6b - ELECTION LAWS - VIOLATE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS - M: F

S250.29 - MILITARY - FAIL TO COMPLY WITH ORDER TO AID CIVIL AUTH - M: F

S327.29 1 - FORGERY OF - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 4392 - F: T

S327.29 1 - COUNTERFEITING OF - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 4393 - F: T

S327.29 2 - POSSESS FORGED - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 4394 - F: T

S327.29 2 - POSSESS COUNTERFEITED - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 4395 - F: T

S327.29 3 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 4396 - F: T

S379.29 - CONSERVATION-ENVIRONMENT - REMOVED - M: F

S379.29 - CONSERVATION-ENVIRONMENT - REMOVED - M: S

S384.29 - INVADE PRIVACY - DISCLOSE INFO RE SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE - M: F

S414.29 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - REPEALED 1999-241 - M: S

S571.29 4 - FORGERY - REPROD FL AGRICULTURE CAMPAIGN LOGO 1ST OFF - M: S

S571.29 4 - FORGERY - REPRODUC FL AGRICULTURE CAMPGN LOGO SUBSQ OFF - M: F

S590.29 - INCENDIARY DEVICE-POSSESS - TO SET FIRE - F: T

S741.29 6 - CONDIT RELEASE VIOLATION - PRE TRIAL RELEASE COND VIOL FOR DOMEST VIOL - M: F

S790.29 - WEAPON OFFENSE - ASSEMBLE TEACH DEVICE FURTHER CIVIL DISORDER - F: T

S790.29 3 - WEAPON OFFENSE - ASSEMBLE TEACH DEVICE FURTHER CIVIL DISORDER - F: T

S817.29 - FRAUD - CHEATING OR GROSS FRAUD - F: T

S828.29 1 - HEALTH-SAFETY - FAIL TO INOCULATE DOG PRIOR TRANSPORT FOR SALE - M: F

S828.29 2 - HEALTH-SAFETY - FAIL TO INOCULATE CAT PRIOR TRANSPORT FOR SALE - M: F

S828.29 3 - HEALTH-SAFETY - NO HEALTH CERTIF FOR EACH TRANSPORTED CAT DOG - M: F

S828.29 4 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - TRANSPORT FOR SALE UNDERAGE CAT OR DOG - M: F

S828.29 5 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - PET DEALER FTC W DISEASED PET SALE OPTIONS - M: F

S828.29 6 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - PET DLR FTC W CONGENITAL DISORDER SALE OPTIONS - M: F

S828.29 12 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - PET DEALER FAIL TO GIVE CONSUMER RIGHTS NOTICE - M: F

S828.29 16 - HEALTH-SAFETY - PET DLR KNOWING MISREP BREED SEX HLTH DOG CAT - M: F

S831.29 - COUNTERFEITING OF - REMOVED - F: S

S831.29 - POSSESS TOOLS FOR - COUNTERFEITING DRIVERS LICENSE OR ID CARDS - F: S

S831.29 - FRAUD - REMOVED - F: S

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

P. BARR, v. PURKEY, 140 S. Ct. 2594 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Times, Oct. 29, 2019. . . .

RAYSOR, v. DESANTIS,, 140 S. Ct. 2600 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Id. , at ----, 2020 WL 2618062, *29. . . . Supp. 3d, at ----, ----, 2020 WL 2618062, *16, *29. . . .

J. TRUMP, v. R. VANCE, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 2412 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 26, 29. A We begin with the question of absolute immunity. . . . Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 29, 32 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). . . . . ----, ----, 139 S.Ct. 698, 702-703, 203 L.Ed.2d 29 (2019) (surveying Court precedent on intergovernmental . . . never characterized President Trump as a "target" of the investigation, Brief for Respondent Vance 29 . . . Congressional Leaders on Temporary Transfer of the Powers and Duties of President of the United States (June 29 . . .

MCGIRT, v. OKLAHOMA, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020)

. . . 3103(12) (National Indian Forest Resources Management Act; "former Indian reservations in Oklahoma"); 29 . . . See Brief for Petitioner 1; Brief for Respondent 29, 35, 40; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae . . .

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL, v. MORRISSEY- BERRU St. v., 140 S. Ct. 2049 (U.S. 2020)

. . . and then filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 . . . Expanding the "co-religionist" requirement, Brief for Respondents 28-29, 44, to exclude those who no . . . S. 602, 613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). . . . Brief for Appellee in No. 84-2779 (CA9 1986), pp. 11, 29, n. 17. . . .

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER AND PAUL HOME, v. PENNSYLVANIA, J. v., 140 S. Ct. 2367 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 29 (Little Sisters object "to having their plan hijacked"); ante , at 2391 . . . See 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-92 ; 29 U.S.C. § 1191c ; 26 U.S.C. § 9833. . . . See §§ 18011(a), (e); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-1251 (2019). . . .

B. CHIAFALO, v. WASHINGTON, 140 S. Ct. 2316 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Brief for Petitioners 29, 31. . . . Rhodes , 393 U.S. 23, 29, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968). . . .

ESPINOZA, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See Brief for Oklahoma et al. as Amici Curiae 29-31, 33-35; Brief for Petitioners 5. . . . Kurtzman , 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), has sometimes been understood to prohibit . . . Richardson , 403 U.S. 672, 678, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971) (plurality opinion); see also Schempp . . . Thompson , 403 U.S. 217, 221-222, 91 S.Ct. 1940, 29 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971). . . .

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, v. ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, INC., 140 S. Ct. 2082 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Argued May 5, 2020 Decided June 29, 2020 Noel J. . . . ." § 7601(29). . . . . ----, 140 S.Ct. 735, 206 L.Ed.2d 29 (2020) ( Hernández II ). . . . United States , 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) (per curiam ). . . .

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO, v. LLC., 140 S. Ct. 2103 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Argued March 4, 2020 Decided June 29, 2020 Gene C. Schaerr, Erik S. Jaffe, Stephen S. . . . I, § 4407(A)(3) (2003), 29 La. Reg. 706-707 (2003). The new law eliminated that flexibility. . . . See Record 2635, 2637, 2681, 9054; Brief for Medical Staff Professionals as Amici Curiae 28-29 (describing . . . I, § 4407(A)(3) (2003), 29 La. Reg. 706-707 (2003). . . . Co. , 29 F.Cas. 506, 507, (No. 17322) (CC Me. 1838) (Story, J.). . . . MS-23, 25, 26, 29. . . .

SEILA LAW LLC, v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Argued March 3, 2020 Decided June 29, 2020 Mr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, for Petitioner. Mr. . . . Perkins , 116 U.S. 483, 6 S.Ct. 449, 29 L.Ed. 700 (1886), and Morrison v. . . . Brief for Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae 4-5, 28-29. But those concerns are misplaced. . . . Id., at 690, n. 29, 108 S.Ct. 2597. . . . Perkins , 116 U.S. 483, 484-485, 6 S.Ct. 449, 29 L.Ed. 700 (1886), had a century earlier allowed Congress . . . Morrison , 487 U.S., at 690, n. 29, 108 S.Ct. 2597 ; see supra, at 2227 - 2228. . . . Morrison , 487 U.S., at 690, n. 29, 108 S.Ct. 2597. . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. THURAISSIGIAM, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Brief for Respondent 29. . . . III, ch. 4, §§ 11, 29. Amici supporting respondent make an additional argument. . . . See App. 24-26, 28-29, 31. . . . the Court tries to minimize that conclusion as not dispositive of the question presented, ante, at 29 . . .

C. LIU, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Brief for Petitioners 28-29. . . . Id. , at 29; see also Root , 105 U.S. at 214 ("[I]t is nowhere said that the patentee's right to an account . . . Brief for Petitioners 29 (citing the Act of July 8, 1870, § 55, 16 Stat. 206). . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, J. v., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). . . . 2017 order partially denying the Government's motion to dismiss is affirmed in part, and the March 29 . . . Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). . . .

BOSTOCK, v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA v. Jr. Co- R. G. G. R. v., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (U.S. 2020)

. . . No. 210. 29 If this examination craze is to prevail, and the sex-abolitionists are to have their way. . . . Prohibited) • 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e) (Trial by Jury; Challenging Compliance With Selection Procedures) • 29 . . . U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (Equal Pay Act of 1963) • 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601(a)(6) and (b)(4) (Family and Medical . . . Leave; Findings and Purposes) • 29 U.S.C. § 2651(a) (Family and Medical Leave; Effect on Other Laws) . . . 1681 et seq. ), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq. ), or section 794 of title 29 . . .

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, v. COWPASTURE RIVER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION LLC, v., 140 S. Ct. 1837 (U.S. 2020)

. . . No. 93-207, p. 29 (1973) (explaining that the Mineral Leasing Act "is not intended to grant rights-of-way . . .

L. BAXTER v. BRACEY,, 140 S. Ct. 1862 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). . . .

J. THOLE, v. U. S. BANK N. A, 140 S. Ct. 1615 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). . . . ERISA § 4062(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1362(a). . . . (discussing 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) ). . . . See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109, 1132(a)(2), (3). . . . (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(A) ). . . .

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC, LLC, III v. LLC, v. LLC, n De De La El Y v., 140 S. Ct. 1649 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Times, Sept. 29, 2019. . . . Committee IV (Trusteeship) (Nov. 3, 1953), reprinted in 29 Dept. . . .

BANISTER, v. DAVIS,, 140 S. Ct. 1698 (U.S. 2020)

. . . much a repetitive habeas claim if filed under Rule 59(e) in 28 days or under Rule 60(b) at, say, day 29 . . .

SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, v. NEWSOM,, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (U.S. 2020)

. . . May 29, 2020 The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice KAGAN and by her referred to . . .

MARLOWE, v. M. LEBLANC,, 140 S. Ct. 2823 (U.S. 2020)

. . . May 29, 2020 Application to vacate stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court denied . . .

ELIM ROMANIAN PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, v. J. B. PRITZKER,, 140 S. Ct. 2823 (U.S. 2020)

. . . May 29, 2020 Application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to . . .

MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS, v. UNITED STATES v. v. v., 140 S. Ct. 1308 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), to Fourth Amendment claim arising . . .

GEORGIA, v. PUBLIC. RESOURCE. ORG, INC., 140 S. Ct. 1498 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Lathrop , 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559 (1886) ). . . . Lathrop , 142 Mass. 29, 35, 6 N.E. 559, 560 (1886) (cited in Banks , 128 U.S. at 253-254, 9 S.Ct. 36 . . . Kurtzman , 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2135, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), which pronounced a test for evaluating . . .

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK,, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (U.S. 2020)

. . . App. 28-29, 51. . . . See id. , at 29, 32-33. . . .

BARTON, v. P. BARR,, 140 S. Ct. 1442 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Dec. 29, 31 (BIA 2006). The U.S. . . .

COUNTY OF MAUI, HAWAII, v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND,, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (U.S. 2020)

. . . unite so as to increase in size, quantity, or scope"); see also Webster's New International Dictionary 29 . . .

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, v. A. CHRISTIAN,, 140 S. Ct. 1335 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20-22, 29-30; App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a-74a. . . .

THRYV, INC. v. CLICK- TO- CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP,, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (U.S. 2020)

. . . limiting the appeal bar to § 314(a) and "nothing else" as Click-to-Call urges, Brief for Respondent 29 . . . Proc. 29(a). Matters outside § 314 are different. Take the provision before us, § 315(b). . . . Nourse , 9 Pet. 8, 28-29, 9 L.Ed. 31 (1835). . . .

RAMOS, v. LOUISIANA, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020)

. . . . § 29-1601 (2016) ; Nev. Const., Art. I, § 8 ; N. M. Const., Art II, § 14 ; N. D. Rule Crim. . . .

BABB, v. WILKIE,, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (U.S. 2020)

. . . employment who are at least 40 years of age ... shall be made free from any discrimination based on age." 29 . . . See 29 U.S.C. § 791 ; 5 CFR § 213.3102(u) ; 29 CFR § 1614.203(d) (2019). . . . Chao , 2017 WL 2953878, *9 (June 29, 2017) ; Arroyo v. . . . The federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 88 Stat. 74, 29 . . . This language is quite different from that of 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a). . . . U.S. 167, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119, we interpreted the private-sector provision of the ADEA, 29 . . . Restatement (Third) of Torts § 29, p. 493 (2005). . . . I join the majority opinion because I agree that 29 U.S.C. § 633a imposes liability even when age is . . .

VF JEANSWEAR LP v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 140 S. Ct. 1202 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Id. , at 850 ; see 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28(a)(3) (2019). . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28 (a)(3) (1978). . . .

CITGO ASPHALT REFINING COMPANY, v. FRESCATI SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., 140 S. Ct. 1081 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29. . . .

GUERRERO- LASPRILLA, v. P. BARR, v. P., 140 S. Ct. 1062 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See Brief for Respondent 29-30; see also post, at 1079, n. 5 (noting that the legislative history indicates . . .

SWARTZ, v. RODRIGUEZ, J. A., 140 S. Ct. 1258 (U.S. 2020)

. . . . ----, 140 S.Ct. 735, 206 L.Ed.2d 29 (2020). . . .

INTEL CORPORATION INVESTMENT POLICY COMMITTEE, v. M. SULYMA, 140 S. Ct. 768 (U.S. 2020)

. . . . § 413(a)(2)(A), 88 Stat. 889, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1113. . . . See generally 29 U.S.C. §§ 1021 - 1031 ; see also Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. . . . See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1022, 1024(b) (summary plan descriptions); see also App. 307 (June 2012 fact sheet for . . . See 29 CFR § 2550.404a-5 ; see also App. 242-243 (retirement contribution plan annual disclosure); id . . . See, e.g. , 29 U.S.C. § 1022(a). . . .

SHULAR, v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 779 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Holder , 557 U.S. 29, 33-34, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009). . . .

C. HERNANDEZ, v. MESA, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 735 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and create a damages remedy for . . . Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619, the Court broke new ground by holding . . . have "nothing to do with the substance or conduct of U.S. foreign ... policy," Brief for Petitioners 29 . . . Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), should not be extended to cross-border . . . Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), with respect to the "rank of the . . .

REED v. TEXAS, 140 S. Ct. 686 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Goertz , No. 19-cv-00794 (WD Tex., Nov. 14, 2019), Doc. 29-2, p. 108. . . .

L. BALDWIN, Et Ux. v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 690 (U.S. 2020)

. . . C., 6 Pet. 29, 39-40, 8 L.Ed. 308 (1832) ("[T]he construction which we have given to the terms of the . . .

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO v. ACEVEDO FELICIANO,, 140 S. Ct. 696 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Id. , at 29. . . .

LANCE, v. GEORGIA, 140 S. Ct. 989 (U.S. 2020)

. . . January 29, 2020 Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and . . .

LANCE, v. FORD,, 140 S. Ct. 990 (U.S. 2020)

. . . January 29, 2020 Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and . . .

PETER, v. NANTKWEST, INC., 140 S. Ct. 365 (U.S. 2019)

. . . just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal"); 29 . . .

C. ROTKISKE, v. KLEMM,, 140 S. Ct. 355 (U.S. 2019)

. . . On June 29, 2015, more than six years after the default judgment, Rotkiske brought suit against Klemm . . . e.g. , 15 U.S.C. § 77m (1976 ed.) ; 19 U.S.C. § 1621 (1976 ed.) ; 26 U.S.C. § 7217(c) (1976 ed.) ; 29 . . .

BEEMER, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,, 140 S. Ct. 209 (U.S. 2019)

. . . No. 19-29 Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

UTIER, v. FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT BOARD,, 140 S. Ct. 32 (U.S. 2019)

. . . September 11, 2019 Upon consideration of the August 29, 2019 motions for divided argument, a total of . . .

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC,, 140 S. Ct. 33 (U.S. 2019)

. . . September 11, 2019 Upon consideration of the August 29, 2019 motion for divided argument, a total of . . .

OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF DEBTORS, v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT,, 140 S. Ct. 33 (U.S. 2019)

. . . September 11, 2019 Upon consideration of the August 29, 2019 motion for divided argument, a total of . . .

AURELIUS INVESTMENT, v. PUERTO RICO,, 140 S. Ct. 34 (U.S. 2019)

. . . September 11, 2019 Upon consideration of the August 29, 2019 motion for divided argument, a total of . . .

UNITED STATES, v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT,, 140 S. Ct. 34 (U.S. 2019)

. . . September 11, 2019 Upon consideration of the August 29, 2019 motion for divided argument, a total of . . .

UNITED STATES, v. ROMERO, Jr., 935 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . On Friday, April 29, 2017, Officer Matthew Dollar was on patrol in Las Cruces, New Mexico. . . .

WATTS, v. WATTS,, 935 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Br. at 29. But a review of the district court's order defeats Shane's claim. . . . Coppe , 182 F.3d 1124, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying the choice-of-law provisions only after finding . . .

ELHADY, v. H. KABLE,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 562 (E.D. Va. 2019)

. . . Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 24, 28-29, 32-33, 138. . . .

KAMPSCHROER v. ANOKA COUNTY Le LLC, DPS, 935 F.3d 645 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Services Division (DVS) of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, notified Jessica by letter dated May 29 . . .

V. CASSIDY, v. HALYARD HEALTH, INC., 391 F. Supp. 3d 474 (E.D. Pa. 2019)

. . . Hibbs , 538 U.S. 721, 724, 123 S.Ct. 1972, 155 L.Ed.2d 953 (2003) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C) ) . . . City of Phila. , 430 F.3d 117, 119 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 2615(a)(1), (2) ). Erdman v. . . . (citation omitted). 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(b). Pl.'s SOMF [Doc. 37-3] at ¶¶ 53-58. . . . Lichtenstein , 691 F.3d at 303 (footnote and citations omitted). 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c). . . . Erdman , 582 F.3d at 509 / 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Ptasznik v. Univ. of Pa. , 523 F. . . .

BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC. RX, LLC,, 935 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . August 29, 2019 ON MOTION . . .

ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, v. SANDOZ, INC., 935 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Decided: August 29, 2019 Jonathan Elliot Singer, Fish & Richardson, PC, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiffs-appellees . . . Id . col. 4 ll. 29-37. . . . topically-applied ophthalmic agents cause systemic side effects, e.g. drowsiness, heart effects, etc."), col. 4 ll. 29 . . .

REYNA, v. P. BARR,, 935 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Submitted: May 15, 2019 Filed: August 29, 2019 Joshua W. . . .

RIDGELL, v. CITY OF PINE BLUFF, A In, 935 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Submitted: April 18, 2019 Filed: August 29, 2019 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied October 7, 2019 . . .

ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 935 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Argued and Submitted December 17, 2018 San Francisco, California Filed August 29, 2019 . . . Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 421 U.S. 132, 153-54, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975). . . .

LOPEZ- AGUILAR, v. P. BARR,, 935 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Filed August 29, 2019 ORDER . . .

UNITED STATES v. SWEARGIN,, 935 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Deninno, 29 F.3d 572, 578 (10th Cir. 1994) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR, v., 935 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . On page 29 of 31, under the bolded heading "SEARCH AUTHORIZATION REQUESTS," the affidavit stated, for . . . Carroll , 918 F.3d 1323, 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2019) ; Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor v. . . . Br. of Appellant Taylor at 29; Br. of Appellant Smith at 27. . . . It wasn't until page 29 of Agent Macfarlane's 31-page affidavit, Taylor and Smith say, that the application . . . Br. of Appellee at 34 (emphasis added) (Taylor); see also Br. of Appellee at 29 (Smith). . . . It is only on page 29 of 31 that the affidavit finally acknowledges (somewhat explicitly) that "the NIT . . . The warrant's defenders argue that the disclosure on page 29 "cured" the warrant of any ambiguity. . . . The only reference to a search that potentially would occur outside the district comes buried on page 29 . . .

M. HASAN, M. D. G. v. AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, a, 935 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . On January 29, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add allegations that earlier . . .

TIMS, v. LGE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION,, 935 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Doc. 29 at 44. LGE adopted the Opt-In Agreement to comply with Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 1005.17. . . . A, with Doc. 29 at 44. . . . Doc. 29 at 31. . . . Doc. 29 at 44. . . . Doc. 29 at 32 (emphasis added). . . .

F. SHARPE, v. UNITED STATES,, 935 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Ins. , 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) ; then quoting Balt. Gas & Elec. . . .

L. SMITH, v. SHARP,, 935 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Jan. 29, 2007) (unpublished) ("OCCA's Atkins Op."). . . .

BIRD, v. i DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DHS, R., 935 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Humphries , 562 U.S. 29, 131 S.Ct. 447, 178 L.Ed.2d 460 (2010). . . . I recognize that on May 29, 2017, the statute governing listings on the Registry, Haw. Rev. . . . . § 350-2(d) was amended effective May 29, 2017, so that "not confirmed" reports of child abuse are also . . .

EDMO, v. CORIZON, INC. Al v. Al, 935 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Dep't of Corr. , 778 F.3d 1223, 1228-29 (11th Cir. 2015). . . . Dep't of Corr. , 778 F.3d at 1228-29 (holding that an appeal of a preliminary injunction was moot because . . . WPATH SOC at 28-29. . . .

IN RE BOWLES,, 935 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . He filed his first collateral motion on August 29, 2003, asserting claims of ineffective assistance of . . .

RAY, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, v. As, 935 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). But that wasn't always the case. . . . Reg. 60,454, 60,454 (Oct. 1, 2013) (codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 552). . . . Reg. 55,029, 55,029 (Sept. 14, 2015) (codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 552). . . . Reg. 65,646, 65,646 (Oct. 27, 2015) (codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 552). . . . to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their ... unpaid overtime compensation ...." 29 . . .

SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL- DENVER, INC. v. M. AZAR II, U. S., 391 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . s Mem.") at 28-29, ECF No. 67-1, but the policy has two components: (1) the requirement that providers . . . S1-AR at 2-19; S2-AR at 1-22; H-AR at 2-29. 5. . . . s Mem. at 28-29 (citing Def.'s Mem., Ex. . . .

BOWLES, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 935 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . He filed his first collateral motion on August 29, 2003, asserting claims of ineffective assistance of . . .

ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH NEPHEW, INC., 935 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . J.A. 1776-77 at col. 2 ll. 29-33, col. 3 ll. 12-16. . . . No. 112-29, § 6(c)(2)(A), 125 Stat. 284, 304 (2011) (providing that IPR "shall take effect upon the expiration . . .

ALMANZA, v. UNITED STATES,, 935 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . FLSA") entitles employees to overtime pay for their hours of work that exceed forty hours per week. 29 . . . The Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") administers the FLSA with respect to federal employees. 29 . . .

COMPERE, v. NUSRET MIAMI, LLC, d b a a, 391 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

. . . ("Gokce") (collectively, "Defendants") seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 . . . authorizes collective actions against employers for unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation. 29 . . . include only those plaintiffs who affirmatively opt in to the action by filing their consent in writing. 29 . . . Acknowledgment form, which outlined the tip pool arrangement in effect from November 2017 through April 29 . . .

VALTIERRA, v. MEDTRONIC INC. a, 934 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine[.] 29 . . . substantially limits a major life activity is a disability under the first prong of the definition. 29 . . .

J. MURRAY, M. D. a v. MAYO CLINIC, a M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. a, 934 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . . § 12133 of the remedies set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 794a, which, in turn, incorporated the remedies in . . .

F. DORMAN, a a v. CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION Co. W. III R. R. C., 934 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . claims under § 502(a)(2) and (3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 . . .

SEMPLE, a a k a a v. GRISWOLD, Be USA A., 934 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . district 25 had 85,051 voters, district 21 had 80,499 voters, and five other districts (1, 12, 13, 29 . . . Id. at 22:29. . . . Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 432, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971), the Court addressed an Equal Protection . . .

J. GENZER, v. JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,, 934 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 29 (emphasis added). . . .

DIVERSE POWER, INC. v. CITY OF LAGRANGE, GEORGIA,, 934 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . In 2004, the LaGrange City Council enacted Ordinance No. 4-29 (the "Ordinance"), now codified at § 20 . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. HOPPER,, 934 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Hopper moved for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, which the court . . . Hopper's trial counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. . . . Rule 29 requires the court to "enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is . . .

JANVRIN, J J v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., 934 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . He testified that most of those he hired, some 29 in total, were local ranchers, attesting to their reliability . . .

SCRIMO, v. LEE,, 935 F.3d 103 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Appeals made the same arguments he made to the Appellate Division; leave to appeal was denied on March 29 . . . Judge Donnelly denied the petition, as well as a certificate of appealability, on September 29, 2017. . . . Sept. 29, 2017). . . .

SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR v. BRISTOL EXCAVATING, INC., 935 F.3d 122 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . first impression: whether, within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA" or "Act"), 29 . . . one-and-a-half times their "regular rate" of pay for all hours worked above a forty-hour work week. 29 . . . No. 89-601, § 101(a), 80 Stat. 830 (1966) (adding § 203(m) to 29 U.S.C. § 203 ). . . . (Answering Br. at 29 (citations omitted).) . . . Blinder, Robinson & Co. , 903 F.2d 186, 204-05 n.29 (3d Cir.1990). . . .

STONE, v. TROY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, 935 F.3d 141 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . (App. at 29.) . . . be calculated to include "all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee." 29 . . . (App. at 8 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) ).) . . . [when] such written consent is filed[.]" 29 U.S.C. § 256. . . . See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). . . .

BACA v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, G. T. L. M., 935 F.3d 887 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 29, 13 S.Ct. 3. . . . Presidential Electors' Reply Br. at 29 n.5. . . . Williams , 393 U.S. at 29, 89 S.Ct. 5. . . .

PARKER, v. LANDRY,, 935 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971). . . .

NORTH PENSION FUND v. NUTRITION MANAGEMENT SERVICES COMPANY,, 935 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against an employer for unpaid pension fund contributions, 29 . . . of 20 percent of the [unpaid contributions] ..., [and] (D) reasonable attorney's fees and costs .... 29 . . . The title of 29 U.S.C. § 1145 refers to "delinquent" contributions, while § 1132(g)(2) refers to "unpaid . . . plan or a plan which is both an employee welfare benefit plan and an employee pension benefit plan." 29 . . . award the plan ... reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the action, to be paid by the defendant." 29 . . .

BURKE, v. REGALADO, v., 935 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Pre-Trial Motions, CHC Settlement, and Replacement of Sheriff Glanz with Sheriff Regalado On January 29 . . . Whittenburg , 561 F.3d at 1128-29. The Sheriffs point to the following passages in which Ms. . . . Mississippi , 403 U.S. 212, 215, 91 S.Ct. 1778, 29 L.Ed.2d 423 (1971), a judge who charged the petitioner . . .

UNITED STATES v. BEGAY,, 934 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . and Submission Deferred October 20, 2015 Submitted May 26, 2016 Submission Vacated and Deferred March 29 . . . Holder , 557 U.S. 29, 41, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009) ). . . .

REGAN v. CITY OF HAMMOND, INDIANA,, 934 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Cook , 847 F.3d 825, 828-29 (7th Cir. 2017). . . .

R. MEIER v. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, CITY OF s St. H. St. St. St. St. G. a St. St. P. O. DSN, 934 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Rath faxed the release order to Doc's Towing on April 29. . . .

CONILLE v. COUNCIL AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, 935 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Workers, 770 F.3d 48, 54 (1st Cir. 2014) ; see also 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). . . . evidence, the district court's factual finding is not clearly erroneous and thus will not be disturbed. 29 . . . , without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties. 29 . . . instituting legal or administrative proceedings against such organizations or any officer thereof." 29 . . .

BIONDO, v. KALEDIA HEALTH, d b a, 935 F.3d 68 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . See 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The implementing regulations provide additional requirements. . . .

BENTLEY, v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, LLC,, 935 F.3d 76 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . was employed at the Wallingford store, Bentley was late for work on May 18, absent from work on June 29 . . . Id. at 128-29. . . .

UNITED STATES v. F GARO- BENJAM N, 392 F. Supp. 3d 280 (D. P.R. 2019)

. . . Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI") agents interviewed Fígaro on January 29, 2019, the day of his . . .