The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 56
FINAL PROCESS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 56.14

56.14 Executions upon forthcoming bond; levy.—No bonds, as hereinbefore provided, shall be allowed to be given for property seized upon the execution on the judgment upon the forfeited bond.

History.—s. 1, ch. 727, 1855; RS 1194; GS 1623; RGS 2827; CGL 4514; s. 11, ch. 67-254.

Note.—Former s. 55.36.

F.S. 56.14 on Google Scholar

F.S. 56.14 on Casetext

Amendments to 56.14

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 56.14

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 56.14.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

DEFORTE, v. BOROUGH OF WORTHINGTON, 364 F. Supp. 3d 458 (W.D. Pa. 2019)

. . . . ¶ 56.14(4) ). . . .

ALLIED CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, v. CITY OF CINCINNATI,, 214 F. Supp. 3d 653 (S.D. Ohio 2016)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice § 56.14[1][d] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.), n. 46 and 47). . . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[1][c] (3d ed. 1999)). . . .

COOPER, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., 82 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . . § 56.14[l][c] “[t]he testimony of a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate agent deponent may be presented on motion . . .

In SHEEDY, v. JP, 480 B.R. 204 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012)

. . . Stempel, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][d] (1997). In re Fidler, 210 B.R. at 422. . . .

T. AUGUSTUS, v. McHUGH,, 870 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . Practice § 56.14[4][a] (affidavits, deposition testimony, and documents containing inadmissible evidence . . .

PETERSON, v. GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., 833 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (D. Kan. 2011)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice §§ 56.10[4][c][i], 56.14[2][c] (3d ed. 1997)); see also Toney . . .

P. FITZPATRICK v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., 272 F.R.D. 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . good-cause test was imposed in derivative-suit context) (citing 2 Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 503(b) [05] at 503-56.14 . . .

ALPHA I, L. P. a v. UNITED STATES, L. L. C. I, L. P. a v. R, R, M C L. L. C. R, R, M C L. P. a v. R, R, M C L. P. a v. CWC I, FBO U A G, a v. L. P. a v. M, L, R R, E. v., 93 Fed. Cl. 280 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[1][d], at 56-162.1-163 (3d ed.2004)). . . . of sufficient evidence available at trial to defeat the summary judgment motion.” 11 Moore, supra, § 56.14 . . .

In WILEY v., 426 B.R. 878 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2010)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 56.10[4][c][I] & 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.1997) (footnotes omitted . . .

BLASIC, v. CHUGACH SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., 673 F. Supp. 2d 389 (D. Md. 2009)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.14(4)(b). . . .

HARRIS, v. VECTOR MARKETING CORPORATION,, 656 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . . § 56.14[l][d]. Also, it should be noted that Mr. . . . Cf. id. § 56.14[l][c] (stating that “[t]he testimony of a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate agent deponent may . . .

ALEXANDER, v. CARESOURCE,, 576 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . (citing Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)); Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[2][a] (observing that “one proper cover . . .

R. F. M. A. S. INC. v. MIMI SO, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14[1] (1994))); Tarullo v. . . .

FOUNDATION OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, v. UNITED STATES,, 88 Fed. Cl. 203 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice (Moore's Federal Practice) § 56.14[l][d), at 56-162.1-163 (3d ed.2004 . . . See id. § 56.14[l][d], at 56-164 ("[A]n affidavit that only contains facts that could only be presented . . . statements made without personal knowledge should not be admitted at the summary judgment stage.”); id. § 56.14 . . . See 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.14[l][d], at 56-164 ("[I]f an affidavit points to the testimony . . .

GRAND ACADIAN, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 87 Fed. Cl. 193 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[1][f|, at 56-179 (3d ed. 2004) (“If a party’s deposition and . . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[1][f], at 56-179 (3d ed.2004). Mr. . . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][f], at 56-179. Here, Mr. . . .

In R. RICH, v. R., 401 B.R. 281 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2009)

. . . Therefore, any objections are waived. 11 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.14[2][c] fn.101-103 (Matthew . . .

J. TARULLO, v. DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY,, 600 F. Supp. 2d 352 (D. Conn. 2009)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14[1] (1994)); see Lane v. . . .

MEYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES LIMITED, v. BODUM, INC., 597 F. Supp. 2d 790 (N.D. Ill. 2009)

. . . presumed and may be overcome based on the factual circumstances (see 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14 . . .

ARAR, v. ASHCROFT, D. J. J. W. Of, 532 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2008)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14 (3d ed.2007). . . .

FLOYD, v. A. HEFNER, III, v. P. C. a, 556 F. Supp. 2d 617 (S.D. Tex. 2008)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.1997)). . . .

RABE, v. NATIONWIDE LOGISTICS, INC., 530 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (E.D. Mo. 2008)

. . . Mooke et al., Moore’s Federal Practioe ¶ 56.14(2)(c) (3d ed. 1997) (“Unauthenticated documents, once . . .

L. BELL, v. CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS,, 496 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Kan. 2007)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s.2d 1186, 1196 Federal Practice §§ 56.10[4][c][i], 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.1997)); see . . .

WILTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][b] (3 d ed.2006). . . . See 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.14[l][c], And it is clear beyond cavil that "[p]ersonal knowledge . . .

v., 31 Ct. Int'l Trade 863 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][b] (3d ed. 2006). . . . See 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][c]. . . .

A. JACKSON, v. JIMINO,, 506 F. Supp. 2d 105 (N.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[4][b] (3d ed.2006). . . .

HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP. v. TRANQUIL PROSPECTS, LTD., 482 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

. . . Moore Et Al., Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.14[2][c] (3d 3e. 1997). Cf. . . .

GILES, Jr. Ph. D. v. UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO,, 241 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Ohio 2007)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice § 56.14[l][d] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.), n. 46 and 47. . . .

In A. MADERA, A. v. Co., 363 B.R. 718 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2007)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[2][c], at 56-184.1-56-185 (3d ed.2001). . . . .

AGRIZAP, INC. v. WOODSTREAM CORPORATION,, 450 F. Supp. 2d 562 (E.D. Pa. 2006)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.2005); 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur . . .

OTAY LAND COMPANY, a v. U. E. LIMITED, L. P. a, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2006)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14[1] (1994)); compare Ahmad v. . . .

ORDON, M. D. v. L. KARPIE LLC,, 543 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D. Conn. 2006)

. . . See 11 Moore’s Federal Practice—Civil § 56.14[i] (“there is seldom any legitimate excuse for a nonmovant . . .

ORDON, M. D. v. L. KARPIE LLC, 425 F. Supp. 2d 276 (D. Conn. 2006)

. . . City of New York, 422 F.3d 47, 55 (2d Cir.2005); see also 11 Moore's Federal Practice — Civil § 56.14 . . .

GOGUEN GOGUEN, v. TEXTRON, INC., 234 F.R.D. 13 (D. Mass. 2006)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[4][a] (3d ed.1997). . . .

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK,, 418 F. Supp. 2d 964 (N.D. Ohio 2006)

. . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); 11-56 Moore’s Federal Practice — Civil § 56.14. . . . affidavit therefore incorporated the deposition testimony. 11-56 Moore’s Federal Practice— Civil § 56.14 . . .

In OMNICOM GROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 233 F.R.D. 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence 1Í 503(b)[05] at 503-56.14 (2d ed.1990). . . .

T. WULIGER, v. EBERLE,, 414 F. Supp. 2d 814 (N.D. Ohio 2006)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.14[l][c] (3d ed.2005). . . .

BROOKS v. TRI- SYSTEMS, INC., 425 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . See 11 Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14[l][e] (3d ed.2005). . . .

PADRON WAREHOUSE CORP. a v. THE REALTY ASSOCIATES FUND III, L. P. III, a J., 377 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (S.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14[l][f], at 56-178 (3d ed.2004), and PWC has not provided any explanation . . .

FAIRMAN, v. C. HURLEY,, 373 F. Supp. 2d 227 (W.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . O’Flynn, 287 F.Supp.2d 230, 242-43 (W.D.N.Y.2003) (citing 11 Moore's Federal Practice, § 56.14[l][b] . . .

WAHHAB, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, E. St. LLC, Co. Co., 386 F. Supp. 2d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice P 56.14[4][a] (3d ed.1997)). . . .

GRATZ v. BOLLINGER,, 353 F. Supp. 2d 929 (E.D. Mich. 2005)

. . . Herr’s mise. charges for D.C. trip $56.14 3/11/03 Mr. . . .

G. CAOUETTE v. OFFICEMAX, INC., 352 F. Supp. 2d 134 (D.N.H. 2005)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[2][d][iii], at 56-194 (3d ed.2004). . . .

V. BAER, v. CHASE A A- Z, 392 F.3d 609 (3d Cir. 2004)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][f| at 56-179 (3d ed. 1997) (“If a party’s deposition . . .

COOK, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (C.D. Cal. 2004)

. . . 36 admission ... trump[s] conflicting evidence” on summary judgment. 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14 . . .

FORD, v. W. REYNOLDS, E., 326 F. Supp. 2d 392 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . Practice — Civil ¶ 56.14 (3d ed.2004). . . .

v. ITT d b a ITT, 28 Ct. Int'l Trade 1028 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . exception and admissible as proper summary judgment evidence); 11 Moore et. al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14 . . . Cir. 1995) (same); 11 Moore et. al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14(1)(d) (“[A]n affidavit that only . . . Moore et. al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14(4)(a) (3d ed. 2004) (“A party is not required to make . . .

UNITED STATES, v. ITT INDUSTRIES, INC. d b a ITT, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . exception and admissible as proper summary judgment evidence); 11 Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14 . . . , Inc., 45 F.3d 1550, 1561 n. 5 (Fed.Cir.1995) (same); 11 Moore et. al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14 . . . Moore et. al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14(4)(a) (3d ed. 2004) ("A party is not required to make . . .

BURRELL, v. CUMMINS GREAT PLAINS, INC., 324 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (S.D. Iowa 2004)

. . . . ¶ 56.14[4][a] (3d ed.1997)). . . . .

BARLOW, v. CONNECTICUT,, 319 F. Supp. 2d 250 (D. Conn. 2004)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice P 56.14[4][a] (3d ed.1997). . . .

SIEGEMUND, L. v. SHAPLAND,, 307 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D. Me. 2004)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14[l][d] (3d ed. 1997) (“The affidavit, in addition to presenting . . .

H. DIGGS, v. TOWN OF MANCHESTER, M., 303 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D. Conn. 2004)

. . . See 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.2003); DeCintio v. . . .

WITBECK, v. EMBRY RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., 219 F.R.D. 540 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 56.13 & 56.14 (2003). . . .

ANHEUSER- BUSCH, INC. v. CAUGHT- ON- BLEU, INC., 288 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.N.H. 2003)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][e] (3d ed.2003). . . .

S. DEMARS, v. O FLYNN,, 287 F. Supp. 2d 230 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . disregarded by the court in its consideration of the pending motion. 11 MooRe’s Federal PRACTICE, § 56.14 . . .

CREDENTIALS PLUS, LLC, v. S. CALDERONE,, 230 F. Supp. 2d 890 (N.D. Ind. 2002)

. . . .”); 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][c] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 2002)(“Personal knowledge may also . . .

J J SNACK FOODS, CORP. v. EARTHGRAINS CO., 220 F. Supp. 2d 358 (D.N.J. 2002)

. . . Coquillette, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.14[1][e] at 56-169-70 (3d ed.2002)(citing cases). . . .

NEW YORK, v. SOLVENT CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. ICC, 225 F. Supp. 2d 270 (W.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][c], pp. 56-160 (“In some instances, counsel may be in a position . . .

NEW YORK, v. SOLVENT CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. ICC, 218 F. Supp. 2d 319 (W.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][e], p. 56-160. . . .

KNOTTS, v. BLACK DECKER, INC., 204 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Ohio 2002)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][f] (3d ed.2001). . . . .

GLENN K. JACKSON INC. K. v. ROE, 273 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14[1] (1994). . . .

PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, v. K. GOEL,, 274 F.3d 984 (5th Cir. 2001)

. . . 1225 (7th Cir.1990). . 12 Moore et al., supra note 11, ¶ 60.42[6], . 11 Moore et al., supra note 11, ¶ 56.14 . . . Gore, 252 Miss. 27, 172 So.2d 425 (1965)). . 11 Moore et al., supra note 11, ¶ 56.14[1][c]. . . .

BOYER, v. KRS COMPUTER BUSINESS SCHOOL,, 171 F. Supp. 2d 950 (D. Minn. 2001)

. . . sworn document, declared to be true under the penalties of perjury.” 11 Moore's Federal Practice 3d, ¶ 56.14 . . .

In MEZVINSKY, G. v. v., 265 B.R. 681 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 56.14[2][c], at 56-184.1-56-185 (3d ed.2001). . . .

I. PEREZ v. VOLVO CAR CORPORATION,, 247 F.3d 303 (1st Cir. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14[l][d] (3d ed. 1997) (“The affidavit, in addition to presenting . . .

MOONEY v. MONUMENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 123 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (E.D. La. 2000)

. . . MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 56.14[2][c] (3rd ed.1997) . . . .

K. REDDY, v. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER,, 137 F. Supp. 2d 948 (S.D. Ohio 2000)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][c] (3d ed. 1999) (“For example, family members are . . .

UNITED STATES v. DAILIDE,, 227 F.3d 385 (6th Cir. 2000)

. . . See 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][d] (3d ed.). . . .

M. ROHMAN, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY NYCTA J., 215 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2000)

. . . Moore et al„ 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14, at 56-197 (3d ed. 1999) ("Materials submitted by a . . .

CONRAD, v. PERALES,, 92 F. Supp. 2d 175 (W.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . See 11 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d, § 56.14[2][d][iii], at 56-194 to 195. . . .

M. PLOTNER, v. SWANTON LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION,, 85 F. Supp. 2d 747 (N.D. Ohio 2000)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal PRACTICE § 56.14[1][d] (3d ed.1997); Edward Brunet, Summary Judgment Materials . . .

MOHNEY, v. USA HOCKEY, INC., 77 F. Supp. 2d 859 (N.D. Ohio 1999)

. . . MooRe, et al., Moore’s Federal Practioe § 56.14[1][d] (3d ed.1997); Edwaru Brunet, Summary Judgment Materials . . .

R. RUSHING v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,, 185 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 56.14[4][a], at 56-197 (3d ed.1999). . . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 56.14[4][b], at 56-199 (3d ed. 1999) (explaining that absent . . .

CROWN HEIGHTS JEWISH COMMUNITY COUNCIL, INC. H v. FISCHER,, 63 F. Supp. 2d 231 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[2][c], at 56-183 (3d ed.1997), Thus, an affidavit submitted . . .

L. DUNLAP, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., 47 F. Supp. 2d 888 (N.D. Ohio 1999)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 56.14[1][f] (3d ed.1998). . . . .

KIDDER, PEABODY CO. INCORPORATED, v. IAG INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCE GROUP N. V., 28 F. Supp. 2d 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . constitutes unauthenticated or inadmissible material, see Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14 . . .

CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., 149 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 1998)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[2][d][iii] (3d ed.1998). . . .

In KENNEDY INN ASSOCIATES, KENNEDY INN ASSOCIATES, v. PERAB REALTY CORP., 221 B.R. 704 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . Wolf Corp., 629 F.2d 603, 611 (9th Cir.1980); 11 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.14[1][d] at 56-163 to . . .

C. FERRON, v. D. WEST,, 10 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (S.D. Ga. 1998)

. . . . § 56.14[1][d] (1997). . . .

SINGLETON, v. CITY OF NEWBURGH,, 1 F. Supp. 2d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . See also 11 Moore § 56.14[l][e][i], at 56-170 (3d ed.1997) ("expert is required to inform the court of . . .

ASOCIACION COLOMBIANA EXPORTADORES FLORES, v. UNITED STATES,, 6 F. Supp. 2d 865 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998)

. . . Together, the three shareholders effectively owned a 56.14 percent share in Santa Helena and a 78.83 . . .

v., 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 173 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998)

. . . Together, the three shareholders effectively owned a 56.14 percent share in Santa Helena and a 78.83 . . .

L. HERR, v. AIRBORNE FREIGHT CORPORATION,, 130 F.3d 359 (8th Cir. 1997)

. . . Hiebert, Inc., 788 F.2d 1313, 1319 (8th Cir.1986); 11 Moore’s Federal Practice V 56.14[l][d] (Matthew . . .

SCOSCHE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. VISOR GEAR INCORPORATED,, 121 F.3d 675 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][d], at 56-162 (3d ed.1997). . . .

In HARRIS, HARRIS, v. BENEFICIAL OKLAHOMA, INC. a, 209 B.R. 990 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 56.10[4][c][i] & 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.1997) (footnotes omitted . . .

In W. FIDLER M. W. FIDLER M. v. CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK,, 210 B.R. 411 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1997)

. . . Stempel, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][d] (1997). . . .

ROUSEY, v. UNITED STATES, 115 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14[4] (2d ed.1976). . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. ADMINISTRATIA ASIGURARILOR DE STAT S. A. S. A. S. A. De De Co. De Co. S. A. K. De De S. A. Co. D Sy- S. A. P. T. Co. Co. T. A. S. R. C. D. De La S. A. De Y Co. De P. T. P. T. S. A. S. A. D, 962 F. Supp. 420 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[l][e][i], at 56-167 (3d ed.1997) (citing Reinke v. . . . behind the expert’s ‘ultimate conclusion’ ... and analyze the adequacy of its foundation.” 11 Moore § 56.14 . . .

McINTYRE, ESTATE OF McINTYRE, DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION, 514 U.S. 334 (U.S. 1995)

. . . Code § 3-14-1-4 (Supp. 1994); Iowa Code § 56.14 (1991); Kan. Stat. . . .

MONTGOMERY COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC. v. REALTY PHOTO MASTER CORPORATION,, 878 F. Supp. 804 (D. Md. 1995)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14[1] (1994), MCAR’s objections are unavailing. . . .

In KAISER MERGER LITIGATION. KSC RECOVERY, INC. v. FIRST BOSTON CORPORATION, Co. n k a L. T. A. M., 168 B.R. 991 (D. Colo. 1994)

. . . (citing 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14[2], pp. 56-363 to 56-366 (2d ed. Supp.1976)). . . .

U. S. A. v., 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 927 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1992)

. . . a district court can reconsider an interlocutory ruling.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.), par. 56.14 . . .

GROUP ITALGLASS U. S. A. INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 807 F. Supp. 124 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1992)

. . . a district court can reconsider an interlocutory ruling.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.), par. 56.14 . . .

MARTIN, v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA, W. P. M. E. D. D. G., 140 F.R.D. 291 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . See, e.g., 2 Weinstein’s Evidence, supra, ¶ 503(b)[05] at 503-56.14 to 58. . . . corporation if it were available to the public. 2 Weinstein’s Evidence, supra, ¶ 503(b)[05] at 503-56.14 . . .

TWIN LABORATORIES, INC. v. WEIDER HEALTH FITNESS, a I,, 720 F. Supp. 31 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . . ¶ 56.14[2] (2d ed. 1988). . . .

BARKSDALE, v. Dr. EMERICK Dr. a, 853 F.2d 1359 (6th Cir. 1988)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 11 56.14[1] (1987). . . .

NATIONAL FARMERS ORGANIZATION, INC. v. E. LYNG,, 695 F. Supp. 1207 (D.D.C. 1988)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 56.02 and 56.14[1] (2d ed. 1988). . Schepps Dairy, Inc. v. . . .

W. HINES, v. JOY MANUFACTURING COMPANY a, 850 F.2d 1146 (6th Cir. 1988)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.14[1] (1987). . . .

JUAN GOMEZ, v. WESTERN EQUIPMENT, INC. RUFINO M. VIRTUCIO v. WESTERN EQUIPMENT, INC., 3 N. Mar. I. Commw. 436 (D. N. Mar. I. 1988)

. . . Also, see, generally, 6 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.14. . . .

J. WILDER, v. T. PROKOP, R. Jr. U. S. J. U. S., 846 F.2d 613 (10th Cir. 1988)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.14 at 56-184, 56-185 (2d ed. 1985); cf. . . .

SCHAFER BAKERIES, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, GENERAL DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL, 650 F. Supp. 753 (E.D. Mich. 1986)

. . . power to permit opposing affidavits “to be served at some other time.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.14 . . .