The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . To begin, the Republican candidate's vote share (56.10%) and margin of victory (12.20%) in the least . . . For example, the Republican candidate's vote share (56.10%) and margin of victory (12.20%) in the least . . .
. . . To begin, the Republican candidate’s vote share (56.10%) and margin of victory (12.20%) in the least . . . For example, the Republican candidate’s vote share (56.10%) and margin of victory (12.20%) in the least . . .
. . . Civ.Code §§ 56.10, 56.101 (emphasis added). . . .
. . . seeking to exclude the independent medical examiner from the ambit of California Civil Code section 56.10 . . . Civ.Code § 56.10(c)(19); Cal. Evid.Code §§ 1010(a), 1024. . . .
. . . If paid as a dividend, $100 of corporate income becomes $56.10 in the owner-employee’s hands because . . . its income and then the owner-employee pays 15 percent on the $66 dividend, and $100 x .66 x .85 = $56.10 . . . on it; the owner-employee would pay a 35 percent tax; and $100 - (.35 x $100) is $65, which beats $56.10 . . .
. . . Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice §§ 56.10[4][c][i], 56.14[2][c] (3d ed. 1997)); see also Toney . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10[6] (3d ed. 2004) (explaining that "denial of one cross-motion . . .
. . . Stem-pel, MoORE’s FEDERAL PRACTICE § 56.10[8][a] (3d ed. 2010) (“[I]f a party cannot adequately defend . . .
. . . Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[8][a] at 56-93 (3d ed. 2009). . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 56.10[4][c][I] & 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.1997) (footnotes omitted . . .
. . . Moore et al„ Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10(8)(b) (2010) (discussing the appellate consequences of . . .
. . . (attorney) 11.0 (paralegal) $169.58 $ 6,041.29 $ 6,359.25 $102.00 $ 1,065.90 $ 1,122.00 $ 317.96 $ 56.10 . . .
. . . cross motion does not imply the grant of the opponent’s cross motion.” 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.10[7] (3d ed.2006)), he maintains that the instant motion . . .
. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s.2d 1186, 1196 Federal Practice §§ 56.10[4][c][i], 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.1997)); see . . .
. . . days before the court makes a ruling to respond to the motion for summary judgment,” 2 Moore, supra, § 56.10 . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.10[8][d] (3d ed.2000). . . .
. . . parties have stipulated that the matter is ready for summary judgment. 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . .
. . . Practice § 56.10[6] (3d. ed.2004). Whether C.J. . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) . . .
. . . Practice § 56.10[6] (3d. ed.2004) (explaining that “denial of one cross-motion does not imply the grant . . . Practice § 56.10[6] (3d. ed.2004); see also Huffman v. . . .
. . . Hartford, 288 F.3d 467, 471 (2d Cir.2002); see also 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[5] (3d ed.2005 . . . disputed fact with admissible evidence” (internal quotation marks omitted)); 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . .
. . . . deny the motion for summary judgment .... ” 11 James Wm Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 . . .
. . . James Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, 56.10 (3d ed.2005), citing Nicholson v. . . .
. . . Board of Educ. of Olean, 667 F.2d 305 (2d Cir.1981)); see also 11 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 56.10 . . .
. . . Board of Educ. of Olean, 667 F.2d 305 (2d Cir.1981)); see also 11 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 56.10 . . .
. . . produce specific facts in opposition to the summary judgment motion. 11 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 . . .
. . . Civ.Code § 56.10(C)’ (requiring health care providers to hold a patient’s medical information confidential . . .
. . . it is considered proper and will be reviewed and decided by the court.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . . Fed.R.CivJP. 56(f); see also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[8][a]. . . .
. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[8][c] (3d ed.2003). . . . Moore, supra, ¶ 56.10[8][c] (citing City of Rome v. . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[2][b], at 56-49. . . . .
. . . Petitioner’s Second Argument Petitioner cites California Civil Code section 56.10(a), and argues that . . . It simply does not require Petitioner to violate section 56.10(a) of the California Civil Code. . . .
. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[7] (3rd ed.1998), and In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 (2d ed.1988)); In re Great American Resources, Inc., 85 . . .
. . . than simply granting summary judgment based on the face of the motion. 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10 . . . See 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[3][b]; William W Schwarzer, et ai., The Analysis and Decision . . .
. . . than simply granting summary judgment based on the face of the motion. 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10 . . . See 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10[3][b]; William W. . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 (2d ed.1988)); In re Great American Resources, Inc., 85 . . .
. . . stay and for extension of final rule deadline; plaintiff’s motion for clarification of court’s order 56.10 . . .
. . . fact and whether movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . .
. . . Moore et at, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[6] (3d ed.1997). . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[6] (3d ed.1997). . . .
. . . Because Rule 56(f) requests should be “liberally construed,” see Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[8][ . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[2][b] (3d ed.1997). . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[8][a] (3d ed.1998). . . .
. . . See 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10[7] (3d ed.1998) (stating that, although a denial of summary judgment . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 56.10(4)(c)(I) (3d ed.1997) and 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur . . .
. . . requested amount in the applications; and awarded expenses in the aggregate amount of $477,-350.45 or 56.10% . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[1] (1997). . . .
. . . See 11 Moore's Federal Practice, § 56.10[4][c] (3d ed. 1997). . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[2][b] (3d ed. 1997) (“A court may not enter summary judgment . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 56.10[4][c][i] & 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.1997) (footnotes omitted . . .
. . . The electrical bill for Siegel’s trailer was $56.10 for March, and $138.38 in April. . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.10, at 56-92 through 56-97. . See also Honore v. . . .
. . . The match between the Faetbook and the FCC was only 56.10%. . . .
. . . See also, § 56.10, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .
. . . .1875 X $185 = $34.69 Firm Total $1,114.69 (4.6875 Murray, Plumb & Murray: 11/1 .33 Total .33 X $170 = $56.10 . . .
. . . (Vol. 2) 56.10 Joe Pollard (Vol. 1) 243.60 Joe Pollard (Vol. 2) and C.H. . . .
. . . A patient is entitled to privacy not only by statute, Cal.Civ.Code § 56.10, but also by virtue of specific . . . information regarding a patient of the provider without first obtaining an authorization_ Cal.Civil Code § 56.10 . . .
. . . A patient is entitled to privacy not only by statute, Cal.Civ.Code § 56.10, but also by virtue of specific . . . information regarding a patient of the provider without first obtaining an authurization_ Cal.Civil Code § 56.10 . . .
. . . both Rule 15 and Rule 56 must be accommodated. 6 Moore, Taggart & Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . .
. . . Sec. 56.10, Op. 2054. See also: McClendon v. Key, 209 So.2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). . . .
. . . Notwithstanding the allegations in the complaint, both the permit application and sections 2-56.1 to 2-56.10 . . .
. . . summary judgment motion filed to conform to Supreme Court decision); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 2d, ¶ 56.10 . . .
. . . Phillips an additional $56.10. 5. Mr. . . .
. . . Plaintiff cites 6 Moore, Federal Practice, paragraph 56.10, for the proposition that where an amended . . .
. . . Continental Assurance Co., 578 F.Supp. 1518, 1524 n. 5 (S.D.N.Y.1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice U 56.10 . . .
. . . . §§ 56.10, 56.12. . . . “most serious” and posed a “grave risk ’ to employees, and he found that the violations of sections 56.10 . . .
. . . introduced and considered during the pendency of a motion for summary judgment. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice U 56.10 . . .
. . . See generally 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 (2 ed. 1976); 10 C. Wright & A. . . .
. . . H 56.10 and 1156.12 (2nd ed. 1976) at 174 and 338-339. . . .
. . . Hallbauer, 455 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1972); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice K 56.10 (2d ed. 1976). . . .
. . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10, at 56-169 (2d ed. 1976). . . . Cf. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10, at 56-174 (2d ed. 1976). . . .
. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶¶ 56.02[4], 56.10 (2d ed. 1974). . . .
. . . Provikalf Starter, containing zinc bacitracin (ZB) 112,200 lbs, or 56.10 tons, at 25 gms. per ton means . . .
. . . After application of percentage reduction alone, Ward would receive $48.69 and Winston $56.10 per month . . .
. . . Palmer, 114 F.2d 116 (2 Cir. 1940); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 (2d ed. 1966). . . .
. . . Vogel, 2 Cir. 1943, 134 F.2d 908, 912. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d, § 56.10 (1965). . . .
. . . See 6 Moore, Federal Practice, Section 56.10 (2d Ed. 1966). . . .
. . . Unit value — Japanese yen 31141/1 56.10 each 31141/2 80.30 each 31141/3 107. 50 each 31141/4 133. 50 . . . each 31141/5 45.00 each 31141/6 56.10 each 31141/7 45. 00 each 31141/9 45. 50 each 31141/10 31. 00 pair . . .
. . . See, e. g., 6 Moore, fifí 56.10, 56.11 [1] to -[6], 56.11 [8] to -[10], 56.22. . . .
. . . Sec. 56.10, p. 2054. . . .
. . . Cf. 6 Moore ¶ 56.10, p. 2056 (1953). No such showing has been made. . . .
. . . overpaid $3,337.20 for the period from November 1951 to February 1957 and was further required to pay $56.10 . . .
. . . Dehydrated—Functional—Bepair—Eepack (Average — $12.62) (Average — $4.67) (shock strut) 12 @ Labor $151.38 Material $56.10 . . .
. . . risks of strikes, riots, and civil commotions Amount Term Rate A/P $22,440 2/6/48 to 3/ 8/48 STG. .25 $ 56.10 . . . CC .75 168.30 3/8/48 to 3/14/48 STG. .125 28.05 SR&CC 1% 224.40 Transshipment via Beirut, Syria .25 56.10 . . .
. . . Spathis 220 “ at 0.40 88.00 Mihalitsanos Periclis 180 “ at 0.35 63.00 Angel Vargas Ruiz 110 “ at 0.51 56.10 . . .
. . . its motion for summary judgment is no reason for denying the amendment. 6 Moore, Federal Practice, § 56.10 . . .
. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd ed., §§ 56.10 and 15.07, . . .
. . . connected to the existing emergency lighting panel in Unit B, increased the contract in the amount of $56.10 . . .
. . . . § 56.10, p. 2054-2056, Id. § 15.13, pp. 843-844; Downey v. . . .
. . . Thereafter about $56.10 was paid by the defendant, leaving the balance of this account in the sum of . . .
. . . from said collateral a bond of the Canonsburg & Washington Railway Company for $1,000 and the sum of $56.10 . . . assert any right or claim to the residuary collateral to the Evans Bros, notes (the $1,000 bond and $56.10 . . .