The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Chapter 677
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: DOCUMENTS OF TITLE

View Entire Chapter

CHAPTER 677

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: DOCUMENTS OF TITLE

ARTICLE 7

PART I

GENERAL

(ss. 677.101-677.106)

PART II

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS: SPECIAL PROVISIONS

(ss. 677.201-677.210)

PART III

BILLS OF LADING: SPECIAL PROVISIONS

(ss. 677.301-677.309)

PART IV

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS AND BILLS OF LADING: GENERAL
OBLIGATIONS

(ss. 677.401-677.404)

PART V

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS AND BILLS OF LADING: NEGOTIATION AND
TRANSFER

(ss. 677.501-677.509)

PART VI

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS AND BILLS OF LADING: MISCELLANEOUS
PROVISIONS

(ss. 677.601-677.603)

PART I

GENERAL

677.101 Short title.

677.102 Definitions and index of definitions.

677.103 Relation of chapter to treaty, statute, classification, or regulation.

677.104 Negotiable and nonnegotiable document of title.

677.105 Reissuance in alternative medium.

677.106 Control of electronic document of title.

677.101 Short title.—Chapter 677 shall be known and may be cited as the “Uniform Commercial Code—Documents of Title.”

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254.

Note.—s. 7-101, U.C.C.

677.102 Definitions and index of definitions.—

(1) In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) “Bailee” means a person that by a warehouse receipt, bill of lading, or other document of title acknowledges possession of goods and contracts to deliver them.

(b) “Carrier” means a person that issues a bill of lading.

(d) “Consignor” means a person named in a bill of lading as the person from which the goods have been received for shipment.

(e) “Delivery order” means a record that contains an order to deliver goods directed to a warehouse, carrier, or other person that in the ordinary course of business issues warehouse receipts or bills of lading.

(f) “Good faith” means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.

(g) “Goods” means all things that are treated as movable for the purposes of a contract of storage or transportation.

(h) “Issuer” means a bailee who issues a document of title or, in the case of an unaccepted delivery order, the person who orders the possessor of goods to deliver. The term includes a person for which an agent or employee purports to act in issuing a document if the agent or employee has real or apparent authority to issue documents, notwithstanding that the issuer received no goods or that the goods were misdescribed or that in any other respect the agent or employee violated his or her instructions.

(i) “Person entitled under the document” means the holder, in the case of a negotiable document of title, or the person to which delivery of the goods is to be made by the terms of, or pursuant to instructions in a record under, a nonnegotiable document of title.

(j) “Record” means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.

(k) “Shipper” means a person that enters into a contract of transportation with a carrier.

(l) “Sign” means, with present intent to authenticate or adopt a record:

1. To execute or adopt a tangible symbol; or

2. To attach to or logically associate with the record an electronic sound, symbol, or process.

(m) “Warehouse” means a person engaged in the business of storing goods for hire.

(2) Definitions in other chapters applying to this chapter and the sections in which they appear are:

“Contract for sale,” s. 672.106.

“Lessee in ordinary course of business,” s. 680.1031.

“Receipt” of goods, s. 672.103.

(3) In addition, chapter 671 contains general definitions and principles of construction and interpretation applicable throughout this chapter.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 621, ch. 97-102; s. 18, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-102, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.54.

677.103 Relation of chapter to treaty, statute, classification, or regulation.—

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, this chapter is subject to any treaty or statute of the United States to the extent the treaty or statute is applicable.

(2) This chapter does not modify or repeal any law prescribing the form or content of a document of title or the services or facilities to be afforded by a bailee, or otherwise regulating a bailee’s business in respects not specifically treated in this chapter. However, a violation of such a law does not affect the status of a document of title that otherwise is within the definition of a document of title.

(3) This chapter modifies, limits, and supersedes the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 7001, et seq., but does not modify, limit, or supersede s. 101(c) of that act, 15 U.S.C. s. 7001(c), or authorize electronic delivery of any of the notices described in s. 103(b) of that act, 15 U.S.C. s. 7003(b).

(4) To the extent that there is a conflict between any provisions of the laws of this state regarding electronic transactions and this chapter, this chapter governs.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 19, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-103, U.C.C.

677.104 Negotiable and nonnegotiable document of title.—

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), a document of title is negotiable if by its terms the goods are to be delivered to bearer or to the order of a named person.

(2) A document of title other than one described in subsection (1) is nonnegotiable. A bill of lading that states that the goods are consigned to a named person is not made negotiable by a provision that the goods are to be delivered only against an order in a record signed by the same or another named person.

(3) A document of title is nonnegotiable if, at the time it is issued, the document has a conspicuous legend, however expressed, that it is nonnegotiable.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 20, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-104, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.02-678.05.

677.105 Reissuance in alternative medium.—

(1) Upon request of a person entitled under an electronic document of title, the issuer of the electronic document may issue a tangible document of title as a substitute for the electronic document if:

(a) The person entitled under the electronic document surrenders control of the document to the issuer; and

(b) The tangible document when issued contains a statement that it is issued in substitution for the electronic document.

(2) Upon issuance of a tangible document of title in substitution for an electronic document of title in accordance with subsection (1):

(a) The electronic document ceases to have any effect or validity; and

(b) The person that procured issuance of the tangible document warrants to all subsequent persons entitled under the tangible document that the warrantor was a person entitled under the electronic document when the warrantor surrendered control of the electronic document to the issuer.

(3) Upon request of a person entitled under a tangible document of title, the issuer of the tangible document may issue an electronic document of title as a substitute for the tangible document if:

(a) The person entitled under the tangible document surrenders possession of the document to the issuer; and

(b) The electronic document when issued contains a statement that it is issued in substitution for the tangible document.

(4) Upon issuance of an electronic document of title in substitution for a tangible document of title in accordance with subsection (3):

(a) The tangible document ceases to have any effect or validity; and

(b) The person that procured issuance of the electronic document warrants to all subsequent persons entitled under the electronic document that the warrantor was a person entitled under the tangible document when the warrantor surrendered possession of the tangible document to the issuer.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 21, ch. 2010-131; s. 48, ch. 2011-4.

Note.—s. 7-105, U.C.C.

677.106 Control of electronic document of title.—

(1) A person has control of an electronic document of title if a system employed for evidencing the transfer of interests in the electronic document reliably establishes that person as the person to which the electronic document was issued or transferred.

(2) A system satisfies subsection (1), and a person is deemed to have control of an electronic document of title, if the document is created, stored, and assigned in a manner that:

(a) A single authoritative copy of the document exists which is unique, identifiable, and, except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), unalterable;

(b) The authoritative copy identifies the person asserting control as:

1. The person to which the document was issued; or

2. If the authoritative copy indicates that the document has been transferred, the person to which the document was most recently transferred;

(c) The authoritative copy is communicated to and maintained by the person asserting control or its designated custodian;

(d) Copies or amendments that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy can be made only with the consent of the person asserting control;

(e) Each copy of the authoritative copy and any copy of a copy is readily identifiable as a copy that is not the authoritative copy; and

(f) Any amendment of the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as authorized or unauthorized.

History.—s. 22, ch. 2010-131.

PART II

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS: SPECIAL
PROVISIONS

677.201 Persons that may issue a warehouse receipt; storage under bond.

677.202 Form of warehouse receipt; effect of omission.

677.203 Liability of nonreceipt or misdescription.

677.204 Duty of care; contractual limitation of warehouse’s liability.

677.205 Title under warehouse receipt defeated in certain cases.

677.206 Termination of storage at warehouse’s option.

677.207 Goods shall be kept separate; fungible goods.

677.208 Altered warehouse receipts.

677.209 Lien of warehouse.

677.210 Enforcement of warehouse’s lien.

677.201 Persons that may issue a warehouse receipt; storage under bond.—

(1) A warehouse receipt may be issued by any warehouse.

(2) If goods, including distilled spirits and agricultural commodities, are stored under a statute requiring a bond against withdrawal or a license for the issuance of receipts in the nature of warehouse receipts, a receipt issued for the goods is deemed to be a warehouse receipt even if issued by a person that is the owner of the goods and is not a warehouse.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 23, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-201, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.01.

677.202 Form of warehouse receipt; effect of omission.—

(1) A warehouse receipt need not be in any particular form.

(2) Unless a warehouse receipt provides for each of the following, the warehouse is liable for damages caused to a person injured by its omission:

(a) A statement of the location of the warehouse facility where the goods are stored;

(b) The date of issue of the receipt;

(d) A statement whether the goods received will be delivered to the bearer, to a named person, or to a named person or its order;

(e) The rate of storage and handling charges, unless goods are stored under a field warehousing arrangement, in which case a statement of that fact is sufficient on a nonnegotiable receipt;

(f) A description of the goods or the packages containing them;

(g) The signature of the warehouse or its agent;

(h) If the receipt is issued for goods that the warehouse owns, either solely, jointly, or in common with others, a statement of the fact of that ownership; and

(i) A statement of the amount of advances made and of liabilities incurred for which the warehouse claims a lien or security interest, unless the precise amount of advances made or liabilities incurred at the time of the issue of the receipt is unknown to the warehouse or to its agent that issued the receipt, in which case a statement of the fact that advances have been made or liabilities incurred and the purpose of the advances or liabilities is sufficient.

(3) A warehouse may insert in its receipt any terms that are not contrary to the provisions of this code and do not impair its obligation of delivery under s. 677.403 or its duty of care under s. 677.204. Any contrary provision is ineffective.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 622, ch. 97-102; s. 24, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-202, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.02.

677.203 Liability of nonreceipt or misdescription.—A party to or purchaser for value in good faith of a document of title, other than a bill of lading, that relies upon the description of the goods in the document may recover from the issuer damages caused by the nonreceipt or misdescription of the goods, except to the extent that:

(1) The document conspicuously indicates that the issuer does not know whether all or part of the goods in fact were received or conform to the description, such as a case in which the description is in terms of marks or labels or kind, quantity or condition, or the receipt or description is qualified by “contents, condition and quality unknown,” “said to contain,” or words of similar import, if such indication is true; or

(2) The party or purchaser otherwise has notice of the nonreceipt or misdescription.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 25, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-203, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.20.

677.204 Duty of care; contractual limitation of warehouse’s liability.—

(1) A warehouse is liable for damages for loss of or injury to the goods caused by its failure to exercise care with regard to the goods that a reasonably careful person would exercise under similar circumstances. Unless otherwise agreed, the warehouse is not liable for damages that could not have been avoided by the exercise of that care.

(2) Damages may be limited by a term in the warehouse receipt or storage agreement limiting the amount of liability in case of loss or damage and setting forth a specific liability per article or item, value per unit of weight, or any other negotiated limitation of damages as agreed upon between the parties beyond which the warehouse is not liable. Such a limitation is not effective with respect to the warehouse’s liability for conversion to its own use. On request of the bailor in a record at the time of signing the storage agreement or within a reasonable time after receipt of the warehouse receipt, the warehouse’s liability may be increased on part or all of the goods covered by the storage agreement or the warehouse receipt. In this event, increased rates may be charged based on an increased valuation of the goods.

(3) Reasonable provisions as to the time and manner of presenting claims and commencing actions based on the bailment may be included in the warehouse receipt or storage agreement.

(4) This section does not impair or repeal any statute which imposes a higher responsibility upon the warehouse or invalidates contractual limitations which would be permissible under this chapter.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 623, ch. 97-102; s. 26, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-204, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.03, 678.20.

677.205 Title under warehouse receipt defeated in certain cases.—A buyer in ordinary course of business of fungible goods sold and delivered by a warehouse that is also in the business of buying and selling such goods takes the goods free of any claim under a warehouse receipt even if the receipt is negotiable and has been duly negotiated.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 27, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-205, U.C.C.

677.206 Termination of storage at warehouse’s option.—

(1) A warehouse, by giving notice to the person on whose account the goods are held and any other person known to claim an interest in the goods, may require payment of any charges and removal of the goods from the warehouse at the termination of the period of storage fixed by the document of title or by a nonnegotiable warehouse receipt or, if a period is not fixed, within a stated period not less than 30 days after the warehouse gives notice. If the goods are not removed before the date specified in the notice, the warehouse may sell them pursuant to s. 677.210.

(2) If a warehouse in good faith believes that goods are about to deteriorate or decline in value to less than the amount of its lien within the time provided in subsection (1) and s. 677.210, the warehouse may specify in the notice given under subsection (1) any reasonable shorter time for removal of the goods and, if the goods are not removed, may sell them at public sale held not less than 1 week after a single advertisement or posting.

(3) If, as a result of a quality or condition of the goods of which the warehouse did not have notice at the time of deposit, the goods are a hazard to other property, the warehouse facilities, or other persons, the warehouse may sell the goods at public or private sale without advertisement or posting on reasonable notification to all persons known to claim an interest in the goods. If the warehouse, after a reasonable effort, is unable to sell the goods, it may dispose of them in any lawful manner and does not incur liability by reason of that disposition.

(4) A warehouse shall deliver the goods to any person entitled to them under this chapter upon due demand made at any time before sale or other disposition under this section.

(5) A warehouse may satisfy its lien from the proceeds of any sale or disposition under this section but shall hold the balance for delivery on the demand of any person to which the warehouse would have been bound to deliver the goods.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 624, ch. 97-102; s. 28, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-206, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.34.

677.207 Goods shall be kept separate; fungible goods.—

(1) Unless the warehouse receipt provides otherwise, a warehouse shall keep separate the goods covered by each receipt so as to permit at all times identification and delivery of those goods. However, different lots of fungible goods may be commingled.

(2) If different lots of fungible goods are commingled, the goods are owned in common by the persons entitled thereto and the warehouse is severally liable to each owner for that owner’s share. If, because of overissue, a mass of fungible goods is insufficient to meet all the receipts the warehouse has issued against it, the persons entitled include all holders to whom overissued receipts have been duly negotiated.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 29, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-207, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.22, 678.23.

677.208 Altered warehouse receipts.—If a blank in a negotiable warehouse receipt has been filled in without authority, a good faith purchaser for value and without notice of the lack of authority may treat the insertion as authorized. Any other unauthorized alteration leaves any tangible or electronic warehouse receipt enforceable against the issuer according to its original tenor.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 30, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-208, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.13.

677.209 Lien of warehouse.—

(1) A warehouse has a lien against the bailor on the goods covered by a warehouse receipt or storage agreement or on the proceeds thereof in its possession for charges for storage or transportation, including demurrage and terminal charges, insurance, labor, or other charges, present or future, in relation to the goods, and for expenses necessary for preservation of the goods or reasonably incurred in their sale pursuant to law. If the person on whose account the goods are held is liable for similar charges or expenses in relation to other goods whenever deposited and it is stated in the warehouse receipt or storage agreement that a lien is claimed for charges and expenses in relation to other goods, the warehouse also has a lien against the goods covered by the warehouse receipt or storage agreement or on the proceeds thereof in its possession for those charges and expenses, whether or not the other goods have been delivered by the warehouse. However, as against a person to which a negotiable warehouse receipt is duly negotiated, a warehouse’s lien is limited to charges in an amount or at a rate specified in the warehouse receipt or, if no charges are so specified, to a reasonable charge for storage of the specific goods covered by the receipt subsequent to the date of the receipt.

(2) A warehouse may also reserve a security interest against the bailor for the maximum amount specified on the receipt for charges other than those specified in subsection (1), such as for money advanced and interest. The security interest is governed by chapter 679.

(3) A warehouse’s lien for charges and expenses under subsection (1) or a security interest under subsection (2) is also effective against any person that so entrusted the bailor with possession of the goods that a pledge of them by the bailor to a good faith purchaser for value would have been valid. However, the lien or security interest is not effective against a person that before issuance of a document of title had a legal interest or a perfected security interest in the goods and that did not:

(a) Deliver or entrust the goods or any document of title covering the goods to the bailor or the bailor’s nominee with:

1. Actual or apparent authority to ship, store, or sell;

2. Power to obtain delivery under s. 677.403; or

3. Power of disposition under s. 672.403, s. 680.304(2), s. 680.305(2), s. 679.320, or s. 679.321(3) or other statute or rule of law; or

(b) Acquiesce in the procurement by the bailor or its nominee of any document.

(4) A warehouse’s lien on household goods for charges and expenses in relation to the goods under subsection (1) is also effective against all persons if the depositor was the legal possessor of the goods at the time of deposit. In this subsection, the term “household goods” means furniture, furnishings, or personal effects used by the depositor in a dwelling.

(5) A warehouse loses its lien on any goods that it voluntarily delivers or unjustifiably refuses to deliver.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 625, ch. 97-102; s. 31, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-209, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.27-678.32.

677.210 Enforcement of warehouse’s lien.—

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a warehouse’s lien may be enforced by public or private sale of the goods, in bulk or in packages, at any time or place and on any terms that are commercially reasonable, after notifying all persons known to claim an interest in the goods. The notification shall include a statement of the amount due, the nature of the proposed sale, and the time and place of any public sale. The fact that a better price could have been obtained by a sale at a different time or in a different method from that selected by the warehouse is not of itself sufficient to establish that the sale was not made in a commercially reasonable manner. The warehouse sells in a commercially reasonable manner if the warehouse sells the goods in the usual manner in any recognized market therefor, sells at the price current in that market at the time of the sale, or otherwise sells in conformity with commercially reasonable practices among dealers in the type of goods sold. A sale of more goods than apparently necessary to be offered to ensure satisfaction of the obligation is not commercially reasonable except in cases covered by the preceding sentence.

(2) A warehouse may enforce its lien on goods, other than goods stored by a merchant in the course of its business, only if the following requirements are satisfied:

(a) All persons known to claim an interest in the goods shall be notified.

(b) The notification must be delivered in person or sent by registered or certified letter to the last known address of any person to be notified.

(c) The notification shall include an itemized statement of the claim, a description of the goods subject to the lien, a demand for payment within a specified time not less than 10 days after receipt of the notification, and a conspicuous statement that unless the claim is paid within that time the goods will be advertised for sale and sold by auction at a specified time and place.

(d) The sale shall conform to the terms of the notification.

(e) The sale shall be held at the nearest suitable place to where the goods are held or stored.

(f) After the expiration of the time given in the notification, an advertisement of the sale shall be published once a week for 2 weeks consecutively in a newspaper of general circulation where the sale is to be held. The advertisement shall include a description of the goods, the name of the person on whose account they are being held, and the time and place of the sale. The sale shall take place at least 15 days after the first publication. If there is no newspaper of general circulation where the sale is to be held, the advertisement shall be posted at least 10 days before the sale in not fewer than 6 conspicuous places in the neighborhood of the proposed sale.

(3) Before any sale pursuant to this section any person claiming a right in the goods may pay the amount necessary to satisfy the lien and the reasonable expenses incurred in complying with this section. In that event, the goods may not be sold but shall be retained by the warehouse subject to the terms of the receipt and this chapter.

(4) A warehouse may buy at any public sale held pursuant to this section.

(5) A purchaser in good faith of goods sold to enforce a warehouse’s lien takes the goods free of any rights of persons against which the lien was valid, despite the warehouse’s noncompliance with this section.

(6) A warehouse may satisfy its lien from the proceeds of any sale pursuant to this section but shall hold the balance, if any, for delivery on demand to any person to which the warehouse would have been bound to deliver the goods.

(7) The rights provided by this section shall be in addition to all other rights allowed by law to a creditor against a debtor.

(8) If a lien is on goods stored by a merchant in the course of its business, the lien may be enforced in accordance with subsection (1) or subsection (2).

(9) A warehouse is liable for damages caused by failure to comply with the requirements for sale under this section, and in case of willful violation, is liable for conversion.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 626, ch. 97-102; s. 32, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-210, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.33.

PART III

BILLS OF LADING: SPECIAL
PROVISIONS

677.301 Liability for nonreceipt or misdescription; “said to contain”; “shipper’s weight, load, and count”; improper handling.

677.302 Through bills of lading and similar documents of title.

677.303 Diversion; reconsignment; change of instructions.

677.304 Tangible bills of lading in a set.

677.305 Destination bills.

677.306 Altered bills of lading.

677.307 Lien of carrier.

677.308 Enforcement of carrier’s lien.

677.309 Duty of care; contractual limitation of carrier’s liability.

677.301 Liability for nonreceipt or misdescription; “said to contain”; “shipper’s weight, load, and count”; improper handling.—

(1) A consignee of a nonnegotiable bill of lading which has given value in good faith, or a holder to which a negotiable bill has been duly negotiated, relying upon the description of the goods in the bill or upon the date shown in the bill, may recover from the issuer damages caused by the misdating of the bill or the nonreceipt or misdescription of the goods, except to the extent that the bill indicates that the issuer does not know whether any part or all of the goods in fact were received or conform to the description, such as in the case in which the description is in terms of marks or labels or kind, quantity, or condition or the receipt or description is qualified by “contents or condition of contents of packages unknown,” “said to contain,” “shipper’s weight, load, and count” or words of similar import, if that indication is true.

(2) If goods are loaded by the issuer of a bill of lading:

(a) The issuer shall count the packages of goods if shipped in packages and ascertain the kind and quantity if shipped in bulk; and

(b) Words such as “shipper’s weight, load, and count” or words of similar import indicating that the description was made by the shipper are ineffective except as to goods concealed in packages.

(3) If bulk goods are loaded by a shipper that makes available to the issuer of a bill of lading adequate facilities for weighing those goods, the issuer shall ascertain the kind and quantity within a reasonable time after receiving the shipper’s request to do so. In that case “shipper’s weight, load, and count” or words of similar import are ineffective.

(4) The issuer of a bill of lading, by including in the bill the words “shipper’s weight, load, and count” or words of similar import, may indicate that the goods were loaded by the shipper, and if that statement is true, the issuer is not liable for damages caused by the improper loading. However, omission of such words does not imply liability for damages caused by improper loading.

(5) A shipper guarantees to an issuer the accuracy at the time of shipment of the description, marks, labels, number, kind, quantity, condition and weight, as furnished by the shipper, and the shipper shall indemnify the issuer against damage caused by inaccuracies in those particulars. This right of indemnity does not limit the issuer’s responsibility or liability under the contract of carriage to any person other than the shipper.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 627, ch. 97-102; s. 33, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-301, U.C.C.

677.302 Through bills of lading and similar documents of title.—

(1) The issuer of a through bill of lading, or other document of title embodying an undertaking to be performed in part by a person acting as its agent or by a performing carrier, is liable to any person entitled to recover on the bill or other document for any breach by the other person or the performing carrier of its obligation under the bill or other document. However, to the extent that the bill or other document covers an undertaking to be performed overseas or in territory not contiguous to the continental United States or an undertaking including matters other than transportation, this liability for breach by the other person or the performing carrier may be varied by agreement of the parties.

(2) If goods covered by a through bill of lading or other document of title embodying an undertaking to be performed in part by a person other than the issuer are received by that person, the person is subject, with respect to its own performance while the goods are in its possession, to the obligation of the issuer. The person’s obligation is discharged by delivery of the goods to another person pursuant to the bill or other document and does not include liability for breach by any other person or by the issuer.

(3) The issuer of a through bill of lading or other document of title described in subsection (1) is entitled to recover from the performing carrier, or other person in possession of the goods when the breach of the obligation under the bill or other document occurred:

(a) The amount it may be required to pay to any person entitled to recover on the bill or other document for the breach, as may be evidenced by any receipt, judgment, or transcript of judgment; and

(b) The amount of any expense reasonably incurred by the insurer in defending any action commenced by any person entitled to recover on the bill or other document for the breach.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 628, ch. 97-102; s. 34, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-302, U.C.C.

677.303 Diversion; reconsignment; change of instructions.—

(1) Unless the bill of lading otherwise provides, a carrier may deliver the goods to a person or destination other than that stated in the bill or may otherwise dispose of the goods, without liability for misdelivery, on instructions from:

(a) The holder of a negotiable bill;

(b) The consignor on a nonnegotiable bill, even if the consignee has given contrary instructions;

(c) The consignee on a nonnegotiable bill in the absence of contrary instructions from the consignor, if the goods have arrived at the billed destination or if the consignee is in possession of the tangible bill or in control of the electronic bill; or

(d) The consignee on a nonnegotiable bill, if the consignee is entitled as against the consignor to dispose of the goods.

(2) Unless instructions described in subsection (1) are included in a negotiable bill of lading, a person to which the bill is duly negotiated may hold the bailee according to the original terms.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 629, ch. 97-102; s. 35, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-303, U.C.C.

677.304 Tangible bills of lading in a set.—

(1) Except as customary in international transportation, a tangible bill of lading may not be issued in a set of parts. The issuer is liable for damages caused by violation of this subsection.

(2) If a tangible bill of lading is lawfully issued in a set of parts, each of which contains an identification code and is expressed to be valid only if the goods have not been delivered against any other part, the whole of the parts constitutes one bill.

(3) If a tangible negotiable bill of lading is lawfully issued in a set of parts and different parts are negotiated to different persons, the title of the holder to which the first due negotiation is made prevails as to both the document of title and the goods even if any later holder may have received the goods from the carrier in good faith and discharged the carrier’s obligation by surrendering its part.

(4) A person that negotiates or transfers a single part of a tangible bill of lading issued in a set is liable to holders of that part as if it were the whole set.

(5) The bailee shall deliver in accordance with part IV of this chapter against the first presented part of a tangible bill of lading lawfully drawn in a set. Delivery in this manner discharges the bailee’s obligation on the whole bill.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 630, ch. 97-102; s. 36, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-304, U.C.C.

677.305 Destination bills.—

(1) Instead of issuing a bill of lading to the consignor at the place of shipment, a carrier, at the request of the consignor, may procure the bill to be issued at destination or at any other place designated in the request.

(2) Upon request of any person entitled as against the carrier to control the goods while in transit and on surrender of possession or control of any outstanding bill of lading or other receipt covering such goods, the issuer, subject to s. 677.105, may procure a substitute bill to be issued at any place designated in the request.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 37, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-305, U.C.C.

677.306 Altered bills of lading.—An unauthorized alteration or filling in of a blank in a bill of lading leaves the bill enforceable according to its original tenor.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254.

Note.—s. 7-306, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.13.

677.307 Lien of carrier.—

(1) A carrier has a lien on the goods covered by a bill of lading or on the proceeds thereof in its possession for charges after the date of the carrier’s receipt of the goods for storage or transportation, including demurrage and terminal charges, and for expenses necessary for preservation of the goods incident to their transportation or reasonably incurred in their sale pursuant to law. However, against a purchaser for value of a negotiable bill of lading, a carrier’s lien is limited to charges stated in the bill or the applicable tariffs or, if no charges are stated, a reasonable charge.

(2) A lien for charges and expenses under subsection (1) on goods that the carrier was required by law to receive for transportation is effective against the consignor or any person entitled to the goods unless the carrier had notice that the consignor lacked authority to subject the goods to those charges and expenses. Any other lien under subsection (1) is effective against the consignor and any person that permitted the bailor to have control or possession of the goods unless the carrier had notice that the bailor lacked authority.

(3) A carrier loses its lien on any goods that it voluntarily delivers or unjustifiably refuses to deliver.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 631, ch. 97-102; s. 38, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-307, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.27-678.32.

677.308 Enforcement of carrier’s lien.—

(1) A carrier’s lien on goods may be enforced by public or private sale of the goods, in bulk or in packages, at any time or place and on any terms that are commercially reasonable, after notifying all persons known to claim an interest in the goods. The notification shall include a statement of the amount due, the nature of the proposed sale, and the time and place of any public sale. The fact that a better price could have been obtained by a sale at a different time or in a method different from that selected by the carrier is not of itself sufficient to establish that the sale was not made in a commercially reasonable manner. The carrier sells goods in a commercially reasonable manner if the carrier sells the goods in the usual manner in any recognized market therefor, sells at the price current in that market at the time of the sale, or otherwise sells in conformity with commercially reasonable practices among dealers in the type of goods sold. A sale of more goods than apparently necessary to be offered to ensure satisfaction of the obligation is not commercially reasonable, except in cases covered by the preceding sentence.

(2) Before any sale pursuant to this section, any person claiming a right in the goods may pay the amount necessary to satisfy the lien and the reasonable expenses incurred in complying with this section. In that event, the goods may not be sold but shall be retained by the carrier, subject to the terms of the bill of lading and this chapter.

(3) The carrier may buy at any public sale pursuant to this section.

(4) A purchaser in good faith of goods sold to enforce a carrier’s lien takes the goods free of any rights of persons against which the lien was valid, despite the carrier’s noncompliance with this section.

(5) A carrier may satisfy its lien from the proceeds of any sale pursuant to this section but shall hold the balance, if any, for delivery on demand to any person to which the carrier would have been bound to deliver the goods.

(6) The rights provided by this section are in addition to all other rights allowed by law to a creditor against a debtor.

(7) A carrier’s lien may be enforced pursuant to either subsection (1) or the procedure set forth in s. 677.210(2).

(8) A carrier is liable for damages caused by failure to comply with the requirements for sale under this section and, in case of willful violation, is liable for conversion.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 632, ch. 97-102; s. 39, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-308, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.33.

677.309 Duty of care; contractual limitation of carrier’s liability.—

(1) A carrier that issues a bill of lading, whether negotiable or nonnegotiable, shall exercise the degree of care in relation to the goods which a reasonably careful person would exercise under similar circumstances. This subsection does not affect any statute, regulation, or rule of law that imposes liability upon a common carrier for damages not caused by its negligence.

(2) Damages may be limited by a term in the bill of lading or in a transportation agreement that the carrier’s liability may not exceed a value stated in the bill or transportation agreement if the carrier’s rates are dependent upon value and the consignor is afforded an opportunity to declare a higher value and the consignor is advised of the opportunity. However, such a limitation is not effective with respect to the carrier’s liability for conversion to its own use.

(3) Reasonable provisions as to the time and manner of presenting claims and commencing actions based on the shipment may be included in the bill of lading or a transportation agreement.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 633, ch. 97-102; s. 40, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-309, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.03, 678.20.

PART IV

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS AND BILLS OF
LADING: GENERAL OBLIGATIONS

677.401 Irregularities in issue of receipt or bill or conduct of issuer.

677.402 Duplicate document of title; overissue.

677.403 Obligation of bailee to deliver; excuse.

677.404 No liability for good faith delivery pursuant to document of title.

677.401 Irregularities in issue of receipt or bill or conduct of issuer.—The obligations imposed by this chapter on an issuer apply to a document of title even if:

(1) The document does not comply with the requirements of this chapter or of any other statute, rule of law, or regulation regarding its issuance, form, or content;

(2) The issuer violated laws regulating the conduct of its business;

(3) The goods covered by the document were owned by the bailee when the document was issued; or

(4) The person issuing the document is not a warehouse but the document purports to be a warehouse receipt.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 634, ch. 97-102; s. 41, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-401, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.20.

677.402 Duplicate document of title; overissue.—A duplicate or any other document of title purporting to cover goods already represented by an outstanding document of the same issuer does not confer any right in the goods, except as provided in the case of tangible bills of lading in a set of parts, overissue of documents for fungible goods, substitutes for lost, stolen or destroyed documents, or substitute documents issued pursuant to s. 677.105. The issuer is liable for damages caused by its overissue or failure to identify a duplicate document by a conspicuous notation.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 635, ch. 97-102; s. 42, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-402, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.06.

677.403 Obligation of bailee to deliver; excuse.—

(1) A bailee shall deliver the goods to a person entitled under a document of title if the person complies with subsections (2) and (3), unless and to the extent that the bailee establishes any of the following:

(a) Delivery of the goods to a person whose receipt was rightful as against the claimant;

(b) Damage to or delay, loss or destruction of the goods for which the bailee is not liable, but the burden of establishing negligence in such cases when value of such damage, delay, loss, or destruction exceeds $10,000 is on the person entitled under the document;

(c) Previous sale or other disposition of the goods in lawful enforcement of a lien or on a warehouse’s lawful termination of storage;

(d) The exercise by a seller of its right to stop delivery pursuant to s. 672.705 or by a lessor of its right to stop delivery pursuant to s. 680.526;

(e) A diversion, reconsignment, or other disposition pursuant to s. 677.303;

(f) Release, satisfaction, or any other personal defense against the claimant; or

(g) Any other lawful excuse.

(2) A person claiming goods covered by a document of title shall satisfy the bailee’s lien if the bailee so requests or if the bailee is prohibited by law from delivering the goods until the charges are paid.

(3) Unless a person claiming the goods is a person against which the document of title does not confer a right under s. 677.503(1):

(a) The person claiming under a document shall surrender possession or control of any outstanding negotiable document covering the goods for cancellation or indication of partial deliveries; and

(b) The bailee shall cancel the document or conspicuously indicate in the document the partial delivery or the bailee is liable to any person to which the document is duly negotiated.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 1, ch. 71-292; s. 636, ch. 97-102; s. 43, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-403, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.08-678.12, 678.16, 678.19.

677.404 No liability for good faith delivery pursuant to document of title.—A bailee that in good faith has received goods and delivered or otherwise disposed of the goods according to the terms of the document of title or pursuant to this chapter is not liable for the goods even if:

(1) The person from which the bailee received the goods did not have authority to procure the document or to dispose of the goods; or

(2) The person to which the bailee delivered the goods did not have authority to receive the goods.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 637, ch. 97-102; s. 44, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-404, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.10.

PART V

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS AND BILLS OF
LADING: NEGOTIATION AND TRANSFER

677.501 Form of negotiation and requirements of due negotiation.

677.502 Rights acquired by due negotiation.

677.503 Document of title to goods defeated in certain cases.

677.504 Rights acquired in the absence of due negotiation; effect of diversion; stoppage of delivery.

677.505 Indorser not guarantor for other parties.

677.506 Delivery without indorsement; right to compel indorsement.

677.507 Warranties on negotiation or delivery of document of title.

677.508 Warranties of collecting bank as to documents of title.

677.509 Adequate compliance with commercial contract.

677.501 Form of negotiation and requirements of due negotiation.—

(1) The following rules apply to a negotiable tangible document of title:

(a) If the document’s original terms run to the order of a named person, the document is negotiated by the named person’s indorsement and delivery. After the named person’s indorsement in blank or to bearer, any person may negotiate the document by delivery alone.

(b) If the document’s original terms run to bearer, it is negotiated by delivery alone.

(c) If the document’s original terms run to the order of a named person and it is delivered to the named person, the effect is the same as if the document had been negotiated.

(d) Negotiation of the document after it has been indorsed to a named person requires indorsement by the named person and delivery.

(e) A document is duly negotiated if it is negotiated in the manner stated in this subsection to a holder that purchases it in good faith, without notice of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person, and for value, unless it is established that the negotiation is not in the regular course of business or financing or involves receiving the document in settlement or payment of a money obligation.

(2) The following rules apply to a negotiable electronic document of title:

(a) If the document’s original terms run to the order of a named person or to bearer, the document is negotiated by delivery of the document to another person. Indorsement by the named person is not required to negotiate the document.

(b) If the document’s original terms run to the order of a named person and the named person has control of the document, the effect is the same as if the document had been negotiated.

(c) A document is duly negotiated if it is negotiated in the manner stated in this subsection to a holder that purchases it in good faith, without notice of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person, and for value, unless it is established that the negotiation is not in the regular course of business or financing or involves taking delivery of the document in settlement or payment of a monetary obligation.

(3) Indorsement of a nonnegotiable document of title neither makes it negotiable nor adds to the transferee’s rights.

(4) The naming in a negotiable bill of lading of a person to be notified of the arrival of the goods does not limit the negotiability of the bill or constitute notice to a purchaser of the bill of any interest of that person in the goods.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 638, ch. 97-102; s. 45, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-501, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.39-678.42, 678.49.

677.502 Rights acquired by due negotiation.—

(1) Subject to ss. 677.205 and 677.503, a holder to which a negotiable document of title has been duly negotiated acquires thereby:

(a) Title to the document;

(b) Title to the goods;

(c) All rights accruing under the law of agency or estoppel, including rights to goods delivered to the bailee after the document was issued; and

(d) The direct obligation of the issuer to hold or deliver the goods according to the terms of the document free of any defense or claim by the issuer except those arising under the terms of the document or under this chapter, but in the case of a delivery order, the bailee’s obligation accrues only upon the bailee’s acceptance of the delivery order and the obligation acquired by the holder is that the issuer and any indorser will procure the acceptance of the bailee.

(2) Subject to the following section, title and rights so acquired by due negotiation are not defeated by any stoppage of the goods represented by the document of title or by surrender of the goods by the bailee and are not impaired even if:

(a) The due negotiation or any prior due negotiation constituted a breach of duty;

(b) Any person has been deprived of possession of a negotiable tangible document or control of a negotiable electronic document by misrepresentation, fraud, accident, mistake, duress, loss, theft, or conversion; or

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 639, ch. 97-102; s. 46, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-502, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.43, 678.49-678.51.

677.503 Document of title to goods defeated in certain cases.—

(1) A document of title confers no right in goods against a person that before issuance of the document had a legal interest or a perfected security interest in the goods and that did not:

(a) Deliver or entrust the goods or any document of title covering the goods to the bailor or the bailor’s nominee with:

1. Actual or apparent authority to ship, store, or sell;

2. Power to obtain delivery under s. 677.403; or

3. Power of disposition under s. 672.403, s. 680.304(2), s. 680.305(2), s. 679.320, or s. 679.321(3) or other statute or rule of law; or

(b) Acquiesce in the procurement by the bailor or its nominee of any document.

(2) Title to goods based upon an unaccepted delivery order is subject to the rights of any person to which a negotiable warehouse receipt or bill of lading covering the goods has been duly negotiated. That title may be defeated under the next section to the same extent as the rights of the issuer or a transferee from the issuer.

(3) Title to goods based upon a bill of lading issued to a freight forwarder is subject to the rights of any person to which a bill issued by the freight forwarder is duly negotiated. However, delivery by the carrier in accordance with part IV of this chapter pursuant to its own bill of lading discharges the carrier’s obligation to deliver.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 640, ch. 97-102; s. 18, ch. 2001-198; s. 47, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-503, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.43.

677.504 Rights acquired in the absence of due negotiation; effect of diversion; stoppage of delivery.—

(1) A transferee of a document of title, whether negotiable or nonnegotiable, to which the document has been delivered but not duly negotiated, acquires the title and rights that its transferor had or had actual authority to convey.

(2) In the case of a transfer of a nonnegotiable document of title, until but not after the bailee receives notice of the transfer, the rights of the transferee may be defeated:

(a) By those creditors of the transferor which could treat the transfer as void under s. 672.402 or s. 680.308;

(b) By a buyer from the transferor in ordinary course of business if the bailee has delivered the goods to the buyer or received notification of the buyer’s rights;

(c) By a lessee from the transferor in ordinary course of business if the bailee has delivered the goods to the lessee or received notification of the lessee’s rights; or

(d) As against the bailee, by good faith dealings of the bailee with the transferor.

(3) A diversion or other change of shipping instructions by the consignor in a nonnegotiable bill of lading which causes the bailee not to deliver to the consignee defeats the consignee’s title to the goods if the goods have been delivered to a buyer or a lessee in ordinary course of business and, in any event, defeats the consignee’s rights against the bailee.

(4) Delivery of the goods pursuant to a nonnegotiable document of title may be stopped by a seller under s. 672.705 or by a lessor under s. 680.526, subject to the requirements of due notification. A bailee that honors the seller’s or lessor’s instructions is entitled to be indemnified by the seller or lessor against any resulting loss or expense.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 641, ch. 97-102; s. 48, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-504, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.43, 678.44.

677.505 Indorser not guarantor for other parties.—The indorsement of a tangible document of title issued by a bailee does not make the indorser liable for any default by the bailee or previous indorsers.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 49, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-505, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.47.

677.506 Delivery without indorsement; right to compel indorsement.—The transferee of a negotiable tangible document of title has a specifically enforceable right to have its transferor supply any necessary indorsement but the transfer becomes a negotiation only as of the time the indorsement is supplied.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 642, ch. 97-102; s. 50, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-506, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.45.

677.507 Warranties on negotiation or delivery of document of title.—If a person negotiates or delivers a document of title for value, otherwise than as a mere intermediary under the next following section, unless otherwise agreed, the transferor, in addition to any warranty made in selling or leasing the goods, warrants to its immediate purchaser only that:

(1) The document is genuine;

(2) The transferor does not have knowledge of any fact that would impair the document’s validity or worth; and

(3) The negotiation or delivery is rightful and fully effective with respect to the title to the document and the goods it represents.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 643, ch. 97-102; s. 51, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-507, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.46.

677.508 Warranties of collecting bank as to documents of title.—A collecting bank or other intermediary known to be entrusted with documents of title on behalf of another or with collection of a draft or other claim against delivery of documents warrants by the delivery of the documents only its own good faith and authority even if the collecting bank or other intermediary has purchased or made advances against the claim or draft to be collected.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 52, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-508, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 685.01.

677.509 Adequate compliance with commercial contract.—Whether a document of title is adequate to fulfill the obligations of a contract for sale, the conditions of a letter of credit, or a contract for lease is determined by chapter 672, chapter 675, or chapter 680.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 53, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-509, U.C.C.

PART VI

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS AND BILLS OF
LADING: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

677.601 Lost, stolen, or destroyed documents of title.

677.602 Judicial process against goods covered by negotiable document of title.

677.603 Conflicting claims; interpleader.

677.601 Lost, stolen, or destroyed documents of title.—

(1) If a document of title is lost, stolen, or destroyed, a court may order delivery of the goods or issuance of a substitute document and the bailee may without liability to any person comply with the order. If the document was negotiable, a court may not order delivery of the goods or the issuance of a substitute document without the claimant’s posting security unless it finds that any person that may suffer loss as a result of nonsurrender of possession or control of the document is adequately protected against the loss. If the document was nonnegotiable, the court may require security. The court may also order payment of the bailee’s reasonable costs and attorney’s fees in any action under this subsection.

(2) A bailee that, without a court order, delivers goods to a person claiming under a missing negotiable document of title is liable to any person injured thereby. If the delivery is not in good faith, the bailee is liable for conversion. Delivery in good faith is not conversion if the claimant posts security with the bailee in an amount at least double the value of the goods at the time of posting to indemnify any person injured by the delivery which files a notice of claim within 1 year after the delivery.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 54, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-601, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.14.

677.602 Judicial process against goods covered by negotiable document of title.—Unless a document of title was originally issued upon delivery of the goods by a person that did not have power to dispose of them, a lien does not attach by virtue of any judicial process to goods in the possession of a bailee for which a negotiable document of title is outstanding unless possession or control of the document is first surrendered to the bailee or the document’s negotiation is enjoined. The bailee may not be compelled to deliver the goods pursuant to process until possession or control of the document is surrendered to the bailee or to the court. A purchaser of the document for value without notice of the process or injunction takes free of the lien imposed by judicial process.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 644, ch. 97-102; s. 55, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-602, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.25.

677.603 Conflicting claims; interpleader.—If more than one person claims title to or possession of the goods, the bailee is excused from delivery until the bailee has a reasonable time to ascertain the validity of the adverse claims or to commence an action for interpleader. The bailee may assert an interpleader either in defending an action for nondelivery of the goods or by original action.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 645, ch. 97-102; s. 56, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-603, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.16, 678.17.

F.S. 677 on Google Scholar

F.S. 677 on Casetext

Amendments to 677

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 677

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 677.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

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

. . . Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 24, 2003 , 4 N.Y.3d 665, 677-678, 797 N.Y.S.2d 790, 830 N.E . . .

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

. . . Richardson , 411 U.S. 677, 678-679, 690-691, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 36 L.Ed.2d 583 (1973) (plurality opinion) . . .

ESPINOZA, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Act of Feb. 22, 1889, § 4, 25 Stat. 677; see also Becket Fund Brief 17-18 (quoting one Senator's description . . . Perry , 545 U.S. 677, 698, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005) (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment . . . Tilton , 403 U.S. at 677, 91 S.Ct. 2091 (plurality opinion). . . . Perry , 545 U.S. 677, 700, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005) (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment . . .

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

. . . United States , 86 F.Supp.3d 591, 677-678 (2015). . . .

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

. . . Richardson , 411 U.S. 677, 682-684, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 36 L.Ed.2d 583 (1973) (plurality opinion); Reed v. . . .

ROGERS, v. GREWAL,, 140 S. Ct. 1865 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See Gould , 907 F.3d, at 677 ; Kachalsky , 701 F.3d, at 101 ; Drake , 724 F.3d, at 440 ; Masciandaro . . .

OPATI, v. REPUBLIC OF SUDAN,, 140 S. Ct. 1601 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Altmann , 541 U.S. 677, 689, 124 S.Ct. 2240, 159 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004), and so often implicates judgments . . .

MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS, v. UNITED STATES v. v. v., 140 S. Ct. 1308 (U.S. 2020)

. . . . §§ 303, 624, 655, 677, 1203, 1353, 1396b, 8623, 12622, 16014, 16512 ; 46 U.S.C. §§ 51504, 53106, 53206 . . .

PETER, v. NANTKWEST, INC., 140 S. Ct. 365 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Rodgers , 461 U.S. 677, 716, 103 S.Ct. 2132, 76 L.Ed.2d 236 (1983). . . .

RUDLEY, M. D. B. v. LITTLE ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT In In, 935 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Eichenberger, 677 F.3d 361, 366 (8th Cir. 2012), in which the plaintiff complied with the arresting officer's . . . Shekleton, 677 F.3d at 366. . . .

UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR, v., 935 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 916, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). . . . warrant-in other words, when they act in "good faith." 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 . . .

BELLITTO, v. SNIPES,, 935 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . LanLogistics, Corp., 677 F.3d 1068, 1070 (11th Cir. 2012). B. . . .

SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL- DENVER, INC. v. M. AZAR II, U. S., 391 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . See S1-AR at 677-742; S2-AR at 6249, 6309, 6323; H-AR at 541-43, 555-57, 1087-89. . . . may have treated this situation differently in that we would have allowed the Medicare bad debt."), 677 . . .

IN RE JUAREZ, v., 603 B.R. 610 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Yu (In re Ellis) , 523 B.R. 673, 677 (9th Cir. BAP 2014) (citations omitted). . . . (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.) , 677 F.3d 869, 880 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Jacobus v. . . . Ltd.) , 771 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Thorpe Insulation Co. , 677 F.3d at 880 ). . . . to rely on [the] final bankruptcy court order.' " Id. at 1215 (quoting In re Thorpe Insulation Co. , 677 . . . In re Thorpe Insulation Co. , 677 F.3d at 881. . . .

J. GENZER, v. JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,, 934 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Supp. 677, 685 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (same), aff'd , 39 F.3d 138 (7th Cir. 1994). . . .

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

. . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). . . .

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

. . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 924, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). . . . Raupp , 677 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2012), where we rejected the textual arguments that the D.C. . . . The note says they are included." 677 F.3d at 759. . . .

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

. . . Puccinelli , 224 F.R.D. 677, 684-85 (D. . . .

BOWLES, v. DESANTIS,, 934 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 692 n.13, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ). . . .

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

. . . In re EMC Corp. , 677 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012). . . . See In re EMC Corp. , 677 F.3d at 1357-58. . . . In re EMC Corp. , 677 F.3d at 1359. . . . See In re EMC Corp. , 677 F.3d at 1359-60 ; Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. . . .

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

. . . Swenson , 894 F.3d 677, 684 (5th Cir.) (quoting United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. PAWLAK,, 935 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (internal quotation marks and citation . . .

ST. CHARLES SURGICAL HOSPITAL, L. L. C. v. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE INDEMNITY COMPANY,, 935 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . McVeigh , 547 U.S. 677, 684, 126 S.Ct. 2121, 165 L.Ed.2d 131 (2006). . . .

UNITED STATES v. SCANZANI,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 210 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . Morris , 977 F.2d 677, 682 (1st Cir. 1992) ). . . .

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

. . . Holder , 594 F.3d 673, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). . . .

UNITED STATES v. W. HARNEY,, 934 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 919-21, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). . . .

ESTATE OF ROMAIN, v. CITY OF GROSSE POINTE FARMS A. J., 935 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Cannon , 474 U.S. 344, 347-48, 106 S.Ct. 668, 88 L.Ed.2d 677 (1986). . . .

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

. . . Clark , 630 F.3d 677, 680 (7th Cir. 2011). . . .

DOE, v. COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO,, 933 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Univ. of Chicago , 441 U.S. 677, 689, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). . . .

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

. . . Eichenberger , 677 F.3d 361, 366-67 (8th Cir. 2012) ; Montoya v. . . . officer unsuccessfully sought to handcuff the suspect and the two men accidentally fell to the ground. 677 . . . the plaintiff outside of a bar after allegedly witnessing the plaintiff arguing with the bartender. 677 . . . 863 n.4 (interfering with official acts); Montoya , 669 F.3d at 871 (disorderly conduct); Shekleton , 677 . . .

UNITED STATES v. JOBE,, 933 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (quoting Brown v. . . .

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, v. HOSPIRA, INC. v. Dr. s Dr. s, 933 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . David Geoffrey & Assocs. , 904 F.2d 677, 683 (Fed. . . .

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

. . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 909, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) ). . . .

BAKALIAN v. CENTRAL BANK OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY T. C. v. T. C. v. T. C. v. T. C., 932 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Altmann , 541 U.S. 677, 680-85, 124 S.Ct. 2240, 159 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004). . . .

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. v. COUNTY OF LEHIGH,, 933 F.3d 275 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Perry , 545 U.S. 677, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005). But see Steel Co. v. . . . Town of Greece , 572 U.S. 565, 134 S.Ct. 1811 (omitting any mention of Lemon ); Van Orden , 545 U.S. 677 . . .

CONSTANCE S. v. SAUL,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 583 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . Colvin , 764 F.3d 677, 682 (7th Cir. 2014). . . . Astrue , 582 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir. 2009). . . .

LUXOTTICA GROUP, S. P. A. a v. AIRPORT MINI MALL, LLC, a d. b. a. LLC, a a. k. a. C. C., 932 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Co. , 677 F.2d 1365, 1366, 1375-76 (11th Cir. 1982) (reinstating jury verdict, despite trial judge's . . .

HAIDAK, v. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS- AMHERST, 933 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Mun. of San Juan, 677 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2012) ("Although prior notice is generally required for a governmental . . . Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 694-95, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (noting that Congress patterned . . .

SANDHU, LLC, a v. L. KANZLER, Jr. LLC, a, 932 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Steen, 759 N.W.2d 672, 677 (Minn. App. 2009) (quoting Hill v. Okay Constr. . . . Stat. § 544.42, subd. 6(a), (c) ; Fontaine, 759 N.W.2d at 677. . . . See Fontaine, 759 N.W.2d at 677. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ELDRED, 933 F.3d 110 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) ; see also Davis v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. LEAL,, 933 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . . & Metal Indus., Inc. , 677 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2012) ( CMI ). . . . properly raised on appeal, would not be barred by an appeal waiver." 755 F.3d at 756 (citing CMI , 677 . . . See Winchel , 896 F.3d at 389 ; see also CMI , 677 F.3d at 752 (restitution order under 18 U.S.C. § 3664 . . .

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BANK, A N. A. CDO CDO v. LANSUPPE FEEDER, LLC,, 933 F.3d 99 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Co. , 677 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2012), the Third Circuit found plaintiffs lacked a private right of action . . . Santomenno , 677 F.3d at 186. . . .

UNITED STATES v. P. MAZZULLA, 932 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Seidel, 677 F.3d 334, 338 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. GAUDET,, 933 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . App'x 670, 677 (9th Cir. 2019) ("Where sexual misconduct occurs both before and after crossing state . . .

UNITED STATES v. PORTER,, 933 F.3d 226 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Hyde , 520 U.S. 670, 677, 117 S.Ct. 1630, 137 L.Ed.2d 935 (1997). * * * In sum, Porter cannot challenge . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOSYK,, 933 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), because Eyler's affidavit was misleading . . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). . . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) ). . . .

FLORES, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . defendant's search was reasonably designed to discover all responsive documents"), aff'd, 512 F.3d 677 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ- MIESES,, 931 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Laudermilt, 677 F.3d 605, 608-09 (4th Cir. 2012) (sweep of two-story house "from start to finish, lasted . . .

DALTON, v. NPC INTERNATIONAL, INC., 932 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . See id. at 677-78. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CORNETTE,, 932 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Winston , 850 F.3d 677 (4th Cir. 2017), we are to read this equivocation in the record in Cornette's . . .

R. THOMPSON A. v. JP MORGAN CHASE, N. A., 931 F.3d 109 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Rev. 677 (1996), but if real harm is threatened, the SJC can address it; if not, a definitive statement . . .

UNITED STATES v. DEL CARPIO FRESCAS,, 932 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Espinoza , 677 F.3d 730, 736 (5th Cir. 2012). . . .

MCCOTTRELL S. v. WHITE, 933 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ostrov , 368 F.3d 657, 677 (7th Cir. 2004) ("It is rarely appropriate on summary judgment for a district . . .

COBA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 932 F.3d 114 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Adams & Peters , 198 S.W. 676, 677 (Tex. Civ. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CHARLES, II,, 932 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Walker , 677 F.2d 1014 (4th Cir. 1982), we relied on Truong Dinh Hung again to articulate the doctrine . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. WISEMAN, Jr., 932 F.3d 411 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 352-53, 355 (Page ID #674-75, 677). B. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BONIN,, 932 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Rippee , 961 F.2d 677, 678 (7th Cir. 1992). . . . Rippee , 961 F.2d 677, 678-79 (7th Cir. 1992). . . .

LEWIS v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS I II III s, 932 F.3d 646 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Neill , 127 S.W.3d 677, 679 (Mo. banc 2004). . . .

TRACIE H. v. SAUL,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 990 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . App'x 668, 677 (7th Cir. 2014) ; Simila v. Astrue , 573 F.3d 503, 521 (7th Cir. 2009). . . .

P. J. BY THROUGH MR. MRS. W. J. L. G. MR. MRS. L. G. M. L. MR. MRS. J. L. Mr. v. CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 931 F.3d 156 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Idaho , 677 F.3d 910, 917-918 (9th Cir. 2012) (Prison Litigation Reform Act). . . .

HUPP R. H. a v. COOK C. R., 931 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bauer , 677 F.3d 656, 664 (4th Cir.) (quoting Wadkins v. . . .

PETERSON, v. HEYMES,, 931 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Co. , 469 Mich. 679, 677 N.W.2d 843, 845-46 (2004). . . .

KOALA, v. KHOSLA,, 931 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Forbes , 523 U.S. 666, 677-78, 118 S.Ct. 1633, 140 L.Ed.2d 875 (1998) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CORRALES- VAZQUEZ,, 931 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 563 U.S. 668, 677, 131 S.Ct. 2045, 179 L.Ed.2d 1099 (2011) (noting a "particular reluctance . . .

EDWARDS, v. PENIX, 388 F. Supp. 3d 135 (N.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Dist. , 677 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). . . .

E. CHAMBERS, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added); see also Hamilton v. . . .

TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC v. PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR ACRES, PERMANENT OVERLAY EASEMENT FOR ACRES AND TEMPORARY EASEMENTS FOR ACRES IN MILFORD AND WESTFALL TOWNSHIPS, PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, TAX PARCEL NUMBERS a c o L. P., 931 F.3d 237 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Jordan , 415 U.S. 651, 677, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (considering the impact of available . . .

J. MANKO, v. A. MANKO,, 275 So. 3d 849 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Harty, 677 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ("As chapter 61 is applicable, ability to pay and need . . .

DISABILITY RIGHTS MONTANA, INC. v. BATISTA,, 930 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ryan , 754 F.3d 657, 677 (9th Cir. 2014) ; Graves v. . . . Parsons , 754 F.3d at 677. . . .

ANDERSON v. GHALY,, 930 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Univ. of Chi. , 441 U.S. 677, 692 n.13, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ). . . .

TAYLOR, v. GRUBBS v. LT. SCDC SCDC DOE, DOE, AI v. SCDC LT MR C, 930 F.3d 611 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Winston , 850 F.3d 677, 683 (4th Cir. 2017) (declining to follow prior panel opinion "undermined by later . . .

HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,, 930 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . McHugh , 677 F.3d 1166, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing 41 U.S.C. § 7103 ). . . . Parsons , 677 F.3d at 1170. . . . Cir. 2015) ; Parsons , 677 F.3d at 1170 ; Ellett , 93 F.3d at 1542. . . .

G. a a G. v. FAY SCHOOL,, 931 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Corp., 677 F.2d 174, 179 (1st Cir. 1982) ; Blair v. . . . Santoni, 677 F.2d at 179. . . .

COTTO L PEZ, v. UNI N DE TRABAJADORES DE LA INDUSTRIA EL CTRICA Y RIEGO, X, Y, Z A, B, C, 392 F. Supp. 3d 263 (D. P.R. 2019)

. . . Municipality of San Juan, 677 F.3d 1, 6 n.5 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Déniz v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BROWN,, 929 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 926, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) ). . . . Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) ; United States v. . . .

R. BRADLEY, v. VILLAGE OF UNIVERSITY PARK, ILLINOIS,, 929 F.3d 875 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . O'Malley , 826 F.2d 671, 677 (7th Cir. 1987), and Wilson v. . . . Tavarez , 826 F.2d at 677. In such a case the state cannot predict when a loss will occur. . . . Id . at 677. . . . Id. at 677-78, citing Pembaur , 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452. . . . O'Malley , 826 F.2d 671, 674, 677 (7th Cir. 1987). . . . Id. at 677. . . . Indeed, the court referred to the officials' acts as "ultra vires conduct," id. at 677, only because . . .

UNITED STATES v. LIPSCOMB,, 386 F. Supp. 3d 680 (E.D. Va. 2019)

. . . Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 915, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). . . .

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, v. BERNHARDT,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1225 (D. Or. 2019)

. . . Bd. of Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago , 357 F.3d 677, 683 n.5 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting . . .

ALARM DETECTION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, v. ORLAND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT,, 929 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Rogers , 363 U.S. 666, 677, 80 S.Ct. 1288, 4 L.Ed.2d 1478 (1960). . . .

UNITED STATES EX REL. MEI LING, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 744 (C.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . See id. at 677. Further, the case appears to be an outlier. . . .

MURPHY, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 59 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . Appx. 676, 677 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming summary judgment for defendant on employee's Title VII retaliation . . .

INDIVIOR INC. UK RB Rx, LLC, v. DR. REDDY S LABORATORIES, S. A. Dr. s UT, USA, UK RB v. LLC,, 930 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Exch., LLC , 677 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012). . . . Bd. , 677 F.3d at 1372. . . .

C. MALCOLM, v. ASSOCIATION OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATORS OF ROCHESTER ASAR, 388 F. Supp. 3d 242 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Supp. 3d 677, 678 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) ; Malcolm v. Honeoye Falls-Lima Cent. Sch. . . .

CARDIONET, LLC, v. SCOTTCARE CORPORATION,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 442 (E.D. Pa. 2019)

. . . AG of the United States , 677 F.3d 519, 541 (3d Cir. 2012). . . .

UNITED STATES v. SHIPP,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 300 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). . . .

SHULMAN v. CHAITMAN LLP LLP,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Wilson , 677 F.2d 180, 186 (2d Cir. 1981) (one defendant not liable for profit made by another); Quintel . . .

IN RE TS EMPLOYMENT, INC. S. TS v. LLP, 603 B.R. 700 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . See, e.g., Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 677-78, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ; Kiobel v. . . .

IN RE J. TRUMP, D. H., 928 F.3d 360 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill. , 219 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added); see also Mohawk . . . added), as well as its "duty" to certify when the statutory criteria are met, Ahrenholz , 219 F.3d at 677 . . .

UNITED STATES v. DANIELS,, 930 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Acosta , 475 F.3d 677, 680 (5th Cir. 2007). U.S. Const. amend. VI. Acosta , 475 F.3d at 680. . . .

IN RE HARMS, v., 603 B.R. 19 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2019)

. . . (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.) , 677 F.3d 869, 880 (9th Cir. 2012). . . .

UNITED STATES v. FIGUEROA- FIGUEROA,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D. P.R. 2019)

. . . Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc ) (appeal from district court's acceptance of . . .

LLOYD S SYNDICATE v. FLOATEC LLC,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 835 (S.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . Co. of Midwest , 248 A.D.2d 78, 85, 677 N.Y.S.2d 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). . . .

EUROPA EYE WEAR CORP. v. KAIZEN ADVISORS, LLC AO v. LLC,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 228 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . Erie Interstate Contractors, Inc. , 677 F. Supp. 2d 373, 379 (D. . . .

TOWNES TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 585 (E.D. Va. 2019)

. . . McVeigh , 547 U.S. 677, 700, 126 S.Ct. 2121, 165 L.Ed.2d 131 (2006). . . .

WILLIAMSON, v. BREVARD COUNTY,, 928 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 686-690, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005) (Rehnquist, J.) . . .

COBA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 930 F.3d 174 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Adams & Peters , 198 S.W. 676, 677 (Tex. Civ. . . .

W. WEINSTEIN, v. C. KRUMPTER, E. P. B. I- IV,, 386 F. Supp. 3d 220 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Dist. , 677 F.3d 109, 119 (2d Cir. 2012) (stating that the Court should not attempt to resolve issues . . .

FIREMEN S INSURANCE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, D. C. v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, J. MP F. ACE v. s D. C., 390 F. Supp. 3d 267 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . Erie Interstate Contractors, Inc., 677 F. Supp. 2d 373, 376 (D. . . . Barletta, 677 F. Supp. 2d at 379 (citing Hugel v. . . .

WHITSERVE LLC, v. DONUTS INC. LLC, v. LLC,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 571 (D. Del. 2019)

. . . Sprint Nextel Corp. , 677 F. App'x 679, 680 (Fed. . . .

L. MILLER, MRFS v. SBA TOWERS V, LLC, PCS, LLC,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 123 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . Municipality of San Juan, 677 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2012) (affirming the dismissal of claims brought under . . .