Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448

Personal Injury Lawyer

Florida Statute 59.13 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

F.S. 59.13 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:

Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 59.13

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 59
APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 59.13

59.13 Supersedeas on petition for certiorari.—When it appears to the trial court that a petition for certiorari has been or is about to be applied for in an appellate court, the trial court may grant a supersedeas upon petitioner giving a good and sufficient bond, conditioned that the petition shall be duly presented to the appellate court within the time prescribed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and to pay all costs, damages, and expenses occasioned by reason of the stay of proceedings with such other and further conditions as may be fixed by the trial court in the event the order or judgment for which a review is sought is not quashed, modified or reversed.

History.—ss. 1, 7, Feb. 10, 1832; Feb. 17, 1833; Feb. 12, 1836; ss. 3, 4, ch. 521, 1852; RS 1272, 1458; s. 1, ch. 4917, 1901; GS 1701, 1909; RGS 2911, 3170; CGL 4621, 4962; s. 13, ch. 22854, 1945; ss. 3, 5, ch. 71-316.

Note.—Consolidation with former ss. 67.04 and 67.05.

F.S. 59.13 on Google Scholar

F.S. 59.13 on Casetext

Amendments to 59.13

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 59.13

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 59.13.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

FINCH, v. COVIL CORPORATION,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 593 (M.D.N.C. 2019)

. . . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 762 F.3d 339, 351 (4th Cir. 2014) ; 12 Moore's Federal Practice § 59.13 [2][ . . . See 12 Moore's Federal Practice § 59.13 [2][c][i][B]. . . .

OREGON v. M. AZAR II v. M. II, 389 F. Supp. 3d 898 (D. Or. 2019)

. . . . §§ 59.13, 59.14, 59.16 )). . . .

STATE v. AZAR, v. M. II,, 385 F. Supp. 3d 960 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . financially separate ... from activities which are prohibited under section 1008 of the Act and §§ 59.13 . . .

MAYEROVA v. EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY,, 346 F. Supp. 3d 983 (E.D. Mich. 2018)

. . . 42.14% 2012 7524 13092 57.47% 316 757 41.74% 2013 7727 13372 57.78% 313 745 42.01% 2014 7650 12938 59.13% . . .

IN RE MOORE, Jr. v. Jr., 559 B.R. 243 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . Sept. 16, 2014) (quot-ing 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13(3)(c) (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 2002) ("A . . .

KANEKA CORPORATION v. SKC KOLON PI, INC., 198 F. Supp. 3d 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2016)

. . . Moore et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][f]). . . .

NEWTON, v. CITY OF NEW YORK J. J., 171 F. Supp. 3d 156 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13 (3d ed. 2005)). . Nimely v. . . .

SEUNGTAE KIM v. BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC,, 142 F. Supp. 3d 935 (C.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][f]). . . .

ROBERTS, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., 115 F. Supp. 3d 344 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Welch, 871 F.Supp.2d at 174 (citing 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.13(1) at 59-43 (3d ed.2005)); see . . . also 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.13 (3d ed.2015) (same). . . .

E. BILENKY, S. v. RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. U. S. A., 115 F. Supp. 3d 661 (E.D. Va. 2015)

. . . . § 59.13[1] § 59.13. . . .

KINGS DODGE, INC. v. CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC,, 595 F. App'x 530 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . orders submitted, Chrysler decided to increase Kings Dodge’s parts reimbursement to dealer cost plus 59.13% . . . At that point, Chrysler increased its reimbursement rate to dealer cost plus 59.13%, effective July 14 . . .

TURLEY, v. ISG LACKAWANNA, INC. ISG LLC, USA D. C. USA, d b a USA, USA a k a LLC f k a ISG LLC,, 774 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2014)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][g][iii][A], p. 59-82 (3d ed.2013) (footnote omitted . . . court need not offer the plaintiff the option of a new trial,” Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 59.13 . . .

SLACK, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK J. P. O. No., 50 F. Supp. 3d 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . or refusal of instructions to the jury; or (4) damages are excessive; 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.13 . . .

ROSELLO, v. LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD COMPANY,, 50 F. Supp. 3d 242 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . or refusal of instructions to the jury; or (4) damages are excessive. 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.13 . . .

HLT EXISTING FRANCHISE HOLDING LLC, v. WORCESTER HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC,, 994 F. Supp. 2d 520 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . The Hotel received scores of 73.45% for Cleanliness, 99.75% for Standards, and 59.13% for Condition. . . .

GEORGES v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORP., 988 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice, 3rd Ed., Vol. 12 § 59.13[1]. . . .

DAVIDS, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION,, 977 F. Supp. 2d 171 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . or refusal of instructions to the jury; or (4) damages are excessive. 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.13 . . .

LAWSON, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK,, 920 F. Supp. 2d 332 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . or refusal of instructions to the jury; or (4) damages are excessive. 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.13 . . .

PARK WEST GALLERIES, INC. v. HOCHMAN LLC, 692 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . See 12-59 Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][c][ii] (“As with all misconduct cases, the party misconduct . . .

ROMAN, v. WESTERN MANUFACTURING, INCORPORATED,, 691 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . not made to choose between the increased damage award and a new trial.” 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13 . . .

WELCH, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC. d b a UPS,, 871 F. Supp. 2d 164 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . or refusal of instructions to the jury; or (4) damages are excessive. 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.13 . . .

METSO MINERALS, INC. v. POWERSCREEN INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, GB, 833 F. Supp. 2d 282 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . or refusal of instructions to the jury; or (4) damages are excessive. 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.13 . . .

OPTIONAL CAPITAL, INC. a f k a v. KIM, K. J., 414 F. App'x 12 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][f] [iii] (3d ed. 2000) (“A new trial is warranted only . . .

L. BENNETT, v. R L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC,, 744 F. Supp. 2d 494 (E.D. Va. 2010)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 59.13[2][b][i][E], 59.13[2][b][i][B] (3d ed. Lexis 2010). . . .

HENDRIX, v. STERILITE CORPORATION,, 742 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (N.D. Ala. 2010)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][f][i] (3d ed.2007) (emphasis added). . . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][f][ii][B] (3d ed.2007) (emphasis added). . . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][g][ii][C] (3d ed.2008) (emphasis added). . . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][g][ii][A] (3d ed.2008) (emphasis added). . . .

Ad v., 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1284 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2] [d] [vii] (3d ed. 2009) (“Evidence that was available . . .

AD HOC UTILITIES GROUP, v. UNITED STATES, USEC, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][d][vii] (3d ed. 2009) (“Evidence that was available . . .

BLANGSTED, v. SNOWMASS- WILDCAT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, 642 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Colo. 2009)

. . . Moore's Federal Practice, 3d Ed., § 59.13[2][g][D]. . . .

A. HEIMLICHER W. v. O. STEELE, M. D., 615 F. Supp. 2d 884 (N.D. Iowa 2009)

. . . Cowell Steel Structures, Inc., 991 F.2d 474, 477 (8th Cir.1993); 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[ . . .

In J. BILTER, Jr. B. v. J. Jr. S., 413 B.R. 290 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2009)

. . . See 10 Collier on Bankruptcy at ¶ 9023.01[2]; 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[3][a] (Matthew Bender . . .

ORIENTAL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., 598 F. Supp. 2d 199 (D.P.R. 2008)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 3D, 12 § 59.13[2][a] at 59-44 (2003). . . .

SNYDER, v. W. PHELPS, Sr., 533 F. Supp. 2d 567 (D. Md. 2008)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13 (“Remittitur is defined as the process by which a court . . .

ESTATE OF EMBRY, v. GEO TRANSPORTATION OF INDIANA, INC., 478 F. Supp. 2d 914 (E.D. Ky. 2007)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][g][C] (3d ed. 2002 $ Supp. 2006). . . .

MORAN, v. CLARKE,, 323 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. Mo. 2004)

. . . Moore’s Et Al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[1], at 59-43 (3d. ed.1998). . . .

VELEZ, v. G. ROCHE, U. S., 335 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2004)

. . . Practice § 59.13; see also 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Fed. . . .

ROMEO, v. SHERRY, C. v. d b a d b a LTD., 308 F. Supp. 2d 128 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13(3)(c) (3d ed.2002) (stating that prejudgment motions to . . .

ALVAREZ SEPULVEDA, v. COLON MATOS,, 306 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.P.R. 2004)

. . . Moore, supra, 12 § 59.13[2][a] at 59-44. . . . Moore, supra, 12 § 59.13[2][g][iii][A] at 59-82; See also Shu-Tao Lin v. . . . Co., Inc., 917 F.2d 1320, 1328 (2nd Cir.1990); Moore, supra, 12 § 59.13[2][g][iii] at 59-84. . . .

SHEPARD, v. WAPELLO COUNTY, IOWA, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (S.D. Iowa 2003)

. . . Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2806, at 73 (“Wright & Miller”); 12 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 59.13 . . .

K. RYAN, R. v. FORTUNE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY D. v. J. B- T,, 291 F. Supp. 2d 933 (S.D. Iowa 2003)

. . . Caremark, Inc., 20 F.3d 330, 340 (8th Cir.1994); 12 James Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13 . . .

In ALTMAN NURSING, INC., 299 B.R. 813 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2003)

. . . (citing 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.13[3][a](Matthew Bender 3d ed.)). . . .

RIVERA, v. RIVERA,, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Kan. 2003)

. . . See generally 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][f][iii][B], at 59-73 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) . . . credibility in ruling on a motion for a new trial); see also 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra note 36, § 59.13 . . .

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. NEWBRIDGE NETWORKS CORP., 168 F. Supp. 2d 181 (D. Del. 2001)

. . . See 12 James Wm Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.13[2][C] (3d ed.2000). . . .

ISHAY, v. CITY OF NEW YORK,, 158 F. Supp. 2d 261 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][b][E] (3d ed.1997) (“a court’s failure to admit highly . . .

TOTAL CONTAINMENT, INC. v. DAYCO PRODUCTS, INC., 177 F. Supp. 2d 332 (E.D. Pa. 2001)

. . . Prac., 59.13[5] (3d ed. 2000)). I do not dispute that statement as a general matter. . . .

TAYLOR, v. AIRBORNE FREIGHT CORPORATION d b a, 155 F. Supp. 2d 287 (E.D. Pa. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 59.13(1), 59.13[2][f][ii][A]). . . .

LNC INVESTMENTS, INC. Co. Co. v. FIRST FIDELITY BANK, N. J., 126 F. Supp. 2d 778 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . In its discussion of Rule 59, 12 Moore’s Federal Practice (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) says at § 59.13[2][ . . .

In MORRIS, S. v., 252 B.R. 41 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . COQUILLETTE, ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 59.13[3][a], at 59-87 (3rd ed. 2000)(“MOORE ’S”); see . . .

MATTON, v. WHITE MOUNTAIN CABLE CONSTRUCTION CORP., 190 F.R.D. 21 (D. Mass. 1999)

. . . of the objection argued when the evidence was offered for admission.” 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.13 . . . Id. at § 59.13[2][b][ii]. . . .

In C. COVINO, Jr. L. H. v. C. Jr. L. C. III Sr., 241 B.R. 673 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1999)

. . . evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching. 12 Moore’s Federal Practice (1998 3rd ed.) at § 59.13 . . .

MARSHAK, v. TREADWELL, s, 58 F. Supp. 2d 551 (D.N.J. 1999)

. . . Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251, 61 S.Ct. 189, 85 L.Ed. 147 (1940); see also 12 MooRe’s FedeRal Practice § 59.13 . . . Witco Chemical Corp., 829 F.2d 367, 372 (3d Cir.1987)); see also 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[ . . .

J. SHARKEY, v. LASMO AUL LTD., 55 F. Supp. 2d 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 59.13 (3d ed.1998). . . .

HENLEY, v. FMC CORPORATION, a, 189 F.R.D. 340 (S.D.W. Va. 1999)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2][d][ii] (3rd ed.1999); 11 Charles A. . . .

MANNING, v. McGRAW- HILL, INC., 64 F. Supp. 2d 996 (D. Colo. 1998)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 59.13. . . . Moores Federal Practice, 3d Ed., § 59.13[2][g][D], I tend toward the latter, but there is at least a . . .

PROCTER GAMBLE COMPANY, v. PARAGON TRADE BRANDS, INC., 15 F. Supp. 2d 406 (D. Del. 1998)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[1] (3d ed.1998). . . .

A- CAL COPIERS, INC. v. NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INC., 180 F.R.D. 183 (D. Mass. 1998)

. . . unfair by various rulings of the court or actions by opposing counsel. 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.13 . . . See 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, H 59.13[2] [c] [i] [A], at 59-58 to 59-49 (“As a general rule, the movant . . .

In BEST REFRIGERATED EXPRESS, INC., 192 B.R. 503 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1996)

. . . Principal Penalty Interest Date Filed 147 (NE) 1468.16 293.63 59.13 08/14/90 154 (IA) 2211.61 331.74 . . .

HARDIN, L. v. HAYES, T. F. W. A. a R. L., 52 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. 1995)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.13[2] at 59-258-59 (2d ed. 1979)); see also McIsaac v. . . .

I. ACEVEDO- VILLALOBOS, v. HERNANDEZ,, 22 F.3d 384 (1st Cir. 1994)

. . . Moses, 951 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir.1991); Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4); see also 6A Moore, supra ¶ 59.13[3] at 59 . . .

G. BURTON, REPUBLICAN PARTY, T. v. J. SHEHEEN, A. E. T. Y. A. L. I. STATEWIDE REAPPORTIONMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, v. A. CAMPBELL, Jr. I. BLANTON, A. E. Y. A. v. A. CAMPBELL, Jr., 793 F. Supp. 1329 (D.S.C. 1992)

. . . 59.18 55.25 60.39 56.51 -0.42 -0.85 40 54.02 51.49 50.69 48.20 54.06 51.90 -0.04 -0.41 42 59.60 54.43 59.13 . . . 63.24 59.15 62.51 58.61 -11.81 39* 59.18 55.25 60.39 56.51 -12.47 40 50.69 48.20 54.06 51.90 -12.66 42* 59.13 . . .

RUST v. SULLIVAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 500 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1991)

. . . See 42 CFR §§59.1-59.13 (1986). . . .

NATIONAL PASSENGER RAILROAD CORPORATION a k a v. J. MAYLIE, Jr., 910 F.2d 1181 (3d Cir. 1990)

. . . .); see also 6A Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[1] (2d ed. 1983). . . .

CHARLES L. M. R. M. L. M. v. NORTHEAST INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 884 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . judgment resting upon a new ground not involved in the original judgment, 6A Moore’s Federal Practice U 59.13 . . .

SANDERS, v. CLEMCO INDUSTRIES, 862 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1988)

. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.13[4], at 59-302 (2d ed. 1987). III. . . .

MARTIN, v. MABUS, KIRKSEY, v. MABUS,, 700 F. Supp. 327 (S.D. Miss. 1988)

. . . 65% (Henderson, 63.98%; Holman, 61.64%; Simmons, 62.15%; Thompson, 64.01%, Wright, 55.98%; and Brown, 59.13% . . . (Henderson, 63.98%; Holman, 61.64%; Simmons, 62.15%; Thompson, 64.01%, Wright, 55.98%; and Brown, 59.13% . . . (Brown, 59.13%; Holmes, 63.4%; Johnson, 59.83%; Parker, 59.89%; Staple-ton, 49.13%; Turner, 56.4%; and . . . District, Mississippi Supreme Court 45.36% Claudine Brown Tax Assessor and Collector, Leflore County 59.13% . . .

YORK, v. TATE,, 858 F.2d 322 (6th Cir. 1988)

. . . does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. 6A Moore's Federal Practice § 59.13 . . .

BROWN, v. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,, 807 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir. 1987)

. . . As stated in 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.13[4]: “A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule . . .

R. McISAAC, v. DIDRIKSEN FISHING CORP. WISE COMPANY, INC., 809 F.2d 129 (1st Cir. 1987)

. . . Grotheer, Jr., Moore’s Federal Practice 11 59.13[2] at 59-298 (2d ed. 1986). . . .

ROY STONE TRANSFER CORPORATION, v. BUDD COMPANY,, 796 F.2d 720 (4th Cir. 1986)

. . . Co., 718 F.2d 123, 126-128 (5th Cir.1983); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice 59.13; 16 Wright, Miller, Cooper . . .

J. OTTO, v. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a T. M. C. Jr. W. M. T. Jr. S. E. W. N. G. III, F. H. S. J. F. L. D. J. D. D. B. C. J. O. G. D C., 107 F.R.D. 635 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.13[3] (2d ed. 1984). . . .

M. SODERBECK, v. BURNETT COUNTY, WISCONSIN A. M. SODERBECK, v. BURNETT COUNTY, WISCONSIN,, 752 F.2d 285 (7th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 59.13(l)(c). (Maybe the fact that the jury awarded Mrs. . . .

HARRELL, v. DIXON BAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,, 718 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1983)

. . . In 6A Moore’s Federal Practice H 59.13[4], the treatise states that a party’s motion for reconsideration . . .

In J. LOKEN, EAU CLAIRE COUNTY, a v. J. LOKEN,, 32 B.R. 205 (Bank. W.D. Wis. 1983)

. . . . § 59.13(l)(g): (1) Each county officer named in this chapter, except county supervisors, shall execute . . .

GALLIMORE, v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., 635 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice H 59.13[1], at 59-257 (2d ed. 1979) (footnotes omitted). . . .

DIXIE SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY, INC. a v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,, 631 F.2d 73 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . judgment resting upon a new ground not involved in the original judgment, 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ’’ 59.13 . . .

AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, v. M. BUCHANAN, Jr., 372 So. 2d 172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . appellee contends that the stay order was not entered pursuant to Rule 9.310, but pursuant to Section 59.13 . . . stay order was properly entered in the exercise of the discretion of the trial judge under Section 59.13 . . . Appellant says that, therefore, Section 59.13 is in conflict with Rule 9.310 and must fall as unconstitutional . . . It is not necessary for this court to consider the constitutionality of Section 59.13. . . . Section 59.13 reads as follows: When it appears to the trial court that a petition for certiorari has . . .

UNITED STATES v. DIEHL, 460 F. Supp. 1282 (S.D. Tex. 1978)

. . . in an open market is by far the best evidence of their value. 10 Mertens, Federal Income Taxation § 59.13 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HEARST,, 435 F. Supp. 29 (N.D. Cal. 1977)

. . . Moore Federal Practice ¶ 59.13[1], at 59-257 and ¶ 59.13[3], at 59-259 (2d ed. 1974) However, were this . . .

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. INC. v. UNITED STATES, 524 F.2d 1343 (Ct. Cl. 1975)

. . . Mertens, The Law of Federal Income Taxation §§ 59.13 at 42-43, 59.14 at 47 (1970). . . .

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 208 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1975)

. . . Mertens, The Law of Federal Income Taxation §§ 59.13 at 42-43, 59.14 at 47 (1970). . . .

WILSON v. SANDSTROM, FLORIDA GREYHOUND OWNERS BREEDERS ASSOCIATION, INC. a v. WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD. a, 317 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1975)

. . . . § 59.13, which, in turn, was incorporated as Rule 5.1, Florida Appellate Rules, which provides as follows . . .

BANKERS TRUST COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 518 F.2d 1210 (Ct. Cl. 1975)

. . . Mertens, The Law of Federal Income Taxation §§ 59.13 at 42-43, 59.14 at 47 (1970). . . .

BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, FRANCIS D. BUTLER, GILBERT M. HAAS, EARL KNUDSEN, AND NORMAN F. SPRAGUE, JR. TRUSTEES UNDER AGREEMENT OF TRUST DATED JULY TRANSFEREES OF THE ASSETS OF MESABI IRON COMPANY, DISSOLVED v. THE UNITED STATES, 207 Ct. Cl. 422 (Ct. Cl. 1975)

. . . Mertens, The Law of FPderal Income Taxation §§ 59.13 at 42-43, 59.14 at 47 (1970). . . .

UNITED STATES GREENHALGH d b a v. F. D. RICH COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a B G, 520 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1975)

. . . Donovan, 9 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 759, 764; 6A Moore, Federal Practice, H 59.13[2]. . . .

GREEN, v. GREEN C. T. A., 254 So. 2d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

. . . super-sedeas or stay” are synonymous terms as used in Part V of the Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A. and § 59.13 . . .

FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a v. ATLANTIC NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE,, 234 So. 2d 736 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . See Section 59.13(3), F.S.1941, F.S.A.” See also Larson v. . . .

ATLAS PROPERTIES, INC. a v. V. DIDICH, a, 205 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . as the trial court should require in addition for interest and costs, citing rule 5.7 F.A.R., and § 59.13 . . . Section 59.13(3) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. is to like effect. . . . the amount and conditions of supersedeas bond as provided for in such case by rule 5.7 F.A.R., and § 59.13 . . .

EMPRESS HOMES, INC. a v. LEVIN, S., 201 So. 2d 475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . . § 59.13, which section does not mention attorneys’ fees. . . .

M. v. F. M. v., 48 T.C. 502 (T.C. 1967)

. . . See 10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 59.13 (Zimet Rev.). . . .

AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, v. PAN AMERICAN BANK OF MIAMI, 156 So. 2d 27 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)

. . . will be noted that the bond in question was filed under Rule 5.7, Florida Appellate Rules, and Sec. 59.13 . . .

E. LUCKHARDT Co. v. H. PARDIECK W., 142 So. 2d 749 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)

. . . conditions of a supersedeas bond as authorized by Florida Appellate Rule 5.5, 31 F.S.A., and Section 59.13 . . . the terms and conditions of a supersedeas bond is set forth in Florida Appellate Rule 5.8 and Section 59.13 . . . Pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 5.10, and Section 59.13 (6), Florida Statutes, the appellants then . . . See Section 59.13(3), F.S.1941, F.S.A.’ * * * * * * “Anything in Kahn v. . . .

In ESTATE H. WARTMAN, Jr. WARTMAN, v. WARTMAN, H. Jr., 128 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1961)

. . . For example, compare Rules 5.1, F.A.R. through 5.11, F.A.R. and Section 59.13, Florida Statutes (1959 . . .

CARILLON HOTEL v. RODRIGUEZ, 124 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1960)

. . . full commission, file with his application for review a good and sufficient bond, as provided in § 59.13 . . .

SLEEK, v. J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, a, 26 F.R.D. 209 (W.D. Pa. 1960)

. . . Also 6 Moore Federal Practice ■ § 59.13 and 7 Moore Federal Practice § 60.81(8) and Barron and Holzoff . . .

Dr. YATES, M. D. v. B. BEHREND, 280 F.2d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1960)

. . . See 6 Moore, Federal Practice §§ 59.09, 59.13 (1955); Randolph v. . . . See 6 Moore, Federal Practice § 59.13 (1955). . . .

FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES, v. H. PROUDFOOT, 116 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1959)

. . . full commission, file with his application for review a good and sufficient bond, as provided in § 59.13 . . . with his-application for review the commission shall dismiss the application for review * * * Section 59.13 . . . amount and conditions of which shall be fixed by the trial court * * * Petitioner suggests that Section 59.13 . . . point of conflict and alleged confusion suggested by petitioner deals with the provisions of Section 59.13 . . .

E. N. v., 32 T.C. 988 (T.C. 1959)

. . . . $797.04 $398.52 $71.75 $47.82 1950.. 274.76 137.38 24.73 16.49 1961.. 656.98 328.49 59.13 39.42 1952 . . .

L. GRIFFITH, d b a Co. v. VECCHIARELLI,, 97 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1957)

. . . full commission, file with his application for review a good and sufficient bond, as provided in § 59.13 . . .

KELLY v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, 228 F.2d 727 (3d Cir. 1955)

. . . Hess, supra; Moore’s Federal Practice, Vol. 6, ¶¶ 59.09[1], 59.13[1], 59.13[3] (2d ed. 1953). Cf. . . . Moore’s Federal Practice, Vol. 6, ¶ 59.13 [3], n. 3 (2d ed. 1953) . . . .

HORN v. HORN, 73 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1954)

. . . Rule 35 of this Court, 30 F.S.A., and Section 59.13, F.S.1951, F.S.A., provide that every appeal taken . . . Subsection 59.13 (5), supra, is in accord with the rule. . . .

WILSON v. McCOY MFG. CO., 69 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1954)

. . . wary of the shortening of the period where supersedeas is obtained, Supreme Court Rule 35(f), gee. 59.13 . . .