The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . . § 101.65.] . . . Stat. §§ 101.65, 101.67(2). . . . Id. § 101.65. . . . . § 101.65 (2016). . . .
. . . . § 101.65 (2016). . . .
. . . . §§ 101.14 and 101.65 regulate when nutrient content claims or health claims can be made in the presence . . . Similarly, § 101.65 prohibits any nutrient content claim using the term “healthy” if fats, saturated . . . See 21 C.F.R. § 101.65(d)(2). In Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co., 2010 WL 2925955 (E.D.N.Y. . . . With respect to implied nutrient content claims governed by § 101.65, the Ackerman court noted that the . . . made in association with an explicit or implicit claim or statement about a nutrient.” 21 C.F.R. § 101.65 . . .
. . . . § 101.65(d)(2). Mot. 14. . . . . § 101.65(d)(1). . . . Oats — with - Almonds, FAC ¶ 165, which Post contends are permissible statements under 21 C.F.R. § 101.65 . . . information and comments on whether and how to amend the current guidelines (specifically) 21 C.F.R. § 101.65 . . .
. . . . §§ 101.13 (addressing express and implied nutrient content claims), 101.65 (implied nutrient content . . . “nutritious,” and "healthy" violates 2Í C.F.R. § 101.65 as im-' proper implied nutrient content claims . . . However, the FAC does not specifically allege a violation of § 101.65, and Plaintiff did not address . . .
. . . . § 101.65(d)(2) (establishing parameters for use of the term “healthy” “as an implied nutrient content . . . (Resp. at 12 (quoting 21 C.F.R. § 101.65(d)(2) and 81 Fed. . . . R. § 101.65(d)(2). . . . for different food categories (e.g., fruits and vegetables, or seafood and game meat) (21 C.F.R. § 101.65 . . .
. . . . § 101.65, and that certain KIND products did not meet the FDA’s saturated fat content requirements . . . almonds, avocados, or salmon contain saturated-fat levels exceeding the limits prescribed by 21 C.F.R. § 101.65 . . .
. . . . §§ 101.14(e) (6); 101.65(d)(2). . . .
. . . . §§ 101.2, 101.13, 101.54, and 101.65, which have been adopted by reference into the Sherman Law. . . . The circumstances under which “healthy” claims are permitted are defined in 21 C.F.R. § 101.65(d), but . . . [the] circumstances under which such claims are permitted are defined in 21 CFR 101.65(d), 21 CFR 101.54 . . .
. . . $260.00 $278.20 4-7 years $210.00 $224.70 1-3 years $170.00 $181.90 Paralegals & Law Clerks $ 95.00 $101.65 . . . $258.50 $104,578.76 D Bunim 105.04 $385.20 $40,461.41 37.92 $445.50 $57,354.77 Legal Assistants 539.22 $101.65 . . .
. . . See § 101.65, Fla. Stat. (2008) (¶ 1). . How close would be enough to be substantial? . . .
. . . The Application requests allowance of $1,814.00 in fees and $101.65 in expenses, but the proposed order . . . provides for allowance of $1,500.00 in fees and $101.65 in expenses. . . . Berken & Associates, counsel for the Debtor, is allowed a fee for services of $1,315.00 and expenses of $101.65 . . .
. . . was considering refinancing $63.7 million of 10x/8% bonds due 3/1/05 at a special redemption price of 101.65 . . . twelve month period ending the last day of February, 1976 111.79 101.67 1977 111.89 101.66 1978 110.98 101.65 . . .
. . . .: 1977 — 101.56 1978 — 101.65 ...”. (DX-33) 65. . . .
. . . Also, Section 101.65, Florida Statutes (1981), provides for an instruction sheet for absentee electors . . . responsibilities in the manner in which the absentee ballot was to be completed including following the Section 101.65 . . . And so, although the statutes in existence in 1982 (Sections 101.64 and 101.65) did provide for the election . . . “Upon the receipt of the absentee ballot and printed instructions as provided in § 101.65, the absent . . .
. . . After a careful review of the time records submitted, I find that only 101.65 of the total hours claimed . . . Thus, Schneider’s total compensable time is 101.65 hours; the total compensable paralegal time is 37.65 . . . (C) Total Lodestar Schneider: 101.65 hours X $50/hour = $5,082.50 Paralegals: 37.65 hours X $25/hour . . . to under Lindy: Attorney’s Name Hours Hourly Rate Lodestar Total Total Awarded Requested Schneider 101.65 . . .
. . . statute itself in conjunction with inquiry arguably invited by the specific instructions prescribed by § 101.65 . . .
. . . On the date of the petition herein, the sums of $101.65 and $138.59 were due and owing by the alleged . . .
. . . . § 101.65, F.S.A., sets forth the substantial form of instructions to be sent with each absentee ballot . . .
. . . Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, the Illinois Supreme Court promulgated rule 65-1, § 101.65 . . .
. . . Stat., c. 110, § 101.65-1) by which the State provides a free trial transcript to every indigent person . . .
. . . A. ch. 110, §101.65-1, which provides in part that any person sentenced to imprisonment who is “without . . .
. . . Rule 65-2, S.H.A. ch. 110, Sec. 101.65-2. . . .
. . . H.A. ch. 110, § 101.65-1, adopted June 19, 1956, effective September 26, 1956, and following in the wake . . . See also S.H.A. ch. 110, § 101.65-2, Supreme Court Rule 65-2, adopted November 12, 1957, providing: “ . . .
. . . effective September 26, 1956 (Supreme Court Rules, Smith-Hurd Illinois Annotated Statutes, Chap. 110, Sec. 101.65 . . .
. . . Likewise, under Section 101.65, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the marked ballot must be returned to the supervisor . . .
. . . such a voter shall “[u]pon the receipt of the * * ■ * ballot and printed instructions as provided in § 101.65 . . . In Sec. 101.65, supra, which must be considered with Sec. 101.66, supra, we find that among the instructions . . .
. . . Stat., 1955, c. 110, § 101.65 (Supreme Court Rule 65). . . . Stat., 1955, c. 110, § 101.65 (Supreme Court Rule 65); People v. Callopy, 358 Ill. 11, 192 N. . . .
. . . of Contra Costa county shall receive in payment therefor, from John Mullan, one hundred and one ^/o (101.65 . . .