The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . Jan. 25, 2017) (per capita gross return of $ 115.15). . . .
. . . GMAC’s request to recover $9.560.30 should be GRANTED only to the extent of $9,445.15 (merely $115.15 . . .
. . . reconciliation statement shows $87.93 of the $203.08 being allocated to “Fees,” and the remainder, or $115.15 . . . Finally, it shows the extra $203.08 for August 1999 as divided between $87.93 for “Expense Payment,” and $115.15 . . . The balance of that $203.08, or $115.15, was then applied toward the owing late charges, which, as of . . .
. . . probation, with the following special conditions: (1) that the defendant pay restitution in the amount of $115.15 . . .
. . . (“Prosperity”) was assigned a final dumping margin of 115.15 percent. Id. . . . applied Comitex’ 5.86 percent antidumping margin to the “all others” rate and excluded Prosperity’s 115.15 . . . equal to the dumping margin calculated for Comitex, without including the affirmative dumping margin of 115.15 . . . alternative based upon the information submitted to disregard the best information available rate of 115.15 . . . Commerce acted within its discretion in excluding the Prosperity best information available rate of 115.15 . . .
. . . (“Prosperity”) was assigned a final dumping margin of 115.15 percent. Id. . . . applied Comitex’ 5.86 percent antidumping margin to the “all others” rate and excluded Prosperity’s 115.15 . . . equal to the dumping margin calculated for Comitex, without including the affirmative dumping margin of 115.15 . . . alternative based upon the information submitted to disregard the best information available rate of 115.15 . . . Commerce acted within its discretion in excluding the Prosperity best information available rate of 115.15 . . .
. . . Complaint 115.15. . . .
. . . Litton, supra; 3 Collier, supra, at II 510.05; Weintraub & Resnick, supra, at 115.15. . . .
. . . Litton, supra; 3 Collier, supra, at ¶ 510.05; Weintraub & Resnick, supra, at 115.15. . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 115.15[4.2], at 15-232 (2d ed. 1982). In Staren v. . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 115.15[4.-1], at 15-220 (1982). . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 115.15[3], at 15-198 to 15-205 (2d ed. 1982). . . .
. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice [115.15[3], at 15-194 (3d ed. 1980); Wright & Miller, 6 Federal Practice . . .
. . . 15(c) is also relevant to amendments substituting or adding plaintiffs. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 115.15 . . .
. . . co-executors of an estate. 6 Wright & Miller, supra, § 1499 at 518-19; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 115.15 . . .
. . . Russakoff conducted a pulmonary function test, which showed a MW (maximum voluntary ventilation) of 115.15 . . .
. . . Penal Law §§ 115.00-115.15. . . .
. . . of the more liberal interpretations by the 1966 amendment to the Rule. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶115.15 . . .
. . . limitations which permitted him to somehow cause the plaintiff to be misled. . 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 115.15 . . .
. . . Bank in favor of Albert Williams to pay off a mechanic’s lien held by him against her property for $115.15 . . .