The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 65
QUIETING TITLE

View Entire Chapter

CHAPTER 65

QUIETING TITLE

65.011 Real estate; certain jurisdiction over.

65.021 Real estate; removing clouds.

65.031 Real estate; removing clouds; plaintiffs.

65.041 Real estate; removing clouds; defendants.

65.051 Real estate; removing clouds; joinder.

65.061 Quieting title; additional remedy.

65.071 Quieting title; deeds without joinder of wife when separated for 30 years.

65.081 Tax titles; quieting title.

65.091 Quieting title; fraudulent conveyances.

65.011 Real estate; certain jurisdiction over.—Chancery courts have jurisdiction of actions by any person or corporation claiming to own any land or part thereof, or by two or more claiming to own the same land or part thereof under a common title against more than one person or corporation occupying or claiming title to the land or part thereof adversely to plaintiff, whether defendants claim or hold under a common title or not; and shall determine the title of plaintiff as against defendants and enter judgment quieting the title of, and awarding possession to, the plaintiff entitled thereto and may enter injunctions, temporary or perpetual, appoint receivers, and enter such orders about costs as are necessary to protect the rights of the parties.

History.—s. 1, ch. 3884, 1889; RS 1500; GS 1949; RGS 3212; CGL 5004; s. 20, ch. 67-254.

Note.—Former s. 66.10.

65.021 Real estate; removing clouds.—Chancery courts have jurisdiction of actions brought by any person or corporation, whether in actual possession or not, claiming legal or equitable title to land against any person or corporation not in actual possession, who has, appears to have or claims an adverse legal or equitable estate, interest, or claim therein to determine such estate, interest, or claim and quiet or remove clouds from the title to the land. It is no bar to relief that the title has not been litigated at law or that there is only one litigant to each side of the controversy or that the adverse claim, estate, or interest is void upon its face, or though not void on its face, requires extrinsic evidence to establish its validity.

History.—s. 1, ch. 4739, 1899; GS 1950; RGS 3213; s. 1, ch. 10223, 1925; CGL 5005; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 20, ch. 67-254.

Note.—Former s. 66.11.

65.031 Real estate; removing clouds; plaintiffs.—An action in chancery for quieting title to, or clearing a cloud from, land may be maintained in the name of the owner or of any prior owner who warranted the title. All lands, the title to which is subject to a common defect, may be embraced in one action irrespective of the number of existing legal or equitable owners.

History.—s. 1, ch. 10221, 1925; CGL 5006; s. 20, ch. 67-254.

Note.—Former s. 66.12.

65.041 Real estate; removing clouds; defendants.—No person not a party to the action is bound by any judgment rendered adverse to his or her interest, but any judgment favorable to the person inures to that person’s benefit to the extent of his or her legal or equitable title.

History.—s. 2, ch. 10221, 1925; CGL 5007; s. 20, ch. 67-254; s. 345, ch. 95-147.

Note.—Former s. 66.13.

65.051 Real estate; removing clouds; joinder.—Two or more persons who are interested in removing a cloud from or quieting title to land as against the same clouds or adverse claims may join as plaintiffs in a single action to remove such clouds or quiet the title, although their interests relate to separate lands or parts thereof.

History.—s. 1, ch. 10222, 1925; CGL 5008; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 20, ch. 67-254.

Note.—Former s. 66.14.

65.061 Quieting title; additional remedy.—

(1) JURISDICTION.—Chancery courts have jurisdiction of actions by any person or corporation claiming legal or equitable title to any land, or part thereof, or when any two or more persons claim to own the same land, or any part thereof under a common title against all persons or corporations claiming title to or occupying the land adversely to plaintiff, whether defendants claim or hold under a common title or not, and shall determine the title of plaintiff and may enter judgment quieting the title and awarding possession to the party entitled thereto, but if any defendant is in actual possession of any part of the land, a trial by jury may be demanded by any party, whereupon the court shall order an issue in ejectment as to such lands to be made and tried by a jury. Provision for trial by jury does not affect the action on any lands that are not claimed to be in the actual possession of any defendant. The court may enter final judgment without awaiting the determination of the ejectment action.

(2) GROUNDS.—When a person or corporation not the rightful owner of land has any conveyance or other evidence of title thereto, or asserts any claim, or pretends to have any right or title thereto, which may cast a cloud on the title of the real owner, or when any person or corporation is the true and equitable owner of land the record title to which is not in the person or corporation because of the defective execution of any deed or mortgage because of the omission of a seal thereon, the lack of witnesses, or any defect or omission in the wording of the acknowledgment of a party or parties thereto, when the person or corporation claims title thereto by the defective instrument and the defective instrument was apparently made and delivered by the grantor to convey or mortgage the real estate and was recorded in the county where the land lies, or when possession of the land has been held by any person or corporation adverse to the record owner thereof or his or her heirs and assigns until such adverse possession has ripened into a good title under the statutes of this state, such person or corporation may file complaint in any county in which any part of the land is situated to have the conveyance or other evidence of claim or title canceled and the cloud removed from the title and to have his or her title quieted, whether such real owner is in possession or not or is threatened to be disturbed in his or her possession or not, and whether defendant is a resident of this state or not, and whether the title has been litigated at law or not, and whether the adverse claim or title or interest is void on its face or not, or if not void on its face that it may require extrinsic evidence to establish its validity. A guardian ad litem shall not be appointed unless it shall affirmatively appear that the interest of minors, persons of unsound mind, or convicts are involved.

(3) DERAIGNMENT OF TITLE.—The plaintiff shall deraign his or her title from the original source or for a period of at least 7 years before filing the complaint unless the court otherwise directs, setting forth the book and page of the records where any instrument affecting the title is recorded, if it is recorded, unless plaintiff claims from a common source with defendant.

(4) JUDGMENT.—If it appears that plaintiff has legal title to the land or is the equitable owner thereof based on one or more of the grounds mentioned in subsection (2), or if a default is entered against defendant (in which case no evidence need be taken), the court shall enter judgment removing the alleged cloud from the title to the land and forever quieting the title in plaintiff and those claiming under him or her since the commencement of the action and adjudging plaintiff to have a good fee simple title to said land or the interest thereby cleared of cloud.

(5) RECORDING FINAL JUDGMENTS.—All final judgments may be recorded in the county or counties in which the land is situated and operate to vest title in like manner as though a conveyance were executed by a special magistrate or commissioner.

(6) OPERATION.—This section is cumulative to other existing remedies.

History.—ss. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, ch. 11383, 1925; CGL 5010, 5011, 5014, 5015, 5017, 5018; s. 1, ch. 24293, 1947; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 20, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 70-278; s. 346, ch. 95-147; s. 56, ch. 2004-11.

Note.—Former ss. 66.16, 66.17, 66.20, 66.21, 66.23, 66.24.

¹65.071 Quieting title; deeds without joinder of wife when separated for 30 years.—An action in chancery may be brought to quiet title to land to preclude any wife from claiming dower or any heirs from claiming any interest to land when the following facts exist:

(1) When any husband and wife have not cohabited as husband and wife for 30 years or more and during this time the husband has conveyed land as a single man and the land has come into the hands of purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice that the husband was married at the time he conveyed the land, and the purchasers have relied on the acknowledgment to deeds by the husband that he was a single man, and it afterwards became known that he was a married man at the time he deeded the land and his marriage has never been dissolved and he refuses to voluntarily get a dissolution of marriage to clear the title to preclude his wife from claiming any inchoate dower therein and his heirs from claiming any interest therein and when the wife has never lived in the county where the land is located with the husband as his wife and has never asserted any inchoate right to dower in the land, the inchoate right to dower is divested and is a cloud on the title to the land and the purchaser of the land has the right to remove the cloud and to prevent the wife or heirs from claiming any dower or other interest from such purchasers and their successors in title.

(2) When these facts are proven, the court shall adjudge that the wife and heirs of the husband are forever barred and perpetually enjoined from claiming any interest in the land arising out of dower or otherwise, and that the wife did not join in the execution of the deeds by which the husband deeded the land as a single man under the facts above-stated is not effective to reserve an inchoate right of dower in the land held by such purchasers.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 19116, 1939; CGL 5011(1), (2); s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 20, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 73-300.

¹Note.—Chapter 73-107 abolished the right of dower in property transferred prior to death. See also s. 732.111.

Note.—Former s. 66.25.

65.081 Tax titles; quieting title.—

(1) PARTIES.—Any grantee under any tax deed issued by the state, or any municipality or other political subdivision thereof, or any purchaser from the state, or any municipality or other political subdivision thereof, of any land the title to which has been acquired by this state or such municipality or political subdivision through any proceeding or foreclosure for the nonpayment of taxes or special assessments, or the successor in title to the grantee or purchaser, may maintain an action in chancery to quiet title to the land included in the tax deed, or so purchased against the holder of the record title to the land, and against any other person or corporation claiming any interest in the land or any lien or encumbrance thereon, before issuance of the tax deed or before the loss of title to the land in the tax proceeding or foreclosure.

(2) DERAIGNING TITLE.—Actions may be maintained hereunder whether or not plaintiff is in possession of the land involved but when defendant is in actual possession of the land a jury trial may be had as provided in other actions to quiet title. When the action is based on a tax deed, the complaint need not deraign title beyond the issuance of the tax deed. When the action is based on a conveyance by this state, or any municipality or other political subdivision thereof, of land the title to which it has acquired through a foreclosure or other proceeding for the nonpayment of taxes, the complaint need not deraign title beyond the deed or other instrument or act vesting title in the state or municipality or other political subdivision of the state.

(3) WHEN TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID.—No defense to the action or attack upon the tax deed shall be made except the defense that the taxes assessed against the property had been paid by the former owner before issuance of the tax deed.

(4) WHEN TAX DEED HAS BEEN ISSUED BEFORE CONVEYANCE BY SOVEREIGN.—No defense shall be made to the action because of assessment of the property or issuance of the tax deed before the United States or the state has parted with title to the property, and no other attack shall be made on it, except the defense that the taxes assessed against the property had been paid by the person, or a claimant under him or her, to whom the United States patent or conveyance from the state was issued before the issuance of the tax deed.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 21822, 1943; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 20, ch. 67-254; s. 29, ch. 74-382; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 347, ch. 95-147.

Note.—Former ss. 66.26, 66.27.

65.091 Quieting title; fraudulent conveyances.—

(1) An action to quiet title based on a fraudulent attempted conveyance allegation may be maintained under this chapter, and this remedy is cumulative to other existing remedies. A petitioner bringing an action to quiet title based on such allegations is entitled to summary procedure under s. 51.011, and the court shall advance the cause on the calendar.

(2) In an action to quiet title, when the court determines that an attempt was made to fraudulently convey the land at issue away from a plaintiff who had legal title to the land before the conveyance, the court must quiet title in and award the plaintiff with the same title and rights to the land that the plaintiff enjoyed before the attempted conveyance.

(3) The clerk of the circuit court must provide a simplified form for the filing of a complaint to quiet title based on a fraudulent attempted conveyance allegation and instructions for completing such form.

History.—s. 3, ch. 2023-238.

F.S. 65 on Google Scholar

F.S. 65 on Casetext

Amendments to 65

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 65

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

S210.65 1 - TAX REVENUE - DISTRIBUTOR OR OTHER TOBACCO TAX LAW 1ST VIOL - M: F

S210.65 2 - TAX REVENUE - PURCH TOBACCO FROM UNLIC DISTRIBUTOR 1ST VIOL - M: F

S210.65 3 - TAX REVENUE - TOBACCO TAX LAW DISTRIBUTOR OR OTHER SUBSQ OFF - F: T

S298.65 - PERJURY - REPEALED CH 2001-266 - M: F

S298.65 - OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE - REPEALED CH 2001-266 - M: F

S327.65 1 - CONSERVATION-ENVIRONMENT - DELETE INFRACTION - I: N

S327.65 2a2 - RESIST OFFICER - REFUSE SOUND LEVEL TEST MUFFLING DEVICE REGS - M: S

S372.65 - CONSERVATION-LICENSE-STAMP - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 6734 - M: S

S372.65 - CONSERVATION-LICENSE-STAMP - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 6735 - M: F

S531.65 - FRAUD - USE WEIGHT MEASURE DEVICE WO COMMERCIAL PERMIT - M: S

S531.65 - FRAUD - USE WEIGH MEAS DEVICE WO COMM PERMIT SUBSQ OFF - M: F

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

J. TRUMP, v. MAZARS USA, LLP, J. v. AG,, 140 S. Ct. 2019 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Maclaine) (referring to the House as "the grand inquest of the Union at large"); The Federalist No. 65 . . . See Tr. of Oral Arg. 52-53, 62-65. . . .

J. TRUMP, v. R. VANCE, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 2412 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Maryland , 254 U.S. 51, 57, 41 S.Ct. 16, 65 L.Ed. 126 (1920) (concluding that federal postal officials . . .

MCGIRT, v. OKLAHOMA, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Olson , 324 U.S. 786, 789, 65 S.Ct. 989, 89 L.Ed. 1367 (1945). . . . Bracker , 448 U.S. 136, 142, 144-145, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980). . . .

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER AND PAUL HOME, v. PENNSYLVANIA, J. v., 140 S. Ct. 2367 (U.S. 2020)

. . . estimated to have spent $737 billion subsidizing health insurance for individuals under the age of 65 . . . CBO, Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance for People Under Age 65: 2019 to 2029, pp. 15-16 (2019). . . .

P. BARR, v. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF POLITICAL CONSULTANTS, INC., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Brown , 447 U.S. 455, 459-463, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980) ; Erznoznik v. . . . Y. , 447 U.S. 557, 561-564, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). . . .

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, v. ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, INC., 140 S. Ct. 2082 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Wixon , 326 U.S. 135, 148, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945) ; Yick Wo v. . . . See, e.g. , FAIR , 547 U.S. at 65, 126 S.Ct. 1297 (holding that the Government may require law schools . . . , since "every participating unit" in a parade "affects the [overall] message"); FAIR , 547 U.S. at 65 . . .

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO, v. LLC., 140 S. Ct. 2103 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Louisiana has been extremely safe, with particularly low rates of serious complications." 250 F.Supp.3d at 65 . . . Id., at 65. . . . Id., at 87 ; see also id., at 65-66. . . . United States , 532 U.S. 59, 65-66, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001). . . . S. 358, 100 S.Ct. 2694, 65 L.Ed.2d 831 (1980) ; Harris v. McRae , 448 U. . . . S. 297, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 65 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980) ; Bellotti v. . . .

SEILA LAW LLC, v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See Act of Sept. 2, 1789, ch. 12, 1 Stat. 65. . . . See § 2, 1 Stat. 65-66. . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. THURAISSIGIAM, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (U.S. 2020)

. . . United States , 195 U.S. 65, 69, 24 S.Ct. 826, 49 L.Ed. 99 (1904) -made this clear. . . . See Ex parte Endo , 323 U.S. 283, 297-299, 65 S.Ct. 208, 89 L.Ed. 243 (1944). . . . White , 256 U.S. 399, 41 S.Ct. 504, 65 L.Ed. 1012 (1921) ; Tod v. . . . Wixon , 326 U.S. 135, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945), and Hansen v. . . . Goddard, A Note on Habeas Corpus, 65 L. Q. Rev. 30, 34 (1949). . . . White , 256 U.S. 399, 41 S.Ct. 504, 65 L.Ed. 1012 (1921) (habeas petition filed on behalf of noncitizen . . .

C. LIU, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (U.S. 2020)

. . . York , 326 U.S. 99, 105, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945) ). . . . Smith , 254 U.S. 586, 589, 41 S.Ct. 200, 65 L.Ed. 418 (1921), but the remedy in that case was a constructive . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, J. v., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (U.S. 2020)

. . . United States , 254 U.S. 141, 143, 41 S.Ct. 55, 65 L.Ed. 188 (1920). . . .

BOSTOCK, v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA v. Jr. Co- R. G. G. R. v., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Beauty x. 65 An elegant degree of plumpness peculiar to the skin of the softer sex. 1820 BYRON Juan IV . . .

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, v. COWPASTURE RIVER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION LLC, v., 140 S. Ct. 1837 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Pan American Petroleum Corp. , 384 U.S. 63, 65, and n. 2, 86 S.Ct. 1301, 16 L.Ed.2d 369 (1966). . . .

ANDRUS v. TEXAS, 140 S. Ct. 1875 (U.S. 2020)

. . . ... told the police ... was that he had been the victim of an assault by a black man." 3 Habeas Tr. 65 . . . had the words "murder weapon" tattooed on his hands and a smoking gun tattooed on his forearm. 51 Tr. 65 . . . See id. , at 37; 46 Tr. 65. . . .

J. LOMAX, v. ORTIZ- MARQUEZ,, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See App. 65-66. . . .

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC, LLC, III v. LLC, v. LLC, n De De La El Y v., 140 S. Ct. 1649 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Flores de Otero , 426 U.S. 572, 597, 96 S.Ct. 2264, 49 L.Ed.2d 65 (1976). . . .

VALENTINE, v. COLLIER,, 140 S. Ct. 1598 (U.S. 2020)

. . . I The facility at issue (the Pack Unit) houses about 1,200 inmates, more than 800 of whom are 65 or older . . .

GEORGIA, v. PUBLIC. RESOURCE. ORG, INC., 140 S. Ct. 1498 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Swift & Co. , 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944). . . . Id., at 140, 65 S.Ct. 161. . . .

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK,, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See, e.g. , id. , at 65-66. . . . Tr. of Oral Arg. 64-65. . . .

COUNTY OF MAUI, HAWAII, v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND,, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Swift & Co. , 323 U.S. 134, 139-140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944). . . .

RAMOS, v. LOUISIANA, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Roberts , 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), abrogated by Crawford v. . . . Scott , 437 U.S. 82, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978) ; Craig v. . . . United States , 323 U.S. 214, 65 S.Ct. 193, 89 L.Ed. 194 (1944) ; Plessy v. . . . Louisiana , 447 U.S. 323, 330-331, 100 S.Ct. 2214, 65 L.Ed.2d 159 (1980) (plurality opinion) ("[T]he . . . Sklansky, Evidentiary Instructions and the Jury as Other, 65 Stan. L. Rev. 407, 454 (2013). . . . Louisiana , 447 U.S. 323, 331, 100 S.Ct. 2214, 65 L.Ed.2d 159 (1980) (plurality opinion) (describing . . . Duxbury, The Nature and Authority of Precedent 65-66 (2008). Mandel v. . . .

TEXAS, v. NEW MEXICO., 140 S. Ct. 2627 (U.S. 2020)

. . . No. 65, Original. Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

SHULAR, v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 779 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Koray , 515 U.S. 50, 65, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 132 L.Ed.2d 46 (1995) ; Smith v. . . .

L. BALDWIN, Et Ux. v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 690 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Commissioner , 325 U.S. 365, 65 S.Ct. 1232, 89 L.Ed. 1670 (1945), writing that questions about "the meaning . . . of the words of [the statute]" were "questions of law," id. , at 371, 65 S.Ct. 1232. . . .

TEXAS, v. NEW MEXICO, 140 S. Ct. 953 (U.S. 2020)

. . . NEW MEXICO No. 65, Original Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

W. PAUL v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 342 (U.S. 2019)

. . . American Petroleum Institute , 448 U.S. 607, 685-686, 100 S.Ct. 2844, 65 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1980) (Rehnquist . . .

TEXAS, v. NEW MEXICO, 140 S. Ct. 441 (U.S. 2019)

. . . NEW MEXICO No. 65, Original Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

TEXAS, v. NEW MEXICO, 140 S. Ct. 106 (U.S. 2019)

. . . State of NEW MEXICO No. 65, Original Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

JONNA CORPORATION, v. CITY OF SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA, 140 S. Ct. 224 (U.S. 2019)

. . . CITY OF SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA No. 19-65 Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT, v. BARR,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . ECF No. 65-1 (EOIR Guidance) at 1; see also ECF No. 65-2 (USCIS Guidance) at 1 ("the IFR should not apply . . . ECF No. 65 at 12-16. . . . ECF No. 65 at 14 (emphasis omitted). . . . ECF No. 65 at 19. This is incorrect. . . . Babbitt , 58 F.3d 1392, 1405 (9th Cir. 1995) ; ECF No. 65 at 27. . . .

G NDARA- GORRITZ, v. SCOTIABANK DE PUERTO RICO,, 603 B.R. 871 (D. P.R. 2019)

. . . Docket Nos. 63 and 65.) . . .

ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, v. SANDOZ, INC., 935 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . See id. col. 2 ll. 46-65, col. 3 ll. 23-30. . . . specific solvent, preservative, and buffers listed in Table 1 of the specification. '453 patent col. 3 ll. 65 . . .

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ST. LOUIS REGION, INC. P. D. O. M. S. C. I. F. A. C. O. G, v. L. PARSON,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 631 (W.D. Mo. 2019)

. . . As is customary in cases of this nature, and consistently with Rule 65 (c), Fed. R. Civ. . . . Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 65-66 [106 S.Ct. 1697, 90 L.Ed.2d 48] (1986). . . .

L. SMITH, v. SHARP,, 935 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . In this case, the IQ scores addressed by the OCCA in its opinion were: 65 on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence . . . WAIS-R assessment, Smith's Verbal IQ score was 64, his Performance IQ was 70, and full scale IQ was 65 . . . And Smith obtained the 65 score in 1997 on the assessment that Dr. . . . Hopewell obtained and the 65 Dr. . . .

U. S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. HUI FENG Of PC,, 935 F.3d 721 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Feng's 150 clients invested more than $ 65 million. . . .

EDMO, v. CORIZON, INC. Al v. Al, 935 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2), "[a] district court may consolidate a preliminary injunction . . .

COMPERE, v. NUSRET MIAMI, LLC, d b a a, 391 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

. . . (ECF No. 65). As such, this Court will not consider the substance of the Vargas Affidavit herein. . . .

ZUNIGA, v. P. BARR,, 934 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Swift & Co. , 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944) (explaining that "[t]he weight of" . . .

UNITED STATES v. HAWKINS, a. k. a. D III, a. k. a., 934 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . agents contacted Montgomery police officers, who then followed McCree as he drove south on Interstate 65 . . .

DIVERSE POWER, INC. v. CITY OF LAGRANGE, GEORGIA,, 934 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . . § 36-65-1, meaning that "in the exercise of such powers, such local governing authorities shall be . . . We don't think this is the best reading of O.C.G.A. § 36-65-2, especially after Phoebe Putney . . . . . § 36-65-2 (the immunity statute) refers here to the powers authorized in O.C.G.A. § 36-34-5(a)(3), . . . And the immunity granted by O.C.G.A. § 36-34-5(a)(3) -in conjunction with O.C.G.A. § 36-65-2 -is only . . . The case for immunity is arguably stronger than in Hallie because O.C.G.A. § 36-65-1 and § 36-65-2 clearly . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. ADAMS,, 934 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Mendoza-Figueroa , 65 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 1995) (en banc). . . . United States , 916 F.3d 658, 663-65 (7th Cir. 2019) (reviewing this history as applied to defendant . . .

SCRIMO, v. LEE,, 935 F.3d 103 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Arafet, 13 N.Y.3d 460, 464-65, 892 N.Y.S.2d 812, 920 N.E.2d 919 (2009). . . .

SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR v. BRISTOL EXCAVATING, INC., 935 F.3d 122 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . No. 93-259, § 13(e), 88 Stat. 65 (1974). . . . Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co. , 325 U.S. 419, 424, 65 S.Ct. 1242, 89 L.Ed. 1705 (1945) (emphasis added . . .

WOLFINGTON, v. RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES II PC, a k a, 935 F.3d 187 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . S. 410, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945), and existed in the Court's jurisprudence even prior to Seminole . . .

COLE v. CARSON, v., 935 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . See id. at 764-65. See id. at 765. Tolan v. . . .

BURKE, v. REGALADO, v., 935 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . The jail met only 65 percent of NCCHC's "essential standards." Id. at 11638. . . . Br. at 65. We disagree. . . . Br. at 65-67. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CUEVAS- LOPEZ,, 934 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Op. 1064-65. . . . Op. 1064-65, which is not mentioned in Application Note 3, id. § 2L1.2 cmt. 3. . . . Op. 1064-65. . . . Op. 1064-65. . . . Op. 1064-65. . . .

CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE, v. MCMAHON,, 934 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Mission Indian Relief Act, ch. 65, 26 Stat. 712, 712 (1891). . . .

SAM K. v. SAUL,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 874 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . (R. 261-65). But, along the way, he has had setbacks. . . . So, a 61- to 65-year-old man, with pain from bone on bone contact in his right knee, was found able to . . . But there's an elephant in the room: under the Commissioner's regulations, if the 65-year old plaintiff . . .

ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. MUSHKIN, INC., 934 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . two techniques are referred to as "wire bonding" and "flip chip bonding." '927 patent, col. 1, ll. 60-65 . . . Id. at col. 1, ll. 61-65; col. 2, ll. 9-10; Fig. 3. . . . Co. , 323 U.S. 574, 580-81, 65 S.Ct. 421, 89 L.Ed. 465 (1945) (holding, in a rail-road negligence case . . .

UNITED STATES v. MERRITT,, 934 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Mendoza-Figueroa, 65 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 1995) (en banc), in which our en banc court determined that conspiracy . . .

SENNE v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP. LLC LLC LP St. LLC LLC LLC LLC L. P. L. P. LLC LLC L. P. AZPB L. P. P LLC LLC LP LLP LLC LLC,, 934 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . See Gamer v. duPont Glore Forgan, Inc. , 65 Cal. App. 3d 280, 287-88, 135 Cal.Rptr. 230 (1976). . . . As the district court noted, plaintiffs' expert testified that approximately 65-85% of California League . . . Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. , 154 Cal.App.4th 1162, 65 Cal. . . .

AMAZON. COM, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 934 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Seminole Rock & Sand Co. , 325 U.S. 410, 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) ); see also Auer v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BROWN,, 935 F.3d 43 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Califano , 978 F.2d 65, 66 (2d Cir. 1992) (uncertainty whether sentencing judge erroneously believed . . .

FLORES, v. P. BARR, K. U. S. U. S. U. S., 934 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Wright , 159 F.3d 1060, 1064-65 (7th Cir. 1998) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of an . . .

HAWKINS v. I- TV DIGITALIS TAVKOZLESI ZRT. f k a DMCC Rt. DIGI RCS RDS S. A. RCS S. A. DIGI N. V. v. i- TV f k a DMCC Rt. DIGI RCS RDS S. A. RCS S. A. DIGI N. V., 935 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . P. 65(d)(2)(C), because it bought i-TV despite knowing that the injunctions forbade the sale. . . . P. 65(d)(2)(C), and that this fact suffices to establish personal jurisdiction. . . . violations of injunctions and thus are "in active concert or participation" with a party under Rule 65 . . . For two independent reasons, aiding-and-abetting under Rule 65(d)(2)(C) does not always satisfy the " . . . Second, and independently, aiding-and-abetting under Rule 65(d)(2)(C) does not necessarily involve the . . .

UNITED STATES v. GLENN,, 935 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 155-65, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) ). . . .

MAO- MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, L., 935 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Medicare is "the federal health insurance program for people who are 65 or older," as well as for certain . . . Litig. , 685 F.3d 353, 364-65 (3d Cir. 2012). . . .

DOLLAR LOAN CENTER OF SOUTH DAKOTA, LLC, v. AFDAHL, LLC, v., 933 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . In 2012, DLC informed the Division that it was changing from a 52 week to a 65 week amortized loan product . . . DLC notified the Division in 2012 of a change when it extended its amortization schedule from 52 to 65 . . .

PIZZUTO, Jr. v. BLADES,, 933 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . On tests with a standard deviation of 15 and a mean of 100, this involves a score of 65-75 (70 ± 5)." . . . On tests with a standard deviation of 15 and a mean of 100, this involves a score of 65-75 (70 ± 5).. . . . vary from instrument to instrument (e.g., a Wechsler IQ of 70 is considered to represent a range of 65 . . .

ROMO, v. P. BARR,, 933 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90. 65 (2002)). Barragan-Lopez v. . . . Bismarck Lumber Co. , 314 U.S. 95, 99-100, 62 S.Ct. 1, 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941) (pointing out that the use . . .

SANOFI- AVENTIS U. S. LLC, IP, v. DR. REDDY S LABORATORIES, INC. Dr. s USA, LLC, LLC, LLC,, 933 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Cross-Appellants' Br. 65-67 (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharm. . . .

UNITED STATES v. C. BROWN, v. N., 934 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 325 U.S. 91, 103, 105, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945) (plurality opinion)). . . . Screws , 325 U.S. at 106, 65 S.Ct. 1031 (plurality opinion). . . .

LILLY, v. CITY OF NEW YORK NYPD No. NYPD No., 934 F.3d 222 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 564-65, 106 S.Ct. 3088 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Blum , 465 U.S. at 898-900, . . . Blum, 465 U.S. at 898, 104 S.Ct. 1541 ; see also Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 564-65, 106 S.Ct. 3088. . . . See Blum, 465 U.S. at 898-99, 900, 104 S.Ct. 1541 ; see also Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 564-65, 566 . . . Maher, 594 F.2d 336, 343-44 (2d Cir. 1979), aff'd, 448 U.S. 122, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980 . . .

YOUKHANNA v. CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS C., 934 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . R. 69-20 (Rrasi Dep. at 47-49) (Page ID #2963-65); R. 69-14 (Taylor Dep. at 101-02) (Page ID #2634-35 . . .

IN RE J. SHENK, Sr. J. Sr. v. U. S., 603 B.R. 671 (Bankr. N.D. N.Y. 2019)

. . . Hr'g Tr. p. 65 at 14-18. He estimates that the accordions are valued at $1,600. Id. . . .

IN RE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE S SUNDAY TICKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Jr. v. LLC LLC NFL LLC LLC LP LLC LLC NFL LP LLC LP LLC LP Co. LLC LP LLC, 933 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Babette Boliek, Antitrust, Regulation, and the "New" Rules of Sports Telecasts, 65 Hastings L.J. 501, . . .

LATURNER, v. UNITED STATES,, 933 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 65. . . . Id. at 664-65, 82 S.Ct. 1089. . . .

KOH, v. USTICH,, 933 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 464-65. Consideration of any factual questions is outside our jurisdiction. Hurt v. . . .

KELSAY, v. ERNST,, 933 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Carroll , 658 F.3d 819, 827 (8th Cir. 2011) ; Shannon , 616 F.3d at 864-65 ; Brown v. . . . Id. at 364-65. . . .

HILLOCKS, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES, 934 F.3d 332 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Harbin , 860 F.3d at 65. . . .

UNITED STATES EX REL. CHARTE v. AMERICAN TUTOR, INC. Jr. Sr., 934 F.3d 346 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . JA 65. . . .

MARTINEAU, v. WIER, 934 F.3d 385 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Faggert & Frieden, P.C. , 65 F.3d 26, 29 (4th Cir. 1995) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted . . . Clark , 65 F.3d at 29 ). . . . Clark , 65 F.3d at 29. . . . Clark , 65 F.3d at 29 (internal quotation marks omitted), when she failed to disclose her legal claims . . .

MARTIN, v. MARINEZ,, 934 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Martin sought civil damages totaling $110,500: $1,000 per day of his 65-day incarceration and $45,500 . . . cocaine-he could not seek damages for conduct post-dating the discovery of contraband, including his 65 . . .

COEUR D ALENE TRIBE, a v. W. HAWKS A., 933 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 664-65, 94 S.Ct. 772. . . .

UNITED STATES v. NG LAP SENG, Ng, Ng W. C., 934 F.3d 110 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . McAdory , 325 U.S. 450, 461, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 89 L.Ed. 1725 (1945), I see no reason to engage in an unnecessary . . . See, e.g. , App'x 164-65 (stating, in Superseding Indictment, that defendant's "principal objective . . . .

IN RE FIFTH AVENUE AND RELATED PROPERTIES, 934 F.3d 147 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Alavi initially owned 65% of 650 Fifth Ave. . . .

UNITED STATES v. M. SWARTZ,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 199 (N.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Patterson's affidavit, the trust holds a 65% ownership interest in Focus Acquisitions. . . . for Injunctive Relief On May 9, 2018, Orienta moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 65 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GAMMELL, v., 932 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 572 U.S. 65, 73, 134 S.Ct. 1240, 188 L.Ed.2d 248 (2014) (emphasis added). . . .

AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, N. A. v. UNITED STATES,, 932 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . J.A. 65. . . . J.A. 65. . . .

PILLAR DYNASTY LLC, v. NEW YORK COMPANY, INC., 933 F.3d 202 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Int'l Life Assurance Co. of N.Y. , 112 F.3d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting that a trial court may consult . . .

SIEGEL, s s v. HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC. HSBC USA, N. A. HBUS,, 933 F.3d 217 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . TAC ¶ 65. HSBC "provided [ARB] with the means ... . . . participated in [a] scheme" to assist ARB in "circumvent[ing] monitoring by U.S. regulators," TAC ¶¶ 65 . . .

KORTRIGHT CAPITAL PARTNERS LP, TY v. INVESTCORP INVESTMENT ADVISERS LIMITED,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . (Trial Tr. at 51-53 (Taylor); Trial Tr. at 1225-26 (Popplewell); Trial Tr. at 664-65 (Vamvakas).) . . .

C. S. MCCROSSAN INC. v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 932 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Supp. 65, 69 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (concluding company was plaintiff's authorized representative where it was . . . Gaylord's, Inc. , 764 N.W.2d 359, 364-65 (Minn. 2009). Nor does the exclusion's plain language. . . .

AJINOMOTO CO. INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, CJ CJ PT CJ CJ PT v. Co., 932 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . See '655 patent, col. 9, lines 50-65 (bottom row, compare column "pUC19" (-) with column "pYDDG1" (+) . . .

MALDONADO L. Jr. v. RODRIGUEZ, Jr., 932 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . First Amendment protection from political termination but instead because the court did not so rule. 65 . . . Gunaca, 65 F.3d at 475. . . . or discipline of a public employee violated 'clearly established' constitutional rights.' " Gunaca, 65 . . . State of Texas , 65 F.3d 467, 468 (5th Cir. 1995), in which this court granted qualified immunity for . . . or discipline of a public employee violated "clearly established" constitutional rights.' " Gunaca, 65 . . .

ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, v. SOUTH JERSEY RESOURCES GROUP, LLC,, 933 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ct. at 65. . . .

BERGAMATTO, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NYSA ILA PENSION FUND, 933 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . App. at 65) and that the Board had to "make available to the Fund's Participants and beneficiaries such . . .

TEXAS, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION EEOC P. U. S., 933 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1)(B) and (C), every injunction must "state its terms specifically . . . the injunction bears just one construction, the injunction meets the specificity requirement of Rule 65 . . .

SANDKNOP v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS O, 932 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). . . .

UNITED STATES v. PRADO,, 933 F.3d 121 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Williams , 341 U.S. 58, 65, 71 S.Ct. 595, 95 L.Ed. 747 (1951) ("The District Court had jurisdiction of . . . United States , 240 U.S. 60, 65, 36 S.Ct. 255, 60 L.Ed. 526 (1916) (Holmes, J.) . . .

HUBBELL, v. FEDEX SMARTPOST, INC., 933 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . See, e.g ., Minor , 826 F.3d at 883-84 (more than 65%); Ohio Right to Life Soc'y, Inc. v. . . .

FRYE, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 933 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Memphis City Sch. , 589 F.3d 257, 264-65 (6th Cir. 2009). . . .

SINKLER, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 932 F.3d 83 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . . § 406(b) no later than sixty-five (65) days after the date of the final notice of award sent to plaintiff's . . .

DOGAN, v. BARAK,, 932 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Hoffman , 324 U.S. 30, 36, 65 S.Ct. 530, 89 L.Ed. 729 (1945) ). . . .

L. PAGE, v. KING,, 932 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Arevalo , 882 F.3d at 764-65. . . .

UNITED STATES v. LAUREANO- SALGADO, a k a L. a k a, 933 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Flores-Rivera, 787 F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2015) ; Del-Valle, 566 F.3d at 38 ; Maldonado-Rivera, 489 F.3d at 65 . . . Peake, 874 F.3d 65, 72 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. RIVERA- CARRASQUILLO, a k a KX, a k a a k a a k a n V a k a, 933 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Peake, 874 F.3d 65, 69 (1st Cir. 2017) ; Flores-Rivera, 787 F.3d at 15 ; Maldonado- Rivera, 489 F.3d . . . at 65-66. . . .

F REAL FOODS, LLC v. HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC., 388 F. Supp. 3d 362 (D. Del. 2019)

. . . . & Ontario Paper Co. , 261 U.S. 45, 65-66, 43 S.Ct. 322, 67 L.Ed. 523 (1923) ). . . .

VIRNETX INC. v. APPLE INC., 931 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Swift & Co. , 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944) ). . . .