The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . Attempted Monopolization; (3) Sherman Act § 1 Claim; (4) Florida Antitrust Act Restraint of Trade § 542.18 . . . Claim for Monopolization and Attempted Monopolization; (5) Florida Antitrust Act Restraint of Trade § 542.18 . . .
. . . This provision reads, in its entirety, as follows: (1) Notwithstanding s. 542.18 and subsection (2), . . .
. . . . §§ 542.15(a), 542.18. . . . The thrust of Spurlock’s appellate argument is that the district court misconstrued § 542.18. . . . deadline for the General Counsel’s response to his BP-11 or otherwise supporting his construction of § 542.18 . . . His argument is refuted by the plain directive of § 542.18 and by this court’s precedent. . . .
. . . . §§ 542.13-542.18. . . .
. . . See § 542.18, Fla. . . .
. . . . §§ 542.14(d)(2); 542.18. . . . allotted for reply ...' the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level.” § 542.18 . . .
. . . . §§ 542.15(a), 542.18, Mr. . . .
. . . DISCUSSION Section 542.335(l)(f), provides as follows: (1) Notwithstanding s. 542.18 and subsection ( . . .
. . . . § 542.18). . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . . Id. § 542.15(a); id. § 542.18. . . . Id. § 542.15(a); id. § 542.18. . . . See id. § 542.18. Harrison first made two informal attempts to remove his PSF. . . . See 28 C.F.R. § 542.18; Dkt. 1 at 27. . . .
. . . Section 542.335 Florida Statutes (2016) provides: (1) Notwithstanding s. 542.18 and subsection (2), enforcement . . .
. . . . § 542.18 governs the consequences of the Bureau’s decision not to respond to an administrative appeal . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . .
. . . . §§ 542.14(d)(2); 542.18. . . . allotted for reply ... the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level.” § 542.18 . . .
. . . . §§ 542.15, 542.18. . . . The Office of General Counsel has 40 calendar days to respond, see 28 C.F.R. § 542.18, and “[a] final . . . Id.; see 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . . . §§ 542.15(a), 542.18; Pl.’s Resp. App. Ex. B at 24. . . . The Central Office then has forty days to respond to the appeal. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . . . § 542.18. . . . institution level, thirty days at the regional level, or twenty days at the Central Office level. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .
. . . limits on the enforcement of a restrictive covenant by an assignee or successor: (1) Notwithstanding s. 542.18 . . .
. . . . § 542.18 (General Counsel’s response is due within 40 calendar days). . . .
. . . . § 542.18. Mr. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . . he never received it within the allotted time is equivalent to a denial at that level. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . . But in this case, the plain language of § 542.18 speaks for itself. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . . .
. . . . § 542.18. Hector Flores could have filed his appeal within 20 days of November 24, 2007. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. Id. at 4. The BOP does not dispute that its response to Mr. . . . extension, the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . . Waltmeyer, in accordance with § 542.18, treated the absence of a response as a denial of his appeal and . . . Waltmeyer was therefore entitled to “consider the absence of a response to be a denial,” § 542.18, at . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 542.18, Florida Statutes, “[e]very contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint . . . combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce ... is declared to be illegal.’’); § 542.18 . . .
. . . . §§ 542.335 and 542.18. . . .
. . . . §§ 542.11-542.18, requires that an inmate first attempt resolution of his or her grievance through . . . Id., §§ 542.15(a), 542.18. . . . Id., § 542.18. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . . had extended by twenty days the time to respond to Smith's appeal, as is allowed under 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .
. . . habeas petition), that he receive no response within the allotted time for reply, and that under section 542.18 . . .
. . . . § 542.18 (“if the inmate does not receive a response within the time allotted for reply, including . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . .
. . . . §§ 542.10 through 542.18, and corresponding policy.” Id. at 5. B. The Plaintiffs 1. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . . The regulations provide, in § 542.18, that “[i]f the inmate does not receive a response within the time . . . Regional Director signed a response as governing when an inmate’s appeal to the next level is due, § 542.18 . . . Director by September 12, 2007 — the time allotted for reply, including extension, under 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . . See 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . .
. . . Id. at § 542.18. . . . into the Administrative Remedy Index, which in Krist’s case, was not until 2 June 2009. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .
. . . Id. at §§ 542.15(a) and 542.18. . . .
. . . . § 542.18 which notes that at each level of BOP review, “[i]f the inmate does not receive a response . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . .
. . . . § 542.18 requires each level of administrative review to be completed in no more than forty days. . . .
. . . . §§ 542.18-542.19. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . . See id. § 542.18. . . . See id. § 542.18. . . .
. . . Section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1993), generally prohibits any contract in restraint of trade or commerce . . .
. . . . § 542.18. The Warden may extend the response time for an additional 20 days. Id. . . . Warden Sanders may have given herself an extension of time to respond under 28 C.F.R. § 542.18, thus, . . . This is questionable, however, as § 542.18 requires staff to inform the inmate of the extension in writing . . . . a copy of notice or data notation, that Petitioner was ever informed of an extension. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . . Petitioner’s BP-10 was dated September 23, 2005, but not "logged as received” under 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .
. . . Sherman Antitrust Act (the “Federal Antitrust Counts”) by both AT & T and ABC, violation of sections 542.18 . . .
. . . . §§ 542.15 & 542.18. . . .
. . . . §§ 542.18 and 542.22; see also FAC at ¶¶ 134-39. . . .
. . . . § 542.18 (emphasis added). B. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . . See 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . . .
. . . See 28 CFR § 542.18. . . .
. . . Any person who shall be injured in her or his business or property by reason of any violation of s. 542.18 . . .
. . . . § 542.18. The Court previously dismissed plaintiff's anti-trust claim under Fla. . . . . § 542.18, and therefore finds that plaintiff is not entitled to a declaratory judgment under this statute . . .
. . . . §§ 542.10-542.18. . . .
. . . . § 542.18 (2006). . . .
. . . . § 542.18 for emergencies, and he should be excused from complying with the filing deadlines because . . . Federal prisoners are required to follow a four-step grievance procedure. 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13 — 542.18 . . . Brown first asserts that his prison grievances were exhausted fully under 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . . He relies on the following language of § 542.18: “If the [Administrative Remedy] Request is determined . . . We need not address how § 542.18’s provision for treatment of an emergency grievance should be applied . . .
. . . Indeed, section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1983), stated (and continues to state) the general rule in . . . restraints of trade are illegal and unenforceable, section 542.335(1) provides: Notwithstanding s. 542.18 . . .
. . . . §§ 542.18 and 542.19. . . . Stat. §§ 542.18 and 542.19. . . .
. . . See § 542.18, Fla. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . .
. . . Stat. chs. 542.18 and 542.19. . . . Stat. chs. 542.18 and 542.19, closely track the language of the Sherman Act and are analyzed under the . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . .
. . . . § 542.18, which provides, “[i]f the inmate does not receive a response within the time allotted for . . . maintains he was entitled to consider the absence of a response to be a denial, as permitted by 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .
. . . . § 2 and § 542.18 eb seq., Florida Statutes, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. . . . Complaint (Doc. 286) alleging that Boeing attempted to monopolize in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2 and § 542.18 . . . Complaint (Doc. 286) alleging that Boeing conspired to monopolize in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2 and § 542.18 . . . Boeing conspired to restrain trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and § 542.18 . . .
. . . In Count V, the Debtor’s claim is based on the Florida Antitrust Act, Section 542.18 of the Florida Statutes . . . relief and attorneys fees pursuant to Section 542.23 of the Florida Statutes for violation of Section 542.18 . . . Section 542.18, 542.19, and 542.23) both based on the Doctrine of State Action Immunity; and (3) It is . . . FLORIDA ANTITRUST ACT §§ 542.18, 542.19 AND 542.23 (Counts V and VI) The Debtor’s claim for injunctive . . . Stat. § 542.18) and VI (Florida Antitrust Act, Fla. . . .
. . . . § 542.18, alleging that all contracts, combinations or conspiracy in restraint of trade is unlawful . . .
. . . See §§ 542.18-.19, § 542.235(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . See §§ 542.16, 542.18, 542.19, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .
. . . restrained competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Florida Statutes Section 542.18 . . . Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in interpreting what conduct violates Florida Statutes Section 542.18 . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). . 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a). . 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). . 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a). . 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 . . .
. . . an official investigation to determine whether there is, has been or may be a violation of Sections 542.18 . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . .
. . . . §§ 542.10-542.18); Wolff v. . . .
. . . . § 542.18, and may appeal within 30 days from the Regional Director’s decision to the BOP’s General . . . Counsel, see 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a), who must respond within 40 days, see 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. . . .
. . . Section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1997), states: “Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint . . .
. . . Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.18, 542.19; 740 Ill. Comp. . . .
. . . Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.18, 542.19; 740 Ill. Comp. . . . Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.18 (1999); 740 III. Comp. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . . See id. § 542.18. . . . See id. § 542.18. All told, the process should take no longer than one hundred and eighty days. . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . .
. . . .” §§ 542.18, 542.19, Fla.Stat. (1997). . See 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1011-1015 (1997). . . .
. . . . § 542.18. See MRG & L Complaint. . . .
. . . of federal and state anti-trust laws, specifically sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and sections 542.18 . . . Counts 7 through 10 assert that the federal antitrust violations of Florida Statute sections 542.18 or . . .
. . . . § 542.18. . . . Id. § 542.18. . . .
. . . . § 14, and Florida Statutes section 542.18; and (2) monopolization and attempted monopolization under . . . directed courts to rely on comparable federal antitrust statutes in construing [Florida Statutes section 542.18 . . .
. . . . §§ 1, 2, and under Florida Statutes §§ 542.18 and 542.19. . . . Palm Beach County PPP is a violation of the antitrust laws of the Sherman Act and Florida Statutes §§ 542.18 . . . Stat. §§ 542.16 (Florida antitrust laws complement federal antitrust laws), 542.18 (analogous to § 1 . . .
. . . restraint of trade and monopoly by Venice, Englewood, RAVE, Savoca, and Vihlen pursuant to sections 542.18 . . .
. . . Under § 542.18, Fla.Stat., every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce . . .
. . . While the appellee sued under section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1989), which prohibits conspiracies in . . .
. . . Fla.Stat. ch. 542.18 (1995). . . .
. . . . § 542.18, and Count II asserts a violation of Fla.Stat. § 542.19. . . .
. . . . § 542.18; and, in Count III on an alleged violation of Fla.Stat. §§ 772.103, and 772.104, the Florida . . . Debtor resulted in restraint of trade in violation of the anti-trust statute of this State, Fla.Stat. § 542.18 . . . The test for whether or not the conduct of the Debtor offends Fla.Stat. § 542.18, Florida’s Antitrust . . . foregoing, this Court is satisfied that the Debtor is not hable to the Claimants under Fla.Stat. § 542.18 . . .
. . . complaint also included a claim that defendants conspired to restrain trade in violation of sections 542.18 . . . Section 542.18 provides that “[e]very contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce . . . to allege a multiplicity of economic actors; and 2) it alleged neither a per se violation of section 542.18 . . .
. . . to recover on behalf of those persons threefold damages sustained by reason of any violation of s. 542.18 . . .
. . . . § 1, and Florida Statutes § 542.18 by virtue of the intentional, unlawful and discriminatory acts of . . .
. . . . § 1, and Florida Statutes § 542.18 by virtue of the intentional, unlawful and discriminatory acts of . . .
. . . Claims GOLTA has also brought state antitrust claims against GOAA and Mears under Florida Statutes §§ 542.18 . . .
. . . .1980) the trial court’s dismissal of count five for unreasonable restraint of trade under Sections 542.18 . . .
. . . 5) sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 6) violation of § 542.18 . . .
. . . . §§ 542.16 (Florida antitrust laws complement federal antitrust laws), 542.18 (provision analogous to . . . . § 542.18 and 542.19. . . .
. . . that this conduct constituted a restraint of trade in violation of the Florida Antitrust Act, section 542.18 . . .