The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 201
EXCISE TAX ON DOCUMENTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 201.10

201.10 Certificates of deposit issued by banks exempt.—All certificates of deposit issued by any bank, banking association, or trust company are exempt from the requirement for an excise tax imposed by this chapter.

History.—s. 2, ch. 19068, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 1279(119).

F.S. 201.10 on Google Scholar

F.S. 201.10 on Casetext

Amendments to 201.10

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 201.10

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 201.10.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

HORROR INC. v. MILLER,, 335 F. Supp. 3d 273 (D. Conn. 2018)

. . . . § 201.10. . . . regulations require only that the notice of termination "reasonably identify" the grant, 37 C.F.R. § 201.10 . . . (b)(2)(v), and forgive "[h]armless errors" in the notice, 37 C.F.R. § 201.10(e)(1) ; see also Siegel . . .

AL HAJ A. v. PFIZER INC., 338 F. Supp. 3d 741 (N.D. Ill. 2018)

. . . . § 201.10(c). . . .

CLARK, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 697 F. App'x 49 (2d Cir. 2017)

. . . P, App. 2, Rules 201.10, 201.11; cf. . . .

G. ANDERS, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 688 F. App'x 514 (10th Cir. 2017)

. . . directing opposite conclusions: Anders would be disabled under the applicable sedentary-work rule, 201.10 . . .

RAPER, v. W. COLVIN,, 262 F. Supp. 3d 415 (N.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . Part 404, Sub-part P, Appendix 2, § 201.10 (“Section 201.10”), but Plaintiff argues that the application . . . of Section 201.10 directs a finding of disabled. . . . Plaintiff argues that, three years ago, the Commissioner incompetently applied Section 201.10 to find . . . Plaintiff “not disabled,” when Section 201.10 clearly directed the opposite result. . . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, §§ 201.09, 201.10). . . .

A. D. OSBORNE, v. GEORGIADES, LGSW, 679 F. App'x 234 (4th Cir. 2017)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 201.10[1] (3d ed. 2011) (“The purposes of the final judgment rule are . . .

VILLARREAL, v. W. COLVIN,, 221 F. Supp. 3d 835 (W.D. Tex. 2016)

. . . Part 404, Sub-part P, Appendix 2, Table 1, Rule 201.10). . Id. . Id. at 7. . . . .

C. MARKS, v. W. COLVIN,, 201 F. Supp. 3d 870 (S.D. Ohio 2016)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 201.10. The ALJ gave Dr. . . .

ARGERIS, v. COLVIN,, 195 F. Supp. 3d 812 (E.D.N.C. 2016)

. . . Accordingly, pursuant to Grid Rule 201.10, plaintiff is disabled. 20 C.F.R. . . .

S. BRUMLEY E. Jr. M. W. J. v. ALBERT E. BRUMLEY SONS, INC. B., 822 F.3d 926 (6th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 201.10. Goldie’s 1979 assignment did none of this. It does not give a termination date. . . .

RETIREMENT COMMITTEE OF DAK AMERICAS LLC, DAK LLC v. B. SMITH, W. E. L. F. W., 185 F. Supp. 3d 707 (E.D.N.C. 2016)

. . . . $201.10 (second year annual interest amount). d. $.55 (second year daily interest amount). e. $.55 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HIGH PLAINS LIVESTOCK, LLC,, 148 F. Supp. 3d 1185 (D.N.M. 2015)

. . . . § 201.10 (2015). . . .

BALDWIN, v. EMI FEIST CATALOG, INC., 805 F.3d 18 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 201.10. . . .

RAY CHARLES FOUNDATION, a v. ROBINSON, Jr. F., 795 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 201.10(f)(6). . . . a valid notice have not been met, in-eluding before a court of competent jurisdiction.” 37 C.F.R. § 201.10 . . . See 37 C.F.R. § 201.10(f)(6) (“Recordation ... is without prejudice to any party claiming that the legal . . .

SUAREZ, v. W. COLVIN,, 102 F. Supp. 3d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Finally, Suarez argues that ALJ Russak should have applied Grid rule 201.10 to find-him disabled. . . . Therefore, Grid rule 201.10 regarding sedentary work is inapplicable by its own terms. . . .

A. OSBORN, v. W. COLVIN,, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (D. Or. 2015)

. . . Id. at Rule 201.10, 201.14. Accordingly, if Dr. . . .

PADILLA- GOMEZ, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 88 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.P.R. 2015)

. . . Thus the applicable GRID Rules 201.10 and/or 201.14.16 direct a finding of “disabled.” . . .

GIESEKE, v. W. COLVIN,, 770 F.3d 1186 (8th Cir. 2014)

. . . P, App. 2, § 201.00(g) and Table No. 1, § 201.10. . . .

MURCHISON CAPITAL PARTNERS, L. P. Dr. M. D. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,, 760 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . the judgment.’ ” Id. at 86, 121 S.Ct. at 519 (citing cases); see also 19 MooRe’s Federal Practice § 201.10 . . .

BOX, v. W. COLVIN,, 3 F. Supp. 3d 27 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . Plaintiff can perform light work cannot be sustained, the “Court should either (1) apply Grid Rule 201.10 . . . first suggested approach, the Plaintiff asserts that a finding of disability is required by Grid Rule 201.10 . . .

DC COMICS, v. PACIFIC PICTURES CORPORATION IP LLC IPW, LLC, 545 F. App'x 678 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . See 37 CFR § 201.10(b)(l)(vii). . . .

RAY CHARLES FOUNDATION, v. ROBINSON,, 919 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . . § 201.10(f)(4) (“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary of this section, the Copyright Office reserves . . . in writing upon the grantee or the grantee’s successor in title.” § 304(c)(4); see also 37 C.F.R. § 201.10 . . . See 37 C.F.R. § 201.10(f)(6) ("Recordation of a notice of termination by the Copyright Office is without . . .

FULLERTON, Jr. v. J. ASTRUE,, 452 F. App'x 697 (8th Cir. 2012)

. . . P, app. 2, table 1, rules 201.10, 201.14; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(d) (DIB), 416.963(d) (SSI) ( . . .

DELAROSA, v. BOIRON, INC., 818 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . . §§ 201.5, 201.10, 201.61, 201.62. . . .

E. PHILLIPS, v. J. ASTRUE,, 422 F. App'x 528 (7th Cir. 2011)

. . . With the change in her age category, Medical-Vocational Guideline 201.10 directed a finding that Ms. . . . P, App. 2, § 201.10. Because Ms. . . .

MARVEL WORLDWIDE, INC. MVL LLC, v. R. KIRBY, J. L. M. R. J. L. M. v. MVL LLC,, 756 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . . § 201.10 (regulations governing the content and form of termination notices); 17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(3) . . .

SIEGEL v. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. DC, 690 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . . § 201.10(e)(1). . . . applies; and, if possible and practicable, the original copyright registration number.” 37 C.F.R. § 201.10 . . . Section 201.10(e)(1) to the regulations, titled “Harmless errors,” declares that “harmless errors in . . . This is the same principle underlying a section like section 201.10(e)(1), and the proviso placed in . . . In such a circumstance there are clearly omissions of information required by 201.10(b)(l)(iii), thus . . .

SIEGEL v. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. DC, 658 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . . § 201.10(d)(2) states that section 304(c)(4)’s service requirement is met if there has been a “reasonable . . . facts ... without incorporation by reference of information in other documents or records,” 37 C.F.R. § 201.10 . . . and 5. the name, actual signature, and address of the person executing the termination. 37 C.F.R. §§ 201.10 . . . information required to serve the purposes of [the statute] shall not render the notice invalid.” 37 C.F.R. § 201.10 . . .

R. STAFFORD, v. J. ASTRUE,, 581 F. Supp. 2d 456 (W.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . . § 404 App. 2., Rules 201.09, 201.10. “Case law focusing on this issue is decisive. . . .

SIEGEL v. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. DC, 542 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (C.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . . § 201.10. . . . . § 201.10(b)(l)(ii). . . . See 37 C.F.R. § 201.10(e) (limiting application to “[hjarmless errors in a notice” that does not “materially . . . requirement that the notice must “reasonably” identify “the grant” to which it applies. 37 C.F.R. § 201.10 . . . required to serve the purposes of ... section 304(c) ... shall not render the notice invalid.” 37 C.F.R. § 201.10 . . .

L. MARTIN, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 240 F. App'x 941 (3d Cir. 2007)

. . . In Martin’s case, Rule 201.10 from the grid applicable to sedentary RFC directs a conclusion of disabled . . .

CARPENTER v. BOEING COMPANY, v., 456 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2006)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 201.10[1] (3d ed. 2006) (“The purposes of the final judgment rule are . . .

In JENKINS, R. v. S. St. IL, a S. St. IL,, 347 B.R. 77 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2006)

. . . Russell, Bankruptcy Evidence Manual § 201.10 (2006 ed.) . . .

MANN, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 175 F. App'x 159 (9th Cir. 2006)

. . . referenced two grid rules as the framework for his analysis of the time period at issue before us: grid rule 201.10 . . .

DOEBLERS PENNSYLVANIA HYBRIDS, INC. v. DOEBLER, III, LLC d b a T. A. v. L. R. III, III, LLC d b a T. A., 442 F.3d 812 (3d Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 201.10(a). . . . .

D. LACKEY, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 127 F. App'x 455 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . P., app. 2, § 201.10 (directing decision of "disabled” for sedentary individual closely approaching advanced . . .

H. REDFIELD, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 366 F. Supp. 2d 489 (E.D. Mich. 2005)

. . . movement supported a finding that he at most could perform sedentary work (thus triggering Grid Rule 201.10 . . .

In PERRY COUNTY FOODS, INC. G. v. A. P. L. I, L. P. L. P. LLC, d b a LLC d b a V. J. W. R., 313 B.R. 875 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2004)

. . . No. 9, 37 F.Supp. 386 (E.D.Pa.1939); see also Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 201.10[3] (Joseph M. . . .

WIRTH, v. Jo BARNHART,, 318 F. Supp. 2d 726 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

. . . approaching advanced age, had a limited education, and lacked any transferable work skills, Grid Rule 201.10 . . .

OSHKESHEQUOAM, v. Jo BARNHART,, 274 F. Supp. 2d 985 (C.D. Ill. 2003)

. . . See Vocational Rule 201.09 & 201.10. . . .

MANSOOR, v. TRANK, M., 319 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2003)

. . . Moore et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice § 201.10[2] (3d ed.1999) (noting that to be final for purposes . . .

BARILLARO, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 216 F. Supp. 2d 121 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . For the period after Barillaro turned fifty, ALJ Hoppenfeld applied Rule 201.10, which has the same criteria . . . P, App. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.10 (2001). Following this rule, she found plaintiff to be disabled. . . .

PHARMACIA CORP. AB, S. A. Co. v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., 201 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D.N.J. 2002)

. . . . § 201.10(c)(5); see also 12/17 Tr., at 173 (Barton); Garanzini Tr., at 62-64. 53. . . .

L. MORROW v. S. FARRELL,, 187 F. Supp. 2d 548 (D. Md. 2002)

. . . formally charged with a violation of General Order 1-103, “Unbecoming Conduct” and General Order 1-201.10 . . .

SMYTH, SMYTH v. RIVERO,, 282 F.3d 268 (4th Cir. 2002)

. . . The policy, appearing at section 201.10 of Virginia’s AFDC Manual, required that an applicant for welfare . . .

DIXON, v. G. MASSANARI,, 270 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir. 2001)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.10. . . .

F. DONAHUE, v. G. MASSANARI,, 166 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (E.D. Mich. 2001)

. . . report, in 1996 ALJ Boham found Plaintiff could perform a full range of light work and applied Grid Rule 201.10 . . . work to allow a “not disabled” finding under Rule 202.11, and with Plaintiff being disabled under Rule 201.10 . . .

ROTUNNO, v. G. MASSANARI,, 17 F. App'x 926 (10th Cir. 2001)

. . . grids,” In particular, he contends he met the requirements for a determination of disability under Rule 201.10 . . . Rule 201.10 therefore does not apply to Mr. Rotunno. See Daniels v. . . .

A. HOWARD, v. MASSANARI,, 255 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . P, App. 2, § 201.10 supports a finding of “not disabled.” . . .

DAVISON, v. A. HALTER,, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (S.D. Ala. 2001)

. . . . § 201.00, Rule 201.10, she would not be disabled if limited to light work, see 20 C.F.R. § 202.00, . . .

GALLIVAN, v. S. APFEL,, 88 F. Supp. 2d 92 (W.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . In determining that plaintiff was not disabled, the ALJ twice cited Rule 201.10, 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt . . .

MUSIC SALES CORPORATION, v. MORRIS,, 73 F. Supp. 2d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . . § 201.10(c)(3); see also § 304(c)(3),(4) (setting forth that the requirements established by the Register . . . See 37 C.F.R. § 201.10(c)(3). b. Did the 1993 Notice Conform to These Requirements? . . . statement reasonably identifying the grant to which the notice of termination applies.” 37 C.F.R. § 201.10 . . . Id. at § 201.10(b)(1) & (2). . . . See 37 C.F.R. § 201.10(c)(3). .Plaintiffs assert that "[wjith respect to the 1993 Notice, Defendants . . .

R. RUSHING v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,, 14 F. Supp. 2d 869 (S.D. Miss. 1998)

. . . The Court notes that Section 201.10 et. seq. of the Code of Federal Regulations set noise emission standards . . . The Defendant correctly points out that 42 C.F.R. § 201.10 does not apply to noise caused by warning . . .

W. WYRICK, v. S. APFEL,, 29 F. Supp. 2d 693 (M.D.N.C. 1998)

. . . on Plaintiffs vocational profile and the testimony of the vocational expert, •the framework of Rules 201.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HAUN,, 124 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 201.10(a) (requiring every person operating or desiring to operate as a dealer or market agency to . . . Id. at 472-73 (citing 9 C.F.R. § 201.10(a)). . . .

L. JOHNSON, v. S. CHATER,, 108 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 1997)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.10. If Johnson can perform light work, he is not disabled. Id. at Rule 202.10. . . .

S. WARD, SSN XXX- XX- XXXX v. S. CHATER,, 924 F. Supp. 53 (W.D. Va. 1996)

. . . P, App. 2, Rules 201.09 or 201.10. . . . Rules 201.09 and 201.10 of the Grids direct a finding of disability for an individual closely approaching . . .

DORSEY, v. TOMPKINS,, 917 F. Supp. 1195 (S.D. Ohio 1996)

. . . . § 201.10. . . .

CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP. a k a, 880 F. Supp. 595 (N.D. Ind. 1995)

. . . . § 201.10 (1994). The court cannot agree. . . .

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. Co. v. CITY OF HAPEVILLE, 779 F. Supp. 601 (N.D. Ga. 1991)

. . . . § 201.10. . . .

M. MARTIN, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 766 F. Supp. 941 (D. Kan. 1991)

. . . Applying the grids (Rules 201.10 and 201.02), the Appeals Council found the plaintiff to be disabled . . . Under the grids (Rules 201.02 and 201.10), the plaintiff is also disabled for purposes of disability . . .

ERVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY,, 755 F. Supp. 36 (D.P.R. 1991)

. . . . § 201.10, et seq. . . . made clear by use of a phrase such as “brand of” or the use of brackets, as required by 21 C.F.R. § 201.10 . . .

LARRY SPIER, INC. v. BOURNE CO., 750 F. Supp. 648 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . . § 201.10, seeking to terminate Bourne’s rights to the songs in question. In 1988 Steven D. . . .

COKER, v. Dr. W. SULLIVAN, U. S., 902 F.2d 84 (D.C. Cir. 1990)

. . . . § 201.10(a). . . . Id. § 201.10(b). . . . See id. §§ 201.10, 201.12. Heckler v. . . .

ALLEN, H. v. BOWEN, R., 881 F.2d 37 (3d Cir. 1989)

. . . Rule 201.10 of the regulations provides as follows: TABLE NO. 1. — RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY: MAXIMUM . . . CAPABILITY LIMITED TO SEDENTARY WORK AS A RESULT OF SEVERE MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE IMPAIRMENT(S) Rule 201.10 . . .

COKER, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 715 F. Supp. 383 (D.D.C. 1989)

. . . The provisions in §§ 201.10 —201.13 provide the basis for determining that action under § 201.6 is necessary . . . Section 201.10 provides that HHS will review the states’ adherence to federal requirements and to the . . . HHS is to conduct a “continuing observation” of the states’ quality control systems. § 201.10(b). . . . Section 201.10 provides the strongest support for plaintiffs’ argument that HHS is required to monitor . . .

RIVERA- FIGUEROA, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 858 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1988)

. . . If claimant were functionally restricted to sedentary work, grid rule 201.10 (closely approaching advanced . . .

MARCUS, W. W. v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 696 F. Supp. 364 (N.D. Ill. 1988)

. . . See Rules 201.10 — 201.29. . . .

MURPHY, v. R. BOWEN,, 691 F. Supp. 830 (D.N.J. 1988)

. . . graduate from high school and is closely approaching advanced age, the AU should have applied Rule 201.10 . . .

PONCE FEDERAL BANK, FSB, v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF UNITED STATES,, 690 F. Supp. 1145 (D.P.R. 1988)

. . . . § 201.10(a)(1). . . .

CRAWFORD, v. R. BOWEN,, 687 F. Supp. 99 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . however, on September 1, 1984, plaintiff was considered to be “closely approaching advanced age,” and § 201.10 . . .

PYLES, v. R. BOWEN,, 849 F.2d 846 (4th Cir. 1988)

. . . . § 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Table No. 1, Rules 201.09, 201.10. . . .

H. PAULSON, v. R. BOWEN,, 836 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1988)

. . . education, a determination of Paulson’s disability status turns upon which of the three grid rules—201.09, 201.10 . . . See Grid Rule 201.10. If Paul-son’s skills are transferable, Paulson is “not disabled.” . . .

BOURNE CO. On v. MPL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d b a H. Co. a, 675 F. Supp. 859 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . . § 201.10 (1987). . . .

MULLINS, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 836 F.2d 980 (6th Cir. 1987)

. . . P, app. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.10. . . .

E. GAMER, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 815 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1987)

. . . Compare 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, App. 2, §§ 201.10 and 201.14 (1984) with 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, App. 2, §§ 202.11 . . .

CALVIN, v. M. HECKLER,, 782 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1986)

. . . Had Calvin been 50 years old, grid 201.10 would have applied, requiring a finding of “disabled.” . . .

HARTNETT, v. M. HECKLER,, 625 F. Supp. 1405 (N.D. Ill. 1986)

. . . is therefore crucial at this stage, for Table No. 1 would yield a finding of “disabled” under Grid § 201.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. VON STEPHENS,, 774 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1985)

. . . . §§ 201.6, 201.10, 205.40, 205.42, 205.56, 233.20, 233.36. . . .

STAMPS, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 633 F. Supp. 101 (E.D. Mich. 1985)

. . . Therefore, Plaintiff argues that the AU should have applied Rule 201.10 to find that Plaintiff was disabled . . . P, app. 2, table 1, Rule 201.10. . . .

In CONVERTIBLE ROWING EXERCISER PATENT LITIGATION. DIVERSIFIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION, v. WESLO DESIGN INTERNATIONAL, INC. a, 616 F. Supp. 1134 (D. Del. 1985)

. . . . §§ 201.10-.15 (1984). . . .

D. CHESTER, v. M. HECKLER,, 610 F. Supp. 533 (S.D. Fla. 1985)

. . . Under the Grid Rule 201.10, a person with plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, education and work . . .

BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, a d b a a d b a a a v. M. OBERLY, III, E. III,, 606 F. Supp. 1340 (D. Del. 1985)

. . . . § 201.10. . . .

E. MARTIN, v. M. HECKLER,, 748 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1984)

. . . Rule 201.10. . . .

In FARMERS RANCHERS LIVESTOCK AUCTION, INC. In DAVIS, DAVIS v. UNITED STATES FARMERS RANCHERS LIVESTOCK AUCTION, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 46 B.R. 781 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1984)

. . . . § 201.10 which reads in part: § 201.10 Requirements and procedures. . . .

J. PODEDWORNY, v. HARRIS,, 745 F.2d 210 (3d Cir. 1984)

. . . Podedworny is as follows: ' Previous Work Rule Age Education Experience Decision 201.10 Closely ap- Limited . . . was decided on the grids, the Secretary concedes that, if appellant has no transferable skills, Rule 201.10 . . . The appropriate rule in this case, Rule 201.10, directed a conclusion that appellant is disabled. . . .

OSTER, v. M. HECKLER,, 594 F. Supp. 523 (D.N.D. 1984)

. . . ’s own Medical-Vocational Guidelines, Appendix 2, Plaintiff would be considered disabled under Rule 201.10 . . .

A. JOHNSON, v. M. HECKLER,, 741 F.2d 948 (7th Cir. 1984)

. . . Appendix 2, Rules 201.10, 201.11. . . .

D. REEVES, v. M. HECKLER,, 734 F.2d 519 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Rules 201.09 and 201.10 (1983). . . .

STATE OF GEORGIA, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, v. HECKLER,, 583 F. Supp. 1377 (N.D. Ga. 1984)

. . . . §§ 201.10-201.-14. . . .

MORRIS, v. HECKLER,, 576 F. Supp. 1018 (N.D. Ill. 1983)

. . . closely approaching advanced age, had limited education, and performed skilled or semi-skilled work, Rule 201.10 . . .

MATTES, d b a Jr. v. UNITED STATES, 721 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir. 1983)

. . . to refuse her registration since she met all the requirements of the Act and regulations, 9 C.F.R. 201.10 . . . The regulation prescribing the standards for acceptance of registration applications, 9 C.F.R. 201.10 . . . concerning the requirements for registration under the Act are found at 7 U.S.C. § 203 and 9 C.F.R. 201.10 . . .

STATE OF MINNESOTA, E. NOOT, v. M. HECKLER, STATE OF MINNESOTA, E. NOOT, v. M. HECKLER,, 718 F.2d 852 (8th Cir. 1983)

. . . . § 201.10- 66 (1982). . . . .

WOOD v. HECKLER,, 569 F. Supp. 470 (E.D. Pa. 1983)

. . . However, Rule 201.10 of Table 1, Appendix 2 of 20 C.F.R. § 404 requires that someone of Mr. . . .

C. WINN, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 711 F.2d 946 (10th Cir. 1983)

. . . Disabled. 201.10 do. do. Skilled or semiskilled— skills not transferable. do. 201.11 do. do. . . .

HECKLER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. CAMPBELL, 461 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1983)

. . . P, app. 2, §201.10 (1982), with id., §202.10, a determination that required a finding that she was capable . . .

B. ROGERS, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 558 F. Supp. 1358 (N.D. Ala. 1983)

. . . If plaintiff were judged as a fifty-year-old under section 201.10 rather than a forty-nine-year-old under . . .

WOLKENSTEIN, v. T. REVILLE, D. E. E. C. D. C., 694 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1982)

. . . October 14, 1976, Superintendent of Schools Reville, the district’s “chief executive officer”, see § 201.10 . . .

W. MEYER, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 549 F. Supp. 1242 (W.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . See Table l)Io. 1, Rules 201.03, 201.10. . . .

D. CORNELLA v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 545 F. Supp. 918 (D.S.D. 1982)

. . . Appendix 2, Table 1, Rule 201.10 (1981). . . . Rule 201.10 provides: “Closely approaching advanced age” is defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) as between . . .