The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 59
APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 59.15

59.15 Proceedings in pais; authentication.—Proceedings in pais, not stenographically reported, may be authenticated by recitals in orders, judgments, or decrees, of the trial court, or of the judge thereof, or by a stipulation by the interested parties.

History.—s. 68, Nov. 23, 1828; s. 1, ch. 138, 1848; RS 1268; GS 1696; s. 10, ch. 7838, 1919; RGS 2906; CGL 4616; s. 15, ch. 22854, 1945; s. 5, ch. 71-316.

F.S. 59.15 on Google Scholar

F.S. 59.15 on Casetext

Amendments to 59.15

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 59.15

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 59.15.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

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

. . . . § 59.15 ). . . . Reg. at 7789 (to be codified at 42 C.F.R. § 59.15 ). . . . See id. at 7789 (to be codified at 42 C.F.R. § 59.15 (requiring separation of activities prohibited under . . . Id. at 7789 (to be codified at 42 C.F.R. § 59.15 ) In explaining its reasoning for adding physical separation . . .

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

. . . ." § 59.15. . . . Requirement is Arbitrary and Capricious Plaintiffs contend the physical separation requirement in § 59.15 . . . entrances and exits, shared phone numbers, email addresses, educational services, and websites.)" § 59.15 . . .

HALLEY, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., 141 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2015)

. . . wage for Plaintiff allowed under the Aetna LTD Policy, that is, 80% of his pre-disability earnings: $59.15 . . .

TORGERSON v. CITY OF ROCHESTER,, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . Phase II physical agility -Veterans’ points -Veterans’ points 1 60.95 2 91.826 1 2 61.60 1 90.984 2 3 59.15 . . .

BORRERO, v. CITY OF CHICAGO,, 456 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2006)

. . . CFTC, 768 F.2d 1542, 1546-47 (7th Cir.1985); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15[1], at p. 59-288 and . . .

ALZA CORPORATION v. MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC., 310 F. Supp. 2d 610 (D. Vt. 2004)

. . . At trial Alza reduced the number of claims it was asserting against Mylan to four: claims 59.11, 59.15 . . . Claims 59.11 and 59.15 are process claims. . . . ug/hr, nor is the limitation inherent in the reference, the Keith patent does not anticipate claim 59.15 . . . nor is the limitation inherent in the reference, the Keith patent does not anticipate claims 59.11, 59.15 . . . concludes that Mylan’s ANDA filing for a generic version of Duragesic® infringes claims 27.25, 59.11, 59.15 . . .

In BLACK, v., 260 B.R. 134 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2001)

. . . price per square foot of living space of $64.17 compared with the Debtors’ appraiser’s estimate of $59.15 . . . Using the sales price per square foot of living space, the Court notes that the Debtors’ estimate is $59.15 . . . ($104,400 h-1765 = $59.15) and Conseco’s estimate is $64.17 ($118,000 4- 1839 = $64.17). . . .

BAKER, v. DORFMAN,, 239 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2000)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15[4] (2d ed.1983). . . .

PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCT AND SEWER AUTHORITY, v. CONSTRUCTORA LLUCH, INC. CNA, 169 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1999)

. . . (citing 6A Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.15[3], at 326-27 (2d ed.1987)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 955, . . .

In WILLIAM CARGILE CONTRACTOR, INC. SLUTSKY, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY INC., 209 B.R. 435 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore, supra ¶ 59.15[4] at 294). . . .

In F. JOHNSON, UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. F. JOHNSON,, 203 B.R. 1017 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1997)

. . . Loken (In re Loken) 32 B.R. 205 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1983) (Wisconsin Statute § 112.01(l)(b) & § 59.15(l)(b . . .

UNITED STATES v. COLVIN,, 203 B.R. 930 (N.D. Tex. 1996)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶59.15[4] at 294 (1979)). . . .

CMM CABLE REP, INC. d b a v. OCEAN COAST PROPERTIES, INC. d b a WPOR- FM, CMM CABLE REP, INC. d b a v. OCEAN COAST PROPERTIES, INC. d b a WPOR- FM,, 97 F.3d 1504 (1st Cir. 1996)

. . . Wells Real Estate, 850 F.2d at 811 (citing 6A Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.15[3], at 326-27 (2d ed. . . .

R. KING, v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, E. E. D. M. Al, 979 F. Supp. 582 (N.D. Ill. 1996)

. . . Rosebrook plan, which contain an Hispanic majority district with corresponding concentrations of 65.00% and 59.15% . . .

UNITED STATES v. W. PECKHAM, M., 72 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 1995)

. . . Northland Aluminum Prods., 678 F.2d 746, 751 n. 12 (8th Cir.1982) (citing 6A Moore’s Federal Practice at 59.15 . . .

BALL, C. A. D. J. T. G. v. INTEROCEANICA CORPORATION, M V M V M V, 71 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 1995)

. . . because the district court excluded or failed to consider competent evidence, see Moore et al., supra ¶ 59.15 . . .

A. LINTON, v. W. GROW,, 183 B.R. 838 (S.D. Ind. 1995)

. . . Schmidt, 583 F.2d 302, 306 (7th Cir.1978); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.15[1]. . . .

VELAZQUEZ, v. J. FIGUEROA- GOMEZ, VELAZQUEZ, v. J. FIGUEROA,, 996 F.2d 425 (1st Cir. 1993)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.15[3], at 326-27 (2d ed. 1987)). . . .

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)

. . . 59.30 55.51 58.34 54.61 1.72 1.22 32 62.49 57.81 58.15 53.90 59.85 55.15 2.64 2.66 36 63.67 59.92 63.24 59.15 . . . 48.04 54.30 50.86 -17.89 30* 59.30 55.51 58.34 54.61 -17.54 32 58.15 53.90 59.85 55.15 -16.06 36 63.24 59.15 . . .

C. FIORE, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER,, 960 F.2d 229 (1st Cir. 1992)

. . . Grotheer, Jr., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15[1] at 59-288 & n. 4 (1991) (collecting cases). . . .

J. HASTERT, E. M. J. H. v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, J. M. A. E. E. D. L. NIEVES, Al D. L. D. Jr. V. A. v. ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS, J. M. A. E. E. D. L. COLLINS, N. S. B. L. v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, J. M. A. P. E. E. D. ROSEBROOK, v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, J. M. A. E. E. D. L. CHICAGO URBAN LEAGUE, R. C. v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, J. M. A. P. E. E. D. L., 777 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ill. 1991)

. . . The Hispanic Rosebrook district contains corresponding concentrations of 65.00% total and 59.15% voting . . . 571,535 153,331 (26.83) 34,141 (5.97) 371,500 (65.00) -VAP 383,556 125,560 (32.74) 20,149 (5.25) 226,877 (59.15 . . .

NATIONAL METAL FINISHING COMPANY, INC. v. BARCLAYSAMERICAN COMMERCIAL, INC., 899 F.2d 119 (1st Cir. 1990)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15[4], at 311 (2d ed.1989). . . .

J. DALEY, v. WEBB,, 885 F.2d 486 (8th Cir. 1989)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15[3] (2d ed. 1989). . . .

NEBEL, J. v. AVICHAL ENTERPRISES, INC. t d b a N., 125 F.R.D. 415 (D.N.J. 1989)

. . . Id. at 94 (citing 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶59.15[1] at 59—273ff; and 11 Federal Practice and Procedure . . .

WELLS REAL ESTATE, INC. v. GREATER LOWELL BOARD OF REALTORS,, 850 F.2d 803 (1st Cir. 1988)

. . . See 6A Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.15[3], at 326-27 (2d ed. 1987). Cf. Carlton v. H.C. . . .

CATULLO, v. S. METZNER, E. ROBERTS A. CATULLO, v. S. METZNER,, 834 F.2d 1075 (1st Cir. 1987)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice 11 59.15[4] (2d ed. 1987). See also Walker v. . . .

PATE, L. v. SEABOARD RAILROAD, INC. d b a N., 819 F.2d 1074 (11th Cir. 1987)

. . . Grotheer, Moore's Federal Practice ¶59.15[1] (2d ed. 1986). . . .

MAZZOLA, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 795 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1986)

. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15[4] n. 9 (2d ed. 1985) II. . . .

JOHNSON, v. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN- MILWAUKEE,, 783 F.2d 59 (7th Cir. 1986)

. . . Hennessy, 583 F.2d at 306; see also Moore’s II 59.15[1] at pp. 59-309 — 59-311. . . .

E. CARDOZA, v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 768 F.2d 1542 (7th Cir. 1985)

. . . The MS Benares, 429 F.2d 307, 317-18 (2d Cir.1970); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15[1], [4] (1985 . . . the same effect on the finality of the judgment for purposes of appeal, 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15 . . .

KOSHATKA, v. PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPERS, INC. d b a, 762 F.2d 329 (3d Cir. 1985)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice II 59.15[4] (2d ed. 1984); see also, Cowger v. . . .

J. ADAMS, T. J. R. J. M. A. M. A. A. J. E. Jr. T. F. H. J. D. A. M. M. A. O M. J. C. V. J. T. F. L. J. W. W. C. C. v. GOULD INC. St., 739 F.2d 858 (3d Cir. 1984)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.15[4] at 59-336. . . .

RAILROAD DYNAMICS, INC. v. A. STUCKI COMPANY,, 727 F.2d 1506 (Fed. Cir. 1984)

. . . Moore’s supra, ¶ 59.15[3]. . . .

ITT LIGHTING FIXTURES, DIVISION OF ITT CORPORATION, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, UAW, 718 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . See 6A Moore’s Federal Practice j[59.15[l] (1983). . . .

J. McCARTHY, v. MANSON,, 714 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15[4] (2d ed. 1983). . . .

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

. . . . § 59.15(l)(b) which requires officials to remit fees collected at the end of each month. . . . The question then becomes whether the duties imposed by Wis.Stat. § 59.15 are sufficient to create the . . . upon which judgment has herein been ordered is not dischargeable in this bankruptcy case. .Wis.Stat. § 59.15 . . . For the text of Wis.Stat. § 59.15(l)(b), see note 1 supra. . . . .

D. CROWEL, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OF WASHINGTON, D. C., 699 F.2d 347 (7th Cir. 1983)

. . . error as harmless and treat the appeal as taken from the judgment.’ 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, 1f 59.15 . . .

CREATIVE COOKWARE, INC. v. NORTHLAND ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC. CREATIVE COOKWARE, INC. v. NORTHLAND ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC., 678 F.2d 746 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . standard applies to review of rulings on motions to alter or amend judgment. 6A Moore’s Federal Practice 59.15 . . .

In LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY,, 19 B.R. 978 (E.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . The balance of these escrow accounts, including interest to July 1, 1982, will be approximately $59.15 . . .

HUFF, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 675 F.2d 119 (6th Cir. 1982)

. . . Moore, supra fl 59.15[4] at 294. . . . .

KRAMAS, v. SECURITY GAS OIL INC. a KRAMAS, v. SECURITY GAS OIL INC. a, 672 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1982)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 59.15[3] (2d ed. 1979). . . .

McGOWNE v. CHALLENGE- COOK BROS. INC., 672 F.2d 652 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2818 at pages 116-117; 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.15 . . . and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2818 at pages 117-118; 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.15 . . .

J. McCARTHY v. R. MANSON,, 554 F. Supp. 1275 (D. Conn. 1982)

. . . motion under Rule 59(e) is within the discretion of the district court. 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶59.15 . . .

R. DeWITT, v. L. BROWN, M. D., 669 F.2d 516 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . Dillon, 389 F.2d 57, at 58 (C.A. 5 1968); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.08[6] n.64a, ¶ 59.14 n.10, ¶ 59.15 . . .

PUGA v. SUAVE SHOE CORP., 417 So. 2d 678 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Vol. 6A, Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 59.15]. . . .

BUSH v. TEXACO, INC., 504 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Tex. 1981)

. . . new trial destroys the finality of any judgment that has been entered.” 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a, 631 F.2d 469 (7th Cir. 1980)

. . . the error as harmless and treat the appeal as taken from the judgment.” 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15 . . . See 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.15[4] at 59-293 (2d ed. 1979). . . .

In NARAMORE, NEW YORK STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES CORPORATION, v. NARAMORE,, 3 B.R. 709 (N.D.N.Y. 1980)

. . . See Moore’s, Federal Practice § 59.15[1]. . . .

MAHONEY, v. MAHONEY,, 380 So. 2d 497 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . transcript, there are certain authenticated facts before us which can be considered pursuant to Section 59.15 . . .

T. EATON, v. NATIONAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, a, 624 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1980)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice 1 59.15[1] (1979). . . .

HAHN v. A. BECKER, 588 F.2d 768 (7th Cir. 1979)

. . . Construction Co., 386 U.S. 317, 327, 87 S.Ct. 1072, 18 L.Ed.2d 75 (1917); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.15 . . .

H. HENNESSY, Jr. d b a a v. A. SCHMIDT,, 583 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1978)

. . . See 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, H 59.15[1], where it is noted that when an appeal is taken from the . . .

DASSINGER, d b a v. SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,, 537 F.2d 1345 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . See generally 6A Moore’s Federal Practice Section 59.15(2). . . .

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

. . . Mertens, The Law of Federal Income Taxation § 59.15 at 53 (1970); Treas.Reg. § 20.2031-2(e). . . .

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 Federal Income Taxation § 59.15 at 53 (1970) ; Treas. Reg. § 20.2031-2(e). . . .

AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, J. D. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, N. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a a v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 517 F.2d 75 (3d Cir. 1975)

. . . value a security, a blockage discount is appropriate. 10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 59.15 . . .

A. L. MASSEY v. GULF OIL CORPORATION,, 508 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1975)

. . . properly awaited the entry of a final judgment following the new trial. 6A Moore’s Federal Practice H 59.15 . . .

J. RUSHTON, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ESTATE P. RUSHTON, J. III, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 498 F.2d 88 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . See Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 59.15. . . .

In HUNT, d b a SPEED EQUIPMENT WORLDS OF AMERICA, INC. v. HUNT, d b a, 496 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . Rochelle, 5 Cir., 1967, 385 F.2d 789, 794; 1 Collier Bankruptcy Manual U 59.15, at 608 (1973). . . .

In ESTATE L. JOSLYN, D. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 500 F.2d 382 (9th Cir. 1974)

. . . Stewart’s Estate, 153 F.2d 17, 18 (3d Cir. 1946); 10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation ¶ 59.15, . . .

F. LAEISZ, v. PANAMA CANAL COMPANY,, 373 F. Supp. 263 (D.C.Z. 1974)

. . . She is-of an overall length of 465.26 feet and a beam of 59.15 feet. . . .

STATE NATIONAL BANK OF EL PASO, s v. UNITED STATES, 488 F.2d 890 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2818 at 116; 6 A Moore’s Federal Practice If 59.15 at 59-267 . . .

O. WIGGS v. R. COURSHON d b a, 485 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1973)

. . . 1955); see 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1302.1; 6A Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.15 . . .

B. THOMAS, v. E. J. KORVETTE, INC., 476 F.2d 471 (3d Cir. 1973)

. . . plaintiff Lawrence Thomas’ favor in accord with F.R.Civ.P. 59, as explained in 6A Moore’s Fed.Prac. 59.15 . . .

GLOVER, d b a s v. CHERNEY, 272 So. 2d 831 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . Section 59.15, F.S.A.). REED, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur. . . .

SERZYSKO, v. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK,, 461 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1972)

. . . appealable only in conjunction with the judgment to which it relates, see 6A Moore, Federal Practice n 59.15 . . . MS Benares, 429 F.2d 307, 317-318 (2 Cir. 1970); 6A Moore, supra, ¶ 59.15 [1], at 3892-93. . . .

TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. AGRICULTURAL DELIVERY SERVICE, 262 So. 2d 210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . . § 59.15 F.S.A. and F.A. R. 3.6(1)) fall short of supplying a definitive answer to the problem. . . .

CITY OF MIAMI, v. BROWN,, 256 So. 2d 78 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

. . . as provided for by Rule 6.7(f) FAR 32 F.S.A., nor was the record reconstructed as provided for by § 59.15 . . .

R. RYEN v. R. OWENS, 446 F.2d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 1971)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 59.15[3], p. 3902 (2d ed. 1966). . . .

GRACE LINES, INC. a v. MOTLEY,, 439 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir. 1971)

. . . Moore, supra at 59.15 [2]. . . .

MARYLAND TUNA CORPORATION, v. MS BENARES, Co. A S A. B. Co. MARYLAND TUNA CORPORATION, v. NICHIMEN CO. Co. MARYLAND TUNA CORPORATION, v. NICHIMEN CO. TOKYO,, 429 F.2d 307 (2d Cir. 1970)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice If 59.15 [1], at 3892 (2d ed. 1966). Accord, Foman v. . . .

E. WALTHER, A. v. OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT L., 412 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1969)

. . . Erie Lackawanna Railroad Co., 387 F.2d 996, 998, fn. 2 (3d Cir. 1968); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.15 . . .

TAYLOR, v. WASHINGTON TERMINAL COMPANY,, 409 F.2d 145 (D.C. Cir. 1969)

. . . Id., If 59.15 [3], p. 3901. . 3 W. Barron & A. . . .

P. PALUCH, v. ERIE LACKAWANNA RAILROAD COMPANY, 387 F.2d 996 (3d Cir. 1968)

. . . Co., 327 F.2d 142, 144 (3 Cir. 1964) ; 6A Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 59.15 [1] (2d ed. 1966). . . .

B. RINIERI, v. NEWS SYNDICATE CO. NEWS SYNDICATE CO. v. B. RINIERI,, 385 F.2d 818 (2d Cir. 1967)

. . . See 6A Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 59.15 [1] (2d ed. 1966); id. at If 60.30[3]. But Phillips v. . . .

GAULT, v. POOR SISTERS OF ST. FRANCES SERAPH OF PERPETUAL ADORATION, INC. a St., 375 F.2d 539 (6th Cir. 1967)

. . . Travelers Insurance Co., 344 F.2d 70, 74 (C.A.5, 1965); 6 Moore Federal Practice § 59.05 [5] at 3759 and § 59.15 . . .

STATE POE V. v. P. ALLEN, T. A. T. Jr. C. E., 196 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1967)

. . . Vol. 6A, Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 59.15. . Hulen v. Amer. . . .

A. W. JACKMAN, Jr. v. MILITARY PUBLICATIONS, INC., 350 F.2d 383 (3d Cir. 1965)

. . . R., 3d Cir. 1963, 327 F.2d 142, 144, n. 1; 6 Moore, Federal Practice, 1953, par. 59.15 [1] at 3891-93 . . .

WOODS v. NATIONAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 347 F.2d 760 (3d Cir. 1965)

. . . .) ¶¶ 59.14, 59.15 [3]. . . .

S. TURNIPSEED, v. TURNIPSEED, Jr., 158 So. 2d 808 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)

. . . Section 59.15(4), F.S.A.] Cf. Cleary Bros. Const. Co. v. Phelps, 156 Fla. 461, 24 So.2d 51. . . .

H. CROMLING, v. PITTSBURGH AND LAKE ERIE R. R. CO., 327 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1963)

. . . appeal as if it had been taken from the final judgment. 6 Moore, Federal Practice, 2d ed. 1953, par. 59.15 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CERTAIN LAND IN CITY OF PATERSON, COUNTY OF PASSAIC, STATE OF NEW JERSEY,, 322 F.2d 866 (3rd Cir. 1963)

. . . United States, 120 F.2d 794 (5 Cir., 1941); 6 Moore, Federal Practice, 2d ed. 1953, pars. 59.15 [1] and . . .

BROS INCORPORATED, v. W. E. GRACE MANUFACTURING COMPANY E. W. E. GRACE MANUFACTURING COMPANY E. v. BROS INCORPORATED,, 320 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1963)

. . . Chrysler Corp., 10 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 104; 6 Moore, Federal Practice, Par. 59.15, p. 3891 (2d ed. 1952 . . .

CONNEY, P. v. ERICKSON a, 317 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1963)

. . . Practice, 59.15 [1]. . . .

TEXAS CONTINENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. D. DUNNE J. E. II, TEXAS CONTINENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BANKERS BOND COMPANY,, 307 F.2d 242 (6th Cir. 1962)

. . . Rule 59(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, Second Edition Par. 59.06, 59.15 . . .

PIATEK, a v. GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., 296 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1961)

. . . Diatz, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 189 F.2d 26; 6 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 59.15[1]. . . .

C. MOYER, v. M. MOYER,, 114 So. 2d 638 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)

. . . Section 59.15(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . . .

W. GRIMM, v. CALIFORNIA SPRAY- CHEMICAL CORPORATION,, 264 F.2d 145 (9th Cir. 1959)

. . . Consult Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.15 [1] and [2], Affirmed. . . . .

J. T. MAJORS SON, INC. v. LIPPERT BROS. INC. LIPPERT BROS. INC. v. J. T. MAJORS SON, INC., 263 F.2d 650 (10th Cir. 1958)

. . . Vol. 6, § 59.15 (3), p. 3904. . . .

A. AUBERTIN, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., 252 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1958)

. . . Co., 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 779; 6 Moore, Federal Practice #59.09 [4], 59.15 [1] ; 7 Id. #73.09 [4]. . . .

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a a v. WILSON- KEITH COMPANY, a a WILSON- KEITH COMPANY, a a v. AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a a, 247 F.2d 249 (8th Cir. 1957)

. . . following the first trial be reinstated and judgment entered accordingly.’ 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.15 . . .

MILLER, v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY,, 241 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1957)

. . . Vol. 6 § 59.15 [4] p. 3913; cf. also United States v. . . .

STANDARD OIL COMPANY, v. K. BROWN, s, 238 F.2d 54 (5th Cir. 1956)

. . . . § 2106. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶[59.15, p. 3904. Finn v. . . .

JACOB COHEN v. MAMIE COHEN, 158 Fla. 802 (Fla. 1947)

. . . See 59.15 and 59.16, F. S. A. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HARMON, 147 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1893)

. . . petitioner,for the whole of his claim except $6.48, and rendered'judgment in his favor for $1704.12 and $59.15 . . . discretión given to it by § 15 of the act of 1887, c. 359, 24 Stat. 51)5, '508, awarded to the plaintiff $59.15 . . .

BARRY v. EDMUNDS, 116 U.S. 550 (U.S. 1886)

. . . eighty-one cents, making the plaintiff thus liable after the 1st day of December, 1884, for the sum of ($59.15 . . . additional sum of ■ $2.81, making the plaintiff thus liable after December 1, 1884, for the sum of $59.15 . . .