Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 56.20 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 56.20 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 56.20

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 56
FINAL PROCESS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 56.20
56.20 Executions on judgments against third person claimants.If the execution issued on the judgment is not paid, it shall be satisfied in the usual manner unless on demand of the officer holding it, the principal and surety in the claim bond deliver the property released under the claim bond to the officer and pay him or her the damages and costs awarded to the judgment creditor. If the property is returned to the officer but damages and costs are not paid, execution shall be enforced for the damages and costs. If part of the property is returned to the officer, the execution shall be enforced for the value, fixed as aforesaid, of that not returned. All property returned shall be sold under the original execution against the judgment debtor.
History.RS 1201; GS 1630; RGS 2834; CGL 4521; s. 11, ch. 67-254; s. 305, ch. 95-147; s. 13, ch. 2016-33.
Note.Former s. 55.43.

F.S. 56.20 on Google Scholar

F.S. 56.20 on Casetext

Amendments to 56.20


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 56.20
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 56.20.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

ERHART, v. BOFI HOLDING, INC. v., 269 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (S.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . Code §§ 56.20-56.245. . . . One of these provisions, California Civil Code § 56.20(c), provides that “[n]p employer shall use, disclose . . . See id. § 56.20(c). . . .

NAVAJO NATION HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. SAN JUAN COUNTY, 281 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (D. Utah 2017)

. . . . § 56.20(a). . . .

IN RE AMR CORPORATION, ET AL., 562 B.R. 20 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Indeed, the Movants represent that the share price has decreased after peaking at a high of 56.20 a share . . .

BAKER, v. ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION CORPORATION,, 68 F. Supp. 3d 368 (W.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . has established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” 11-56 Moore’s FedeRAL Practice — Civil § 56.20 . . .

BIEL REO, LLC, v. BAREFOOT COTTAGES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC, a H. H., 156 So. 3d 506 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Any person aggrieved by the levy may proceed under ss. 56.16-56.20. .Effective July 1, 2014, Section . . .

NARIA, a v. TROVER SOLUTIONS, INC. A, 967 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . Civ.Code § 56.20. . . .

JACKSON- PLATTS, f. k. a. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION,, 727 F.3d 1127 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . (b), and the court’s order would trigger procedural safeguards — codified at sections 56.16 through 56.20 . . . Any person aggrieved by the levy may proceed under §§ 56.16-56.20. Id. § 56.29(6). . . . .

In HINTON, LLC, a v. C., 378 B.R. 371 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . Any person aggrieved by the levy may proceed under ss. 56.16-56.20. (9) The court may enter any orders . . .

VALLES- HALL, v. CENTER FOR NONPROFIT ADVANCEMENT,, 481 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

. . . Def.’s Ex. 23 (1/12/06 Johnson Dep.) at 212:7-213:17; 216:9-23; Def.’s Ex. 29 (2/28/06 Sanow Dep.) at 56.20 . . .

SANCHEZ, v. CENTURY EVERGLADES, LLC., 946 So. 2d 563 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . argument that Sanchez never filed an affidavit with the county sheriff, pursuant to sections 56.16-56.20 . . .

RUBIN, v. THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, v., 408 F. Supp. 2d 549 (N.D. Ill. 2005)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20 (2ed.l948). . . .

v., 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 867 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)

. . . Commerce recalculated the antidumping duty margins for Kremny and Bratsk to 56.20 percent and 87.08 percent . . . Commerce adjusted and redetermined the antidumping duty margin for Kremny and Bratsk to 56.20 percent . . .

HYDRANAUTICS, v. FILMTEC CORPORATION,, 306 F. Supp. 2d 958 (S.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 769 n. 3 (9th Cir.1981) {quoting 6 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 56.20 . . .

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA v. ECTOR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT d b a MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL,, 241 F. Supp. 2d 617 (W.D. Tex. 2002)

. . . Moore Et El., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20 [3.-4] (stating that interlocutory orders, such as partial . . .

DOE, v. CITY OF CHULA VISTA,, 196 F.R.D. 562 (S.D. Cal. 1999)

. . . Civil Code § 56.20. . . . Civil Code § 56.20. . . .

M. FRITSCH, v. CITY OF CHULA VISTA, 187 F.R.D. 614 (S.D. Cal. 1999)

. . . The California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Civil Code § 56.20, provides: ( . . . Order, this Court declined to issue an order as to whether or not the exception set forth in Section 56.20 . . . that the plaintiff has not placed her mental or physical condition “in issue” within the meaning of § 56.20 . . . Plaintiff has not placed her mental condition “in issue” in this case within the meaning of Section 56.20 . . .

In AIR CRASH DISASTER NEAR WARSAW, POLAND ON MAY KIRSCH, v. LOT POLICY AIRLINES, a k a CWIK, Jr. s K. s s s s v. LOT POLISH AIRLINES, a k a, 979 F. Supp. 164 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Moore, 6 pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.20[3. . . . Moore, 6 pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.20[3.-l] at 56-90. . . .

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. L. E. MYERS CO. GROUP, L. E. Co. L. E. MYERS CO. GROUP, L. E. Co. v. EMAR COMPANY,, 937 F. Supp. 276 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20, at 56-699 (2d ed. 1995); see also URI Cogeneration Partners . . .

BOWLING, v. PFIZER, INC., 922 F. Supp. 1261 (S.D. Ohio 1996)

. . . break down as follows: Attorneys’ Time — 8,299.99 hours Paralegals’ Time — 1,349.95 hours Law Clerks — 56.20 . . .

DAILEY, v. SOCIETE GENERALE,, 915 F. Supp. 1315 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . 1,296.80 Binding 31.00 Messenger service 403.25 Facsimile 62.00 Federal Express 259.75 Oversized postage 56.20 . . .

WHITFORD, v. BOGLINO,, 63 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 1995)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20[2] (2d ed. 1994). . . .

COLONIAL AUTO CENTER, INC. v. TOMLIN,, 184 B.R. 720 (W.D. Va. 1995)

. . . Alvarez, 735 F.2d 461 (11th Cir.1984) (citing 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20(2) (1982)). . . .

ALGIE, v. RCA GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. MCI, 891 F. Supp. 875 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . Moore et ano., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20[3.-3] at 56-701 & n. 10 (2d Ed.1993) (citing cases); . . . id. ¶ 56.20[3-4] at 56-704 to 05 (citing Coffman v. . . .

ANTENOR, v. D S FARMS, S. a k a Ag-, 866 F. Supp. 1389 (S.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.20 (2d ed. 1948). . . .

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. D. MASSINGILL,, 24 F.3d 768 (5th Cir. 1994)

. . . Insured Lloyd’s, 786 F.2d 1265, 1269-70 (5th Cir.1986) (quoting 6 Part 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20 . . .

COLFAX ENVELOPE CORPORATION, v. LOCAL NO. CHICAGO GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL- CIO,, 20 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 1994)

. . . The seller quoted a price of “fifty-six twenty,” which the buyer thought meant $56.20. . . . The buyer in Konic thought — really thought — that he was being quoted a price of $56.20, and no doubt . . .

USA PETROLEUM COMPANY, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY,, 13 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 1994)

. . . See 6A Moore's Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 56.20[3.-0] to [3.-3], at 56-684 to 56-699 (noting the variety . . .

HEUBLEIN, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 996 F.2d 1455 (2d Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 56.20(b)(10) (1983), entitled, “Registration requirements for AFDC applicants and recipients; State . . .

A. ANIXTER K. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, S. E. M. A. Jr. J. D. H. B. H. L. C. Jr. C. Jr. A. M. ANDERSON A. V. T. J. H. S. W. B. B. H. M. C. H. H. H. W. J. D. E. A. M. F. B. F. D. G. F. W. A. A. G. C. W. E. A. T. Jr. M. D. D. M. L. A. E. R. E. G. H. B. Jr. B. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a S. a A. Jr. E. M. a C. Jr. C. Jr. A. M. ANDERSON J. E. P. K. A. J. B. V. S. W. H. C. L. L. H. H. W. L. A. F. H. E. A. G. C. B. D. D. W. D. B. G. F. F. A. C. W. H. T. M. D. D. M. L. P. R. J. G. B. J. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a S. E. M. A. Jr. D. A. a C. Jr. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, J. A. J. H. V. S. W. H. L. L. H. H. H. W. J. D. C. E. A. M. E. III W. S. G. B. D. W. D. B. G. F. W. F. A. J. C. W. J. O. E. A. T. Jr. D. D. M. L. C. S. J. G. J. H. B. Jr. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a S. a A. Jr. E. M. a D. A. a C. Jr. A. ANIXTER H. D. K. B. H. P. D. D. H. H. H. C. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, S. H. L. H. R. E. T. A. Jr. E. M. M. R. C. J. D. H. B. E. E. A. D. A. C. Jr. A. ANIXTER K. C. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, S. E. M. A. Jr. J. D. H. B. H. L. C. Jr. a a a a a E. A. D. T. E. M. R. E. H. R. C. A. a a A. ANIXTER K. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, S. A. Jr. J. D. H. B. H. L. C. Jr. E. M. J. ANTON H. M. S. W. B. H. L. L. H. S. H. W. H. W. L. A. M. C. Jr. M. P. J. B. F. B. D. D. W. D. B. F. K. W. G. H. D. K. C. W. H. D. D. M. L. R. J. P. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a D. A. a S. A. Jr. E. M. H. BLESH J. S. W. B. H. L. L. H. L. A. F. H. D. Jr. A. D. D. W. D. B. F. F. K. G. H. D. C. W. H. D. D. M. L. J. C. G. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a S. A. Jr. a E. M. A. M. ANDERSON A. V. T. J. H. S. W. B. B. H. M. C. H. H. H. W. J. D. E. A. M. F. B. F. D. G. F. W. A. A. G. C. W. E. A. T. Jr. M. D. D. M. L. A. E. R. G. H. B. Jr. B. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a S. a A. Jr. a C. Jr. E. M. H. BLESH J. S. W. B. H. L. L. H. S. L. A. F. H. D. M. Jr. A. D. B. J. F. B. D. W. D. B. F. F. K. G. H. D. C. W. H. D. D. M. L. J. C. G. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, S. A. Jr. a E. M. A. M. ANDERSON J. E. P. K. A. J. B. V. S. W. H. C. L. L. H. H. W. L. F. H. E. A. G. C. B. D. D. W. D. B. G. F. F. A. C. W. H. T. M. D. D. M. L. P. R. J. G. B. J. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a M. A. Jr. a C. Jr. D. A. a S. A. M. ANDERSON A. V. T. J. H. S. W. B. B. H. M. C. H. H. H. W. J. D. E. A. M. F. B. F. D. G. F. W. A. A. G. C. W. E. A. T. Jr. M. D. D. M. L. A. E. R. G. H. B. Jr. B. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, S. A. M. ANDERSON A. V. T. J. H. S. W. B. B. H. M. C. H. H. H. W. J. D. E. A. M. F. B. B. F. D. G. F. W. A. A. G. C. W. E. A. T. Jr. M. D. D. M. L. A. E. R. E. G. H. B. Jr. B. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a a A. Jr. E. M. a C. Jr. C. Jr. S. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, J. A. J. H. V. S. W. H. L. L. H. H. H. W. J. D. C. E. A. M. E. III W. S. G. B. D. W. D. B. G. F. W. F. A. J. C. W. J. O. E. A. T. Jr. D. D. M. L. C. S. J. G. J. H. B. Jr. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a a A. Jr. E. M. a C. Jr. D. A. a S. J. ANTON H. M. S. W. B. H. L. L. H. S. H. W. H. W. L. A. M. C. Jr. M. P. J. B. F. B. D. D. W. D. B. F. K. W. G. H. D. K. C. W. H. D. D. M. L. R. J. P. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY S. J. ANTON H. M. S. W. B. H. L. L. H. S. H. W. H. W. L. A. C. H. Jr. M. P. J. B. F. B. D. D. W. F. K. W. G. H. D. K. C. W. H. D. D. M. L. R. J. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a D. A. a E. M. A. Jr. S. H. BLESH J. S. W. B. H. L. L. H. L. A. F. H. D. Jr. A. D. D. W. D. B. F. F. K. G. H. D. C. W. H. D. D. M. L. J. C. G. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, A. Jr. E. M. a S. H. BLESH J. S. W. B. H. L. L. H. L. A. F. H. D. Jr. A. D. D. W. D. B. F. F. K. G. H. D. C. W. H. D. D. M. L. J. C. G. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a A. Jr. E. M. S. A. ANIXTER K. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, E. M. A. Jr. J. D. H. B. H. L. C. Jr. S. A. ANIXTER K. v. HOME- STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, S. E. M. A. Jr. J. D. H. B. H. L. C. Jr. E., 977 F.2d 1533 (10th Cir. 1992)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice 11 56.20[3.-4], at 56-707 (2d ed. 1992). . . .

AMERICAN PERMAC, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 800 F. Supp. 952 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1992)

. . . Erickson’s Inc., 396 F.2d 134, 136 (5th Cir.1968); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20[3.-4] (2d ed. 1988 . . .

v., 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 672 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1992)

. . . Erickson’s Inc., 396 F.2d 134, 136 (5th Cir. 1968); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice paragraph 56.20[3.-4] . . .

MEEK, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA,, 805 F. Supp. 958 (S.D. Fla. 1992)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.20 (2d ed. 1948). . . .

EXCELETECH, INC. v. S. W. WILLIAMS,, 579 So. 2d 850 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Any person aggrieved by the levy may proceed under ss. 56.16-56.20. . . .

AMERICANS DISABLED FOR ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ADAPT SALT LAKE CHAPTER, G. v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., 762 F. Supp. 320 (D. Utah 1991)

. . . summary judgment for any portion of a claim less than the whole. 6 — Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶[ 56.20 . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. SHUMINER,, 567 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1990)

. . . , paid his client, but failed to satisfy a doctor’s lien for $500 and failed to pay sales taxes of $56.20 . . .

J. BODINE, Jr. v. FEDERAL KEMPER LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY,, 912 F.2d 1373 (11th Cir. 1990)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20[1] (2d ed. 1988) (partial summary judgment is interlocutory . . .

In GULPH WOODS CORPORATION, NASSAU SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, v. W. MILLER, W. S. Jr., 116 B.R. 423 (Bankr. E.D. La. 1990)

. . . MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE, ¶ 56.20[3.-0], at 56-684 (2d ed.1990). . . .

F. DALTON, a v. ALSTON BIRD, 741 F. Supp. 1322 (S.D. Ill. 1990)

. . . have come from the judicial effort in deciding the motion. 6 Part 2 Moore Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.20 . . .

In C. SAUNDERS A., 101 B.R. 303 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1989)

. . . Any person aggrieved by the levy may proceed under §§ 56.16-56.20. . . .

JACKSONVILLE BULLS FOOTBALL, LTD. v. T. BLATT,, 535 So. 2d 626 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Any person aggrieved by the levy may proceed under ss. 56.16-56.20.” . . . .

In CONSTRUCTORA MAZA, INC. FEDERAL INSURANCE CO. v. HOUSING INVESTMENT CORP., 93 B.R. 838 (D.P.R. 1988)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice If 56.20[3. — 4] (2d ed. 1988). See also Coffman v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MOTTOLO, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. MOTTOLO,, 695 F. Supp. 615 (D.N.H. 1988)

. . . .-20[1], 56.20[3.—2] to [3.-3] (2d ed. 1988). . . .

R. YOUELL, s, No. v. MADDOX, d b a J M, 692 F. Supp. 343 (D. Del. 1988)

. . . See 6 Part 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20[l]-[3-4]. . . .

HAFFER, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION,, 678 F. Supp. 517 (E.D. Pa. 1987)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20[3.-1] at 56-1214 (collecting cases). . . .

J. W. MANN, v. GCC BEVERAGES, INC. d b a d b a, 490 So. 2d 184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Section 56.16 is part of a legislative scheme, encompassing sections 56.16 through 56.20, Florida Statutes . . .

AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC. v. INSURED LLOYD S,, 786 F.2d 1265 (5th Cir. 1986)

. . . With respect to such interlocutory, partial summary judgments, 6 Part 2 Moore’s Federal Practice 11 56.20 . . .

YORK, D. J. B. M. A. M. A. F. R. L. a v. ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION S. A. C. B. Jr. L. C. Jr. J. F., 631 F. Supp. 78 (M.D. Ala. 1986)

. . . 946.15 hours Blacksher............................ 224.80 hours Cochran.............................. 56.20 . . . ATTORNEY HOURS RATE TOTAL Stein 946.15 $ 95 $89,884.25 Blacksher 224.80 115 25,852.00 Cochran 56.20 75 . . .

ZIMZORES a k a v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,, 778 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1985)

. . . Such a “judgment” is not final or appealable. 6 Part 2 Moore’s Federal Practice 11 56.20[4], at 56-1234 . . .

LOVEJOY ELECTRONICS, INC. v. N. O BERTO,, 616 F. Supp. 1464 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20 (2d ed. 1948). . . .

ARADO, v. GENERAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER CORPORATION,, 626 F. Supp. 506 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . effort” to resolve a full-fledged summary judgment motion. 6 Pt. 2 Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20 . . .

A. A. v., 84 T.C. 1192 (T.C. 1985)

. . . Bloomberg June 8, 1966 281.00 56.20 R. Mittman June 8, 1966 140.50 28.10 L. . . .

CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. v. PROGRESS RECORD DISTRIBUTING, INC., 106 F.R.D. 25 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice U 56.20[3.-2] & [3.-3], pp. 56-1219 & 56-1225 (1982 & Supp.1984-85). . . . Moore, supra, at 11 56.20[3.-2]; 10A C. Wright & A. Miller & M. Kane, supra, at § 2736. . . . Moore, supra, at ¶ 56.20[3.-2], pp. 56-1215 to 56-1217. . . . Moore, supra, at ¶ 56.20[3.-3], p. 56-1223. . . .

UNITED STATES v. PEPE UNITED STATES v. FACCHIANO,, 747 F.2d 632 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . here, the court tracked the language of Devitt & Black-mar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 56.20 . . .

In E. SMITH, E. SMITH, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ALBANY,, 735 F.2d 459 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20(2) (1982). . . .

C. SCHULTZ v. UNITED STATES, 5 Cl. Ct. 412 (Cl. Ct. 1984)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, 11 56.20 (2d ed. 1982). . . .

In HUDSON VALLEY QUALITY MEATS, INC. PLOTKIN, v. SUNFLOWER BEEF PACKERS, INC., 29 B.R. 67 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20 (2nd ed. 1982). Settle an appropriate order. . . . .

C. NEFF, v. ADLER L., 416 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Any person aggrieved by the levy may proceed under ss. 56.16-56.20. (9) The Court may enter any orders . . .

CROSBY, v. BOWLING F., 683 F.2d 1068 (7th Cir. 1982)

. . . . §§ 56.20, 56.51, and 56.77 (1978); 45 C.F.R. §§ 224.50, 224.51, and 225.77 (1978). . . .

G. YEAGER, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,, 678 F.2d 315 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.20[4] (2d ed. 1976). . . .

GOMEZ, v. T. TURNER, Jr., 672 F.2d 134 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.20[4] (2d ed. 1976). . . .

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

. . . S 21°57,03" E 56.20 feet; 828. S 25°48'52" W 67^4 feet; 829. . . .

BALLY CASE COOLER, INC. v. H. KAISER ASSOCIATES, INC., 514 F. Supp. 352 (S.D. Fla. 1981)

. . . Any person aggrieved by the levy may proceed under ss. 56.16-56.20. (7) At any time the court may refer . . .

MATALA, v. CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, MATALA, v. MARSHALL,, 647 F.2d 427 (4th Cir. 1981)

. . . Due Operator/Day By Matala/Day To Transfer/Day Transfer to 4/30/75 55.56 55.56 0 5/1/75 to 7/31/75 56.20 . . . 56.20 0 8/1/75 to 10/31/75 56.76 56.76 0 11/1/75 to 12/5/75 57.32 57.32 0 Dates Continuous Coal Amt. . . .

A. LIES, v. FARRELL LINES, INC., 641 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1981)

. . . would tend to confuse and complicate a lawsuit. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice [hereinafter Moore’s] •' 56.20 . . .

BRIERWOOD SHOE CORPORATION, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK, AND CO., 501 F. Supp. 144 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)

. . . See 6 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20[3.-2], Rather, in combination with Rule 16, Fed.R.Civ.P. . . .

In MEDICO ASSOCIATES, INC. G. FISHER, Jr. M. v. J. SMITH, P. M. D. C., 23 B.R. 295 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1980)

. . . See, Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.20[4] at 56 . . .

In DATA GENERAL CORPORATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 490 F. Supp. 1089 (N.D. Cal. 1980)

. . . salvage all constructive results of summary judgment proceedings. 6 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20 . . . See also 6 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20[3—1] at 56-1214 (1979). . . . .

BRAGER COMPANY, INC. v. LEUMI SECURITIES CORPORATION, B. M., 84 F.R.D. 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice (pt. 2) ¶ 56.20[3. -3], at 56.1223. . . .

W. CONNELLY v. WOLF, BLOCK, SCHORR AND SOLIS- COHEN, 463 F. Supp. 914 (E.D. Pa. 1978)

. . . Big Wheel Distributing Co., 355 F.2d 114 (3d Cir. 1965); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20[3.-3] (2d . . .

A. HEDRICK v. S. BONACCURSO SONS, INC., 466 F. Supp. 1025 (E.D. Pa. 1978)

. . . .-35[1], 56.20[.3 — 3]. . . .

L. MOSS, v. WARD J., 450 F. Supp. 591 (W.D.N.Y. 1978)

. . . summary judgment may be issued with respect to one of several claims. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.20 . . .

VALERIO, v. BOISE CASCADE CORP. Co. J. E., 80 F.R.D. 626 (N.D. Cal. 1978)

. . . issues of fact which are not dispositive of any claim or part thereof.’ ” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20 . . .

JAMES B. AND ALICE J. MONFORE v. THE UNITED STATES, 214 Ct. Cl. 705 (Ct. Cl. 1977)

. . . Plaintiffs received a gross income of $236 less $56.20 which was apparently a rental commission due Milie . . .

MISSION BAY CAMPLAND, INC. a v. SUMNER FINANCIAL CORPORATION a C., 71 F.R.D. 432 (M.D. Fla. 1976)

. . . Any person aggrieved by the levy may proceed under §§ 56.16-56.20. (7) At any time the court may refer . . .

McLEAN, v. MATHEWS, W. J. Jr., 466 F. Supp. 977 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)

. . . (c) If an individual registered on a voluntary basis, pursuant to § 56.20 of this part, discontinues . . .

FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOSEPH J. BIAFORE, INC., 526 F.2d 170 (3d Cir. 1975)

. . . .) ¶ 56.20[4] at 2762-65. . . .

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, 399 F. Supp. 12 (W.D. Pa. 1975)

. . . Vol. 6 ¶ 56.20 [3.-3] at p. 2756. This we have attempted to do herein. . . .

CHELSEA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE E. T., 516 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1975)

. . . Nor is denial of a motion for summary judgment appealable. 6 Id., 1 56.20[2], at 2745. . . .

PARKS v. MR. FORD d b a s MULDOWNEY, Jr. v. INTERNATIONAL CYCLES, INC., 386 F. Supp. 1251 (E.D. Pa. 1974)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20 [1]. . . . .

In DIAMOND DOOR COMPANY, a v. LANE- STANTON LUMBER COMPANY, a, 505 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1974)

. . . See 6 Moore, Federal Practice § 56.20 [3.-4] at 2759-2760 (2d Ed.). . . .

E. R. v., 63 T.C. 18 (T.C. 1974)

. . . a summary judgment on evidentiary matters en route to that relief. 6 Moore, Federal Practice, par. 56.20 . . .

In GYPSUM CASES, 386 F. Supp. 959 (N.D. Cal. 1974)

. . . Pleadings, interrogatories, motions, pretrial orders 151.40 67.80 99.40 56.20 3. . . . Research on pass-on and remoteness issues 56.20 9. Damage analysis 34.70 10. Other time 119.70 11. . . . the pilot “dealer” cases, 85 hours devoted to the work of the subcommittee of three states and the 56.20 . . .

AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 359 F. Supp. 887 (S.D. Tex. 1973)

. . . Laboratories, Inc., 171 F.2d 94 (3rd Cir. 1948); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 5614(2) at 2258 and 56.20 . . . a summary interlocutory order which is not made appealable by statute. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.20 . . .

UNITED STATES v. M. BOTTENFIELD, G., 442 F.2d 1007 (3d Cir. 1971)

. . . as provided in Rule 54(b), then the judgment is final” and appealable. 6 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 56.20 . . .

DENVER ROCKETS, a a v. ALL- PRO MANAGEMENT, INC. a Al HAYWOOD, v. DENVER ROCKETS, a a a, 325 F. Supp. 1049 (C.D. Cal. 1971)

. . . See generally, 6 Moore’s Federal Practice If 56.20 [3.-2], at 2750-51. . . .

INDUSTRIAL BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. v. INTERCHEMICAL CORPORATION,, 437 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1970)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice f[ 56.20 [3.-4] (2d ed. 1966). . . .

VOLK, v. ZLOTOFF, M. H., 318 F. Supp. 864 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.20 [3-4], at 2759-60 (2d ed. 1966). . . .

SONOBOND CORPORATION, v. UTHE TECHNOLOGY, INC. UTHE TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. SONOBOND CORPORATION, 314 F. Supp. 878 (N.D. Cal. 1970)

. . . Plumb, Inc., 30 F.R.D. 176 (E.D.Pa.1962) (patent infringement case); and 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.20 . . .

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES, 305 F. Supp. 516 (S.D.N.Y. 1969)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.20[3. — 1]', at 2750 (2d ed. 1966). So ordered. . . .

G. ADAMEK, v. CITY OF PORT RICHEY, a, 214 So. 2d 374 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice Par. 56.20; 31 F.S.A. Rule 1.510, Author’s Comment. LILES, C. . . .

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. ERICKSON S, INC., 396 F.2d 134 (5th Cir. 1968)

. . . See discussion at 6 Moore, Federal Practice, § 56.20 [3.-1]. . . . Oltmer Iron Works, 154 F.2d 214 (7th Cir. 1946); 6 Moore, supra, § 56.20 [3.-1]. . . .

ASSOCIATED HARDWARE SUPPLY CO. v. BIG WHEEL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY,, 355 F.2d 114 (3d Cir. 1965)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ff 56.20 [1] et seq. . . .

MARTIN v. WISE, W. D. W. De La, 38 F.R.D. 477 (D.V.I. 1965)

. . . .) § 56.20 [3], page 2303. . . . .) § 56.20[3], page 2307. . . .

W. KLEBANOFF, v. MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, v. W. KLEBANOFF, W. W. M., 246 F. Supp. 935 (D. Conn. 1965)

. . . Rule 54(b): . 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 111154.40, 54.41 [1], 56.20[3], 56.20 [4], 56.21 [1] (2d ed. . . .

DUNDEE WINE SPIRITS, LTD. v. GLENMORE DISTILLERIES COMPANY,, 238 F. Supp. 283 (E.D.N.Y. 1965)

. . . in such a case only an order specifying the non-controverted facts. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, par. 56.20 . . .

ATLAS ALUMINUM CORPORATION v. BORDEN CHEMICAL CORPORATION, 233 F. Supp. 53 (E.D. Pa. 1964)

. . . this should be called an ‘interlocutory summary adjudication’. 6 Moore, Federal Practice (1953), § ■56.20 . . . Beryllium Corp., 211 F.Supp. 452, 456 (E.D.Pa.1962); 6 Moore, Federal Practice, § 56.20 (1953). . . .

G. DRIVER, v. F. A. MITCHELL CO. E. M. Co., 35 F.R.D. 226 (E.D. Pa. 1964)

. . . this should be called an “interlocutory summary adjudication”. 6 Moore, Federal Practice (1953), § 56.20 . . . Beryllium Corp., 211 F.Supp. 452, 456 (E.D.Pa.1962); 6 Moore, Federal Practice (1953), § 56.20. . . . .

FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP. a v. YOUNG a, 162 So. 2d 303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

. . . See 6 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 56.20[3] Part 3 (2nd ed. 1953) ; and Annot. 75 A.L.R.2d 1201, 1209-1213 . . .

ALBATROSS SHIPPING CORPORATION, v. R. STEWART,, 326 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1964)

. . . of fact and conclusions of law on the whole case (Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., Vol. 6, Section 56.20 . . .