The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 14
GOVERNOR

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 14.26

14.26 Citizen’s Assistance Office.—

(1) There is created in the Executive Office of the Governor the Citizen’s Assistance Office. The head of the Citizen’s Assistance Office shall be appointed by and shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor.

(2) The Citizen’s Assistance Office may:

(a) Investigate, on complaint or on its own motion, any administrative action of any state agency, the administration of which is under the direct supervision of the Governor, regardless of the finality of the administrative action.

(b) Request, and shall be given by any state agency, such assistance and information as may be necessary for the performance of its duties.

(c) Examine the records and reports of any state agency, the administration of which is under the direct supervision of the Governor, not made specifically confidential by law when the office determines that it is necessary.

(d) Coordinate individual state agency complaint-handling activities.

(3) The Citizen’s Assistance Office shall report to the Governor on:

(a) The number of complaints and investigations and the disposition of such investigations.

(b) The types of complaints made and an assessment as to the cause of the complaints.

(d) Other information as the Executive Office of the Governor shall require.

(4) The Citizen’s Assistance Office shall refer consumer-oriented complaints to the Division of Consumer Services of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

(5) The Citizen’s Assistance Office shall perform such other duties as the Executive Office of the Governor shall direct.

History.—s. 7, ch. 79-190; s. 27, ch. 2010-102.

F.S. 14.26 on Google Scholar

F.S. 14.26 on Casetext

Amendments to 14.26

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 14.26

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 14.26.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

HARO G. v. SEBELIUS,, 729 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . , 66 n. 1, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (quoting 3 James Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .

HARO G. v. SEBELIUS,, 747 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . , 66 n. 1, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (quoting 3 James Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .

In OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. To, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . OmniVision’s stock price dropped to $14.26 per share at the close of trading on November 7, 2011 on a . . .

G. HOWELL, v. MOTOROLA, INC. v., 633 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2011)

. . . By the time that statement was filed, Motorola stock had dropped to $14.26 per share. . . .

S. CROCKER, Jr. v. KV PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY,, 782 F. Supp. 2d 760 (E.D. Mo. 2010)

. . . the price of KV’s common stock closed at $5.90, falling $8.36 per share from its previous close of $14.26 . . .

PUBLIC PENSION FUND GROUP, v. KV PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY,, 705 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (E.D. Mo. 2010)

. . . KV’s (1) Class A common stock closed at $5.90, falling $8.36 per share from its previous close of $14.26 . . . ; (2) Class B common stock closed at $5,875, falling $8,385 per share from its previous close of $14.26 . . .

H. Jr. D. L. v., 130 T.C. 170 (T.C. 2008)

. . . 625 89.16 0.89 Tom Limited 34,375 4,903.71 49.04 Kim Limited 34,375 4,903.71 49.04 Trust Limited 100 14.26 . . . Custodianship Limited 1,426.53 14.26 Total 10,000.00 100.00 Each petitioner timely filed a Form 709, . . .

DEAN, v. LEAKE,, 550 F. Supp. 2d 594 (E.D.N.C. 2008)

. . . Beaufort Counties, with a deviation of 5.42% above the ideal, for a “maximum population deviation” of 14.26% . . .

MEDINOL LTD. v. GUIDANT CORP., 500 F. Supp. 2d 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . See 2 Milgrim on Licensing § 14.26 (2007) ("Often a licensor will desire to restrict the use or uses . . .

In MOTOROLA SECURITIES LITIGATION, 505 F. Supp. 2d 501 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . The court observes that Motorola shares fell from a close of $14.52 on March 29 to a close of $14.26 . . .

CALIFORNIA OREGON BROADCASTING, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 74 Fed. Cl. 394 (Fed. Cl. 2006)

. . . . § 14.26 requires the NPS to assess a fair market value charge for the use and occupancy of NPS lands . . .

REULAND, v. J. HYNES,, 460 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2006)

. . . per capita basis, Brooklyn’s homicide rate in 2000 was 9.57 per 100,000 people, lower than the Bronx (14.26 . . .

LEARNING CURVE TOYS, INCORPORATED, v. PLAYWOOD TOYS, INCORPORATED, v., 342 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2003)

. . . 1.04, at 1-170 (2002); 2 Rudolf Callmann, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 14.26 . . .

HARIK v. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION Dr. Dr. v. Dr. Dr. v. Dr. Dr., 326 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . (citing Bailey at 14.25-14.26, 11.05-11.06). . . .

HARIK v. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION Dr. Dr. v. Of As As Dr. As Dr. v. As Dr. Dr., 298 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2002)

. . . (citing Bailey at 14.25-14.26, 11.05-11.06). . . .

SUPERGUIDE CORPORATION, a v. DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, INC. a a a a a a a a v., 169 F. Supp. 2d 492 (W.D.N.C. 2001)

. . . ” for which there does not appear to be a definitive name. 3 Moore's Federal Practice, §§ 14.06[2], 14.26 . . .

FAIN, v. FSC SECURITIES CORP., 111 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (N.D. Ind. 2000)

. . . In August of 1999, MEMAX shares were selling for $14.26. . . .

BAKER, v. WESTIN RIO MAR BEACH RESORT, INC., 194 F.R.D. 393 (D.P.R. 2000)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 14.26 (2d ed.1996) (footnotes omitted)); Chestnut Run Fed. . . .

PRESCOTT F. L. M. v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO El, 177 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)

. . . Id. at 14.25-14.26, 11.05-11.06; see id. at 9.03-9.31 (sampling techniques). . . .

CORLEW, v. DENNY S RESTAURANT, INC., 983 F. Supp. 878 (E.D. Mo. 1997)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 14-116 (2d ed. 1996) (“The fact that [plaintiff] . . .

CATERPILLAR INC. v. LEWIS, 519 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1996)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, p. 14-116 (2d ed. 1996) (footnotes omitted): “Once federal subject . . .

GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. a w AFL- CIO, v. ETHYL CORPORATION,, 68 F.3d 80 (4th Cir. 1995)

. . . 10.41 52 weeks 11.92 26 weeks 11.13 52 weeks 11.83 Mechanic III 13.07 Mat.Handler III 13.07 Mechanic IV 14.26 . . .

TRANSPORTATION LEASING COMPANY v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 861 F. Supp. 931 (C.D. Cal. 1993)

. . . required Athens to dispose of refuse at a place legally empowered to accept garbage for disposal. [14.26 . . .

In J. EADS HAWKINS, v. J. EADS, a a DON BRICKER CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. DUFFY, GTY a, 135 B.R. 387 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1991)

. . . Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 14-118 (1991). . . .

F. KNIGHT, Jr. S. T. D. S. S. Jr. L. Dr. W. Y. N. S. Dr. Jr. v. STATE ALABAMA M. Jr. S. Jr. B. H. J. P. Dr. D. III, F. A. A. Sr. A. G. A M W. Dr. A M Jr. W. M. H. B. L. A. R. C. Dr. V. Dr. E. B. F. W. Jr. W. T. Jr. R. R. E. W. A. C. J. D. Jr. T. B. Jr. O. H. Jr. T. Jr. E. G. Jr. S. H. Jr. B. Dr. A. UNITED STATES v. STATE OF ALABAMA A M a a a a a a a a a a, 787 F. Supp. 1030 (N.D. Ala. 1991)

. . . The percentage of black freshman enrollment in the College of Engineering has grown from 14.26% in 1980 . . .

FIRST GOLDEN BANCORPORATION, v. F. WEISZMANN, v. MORGAN STANLEY CO. INCORPORATED, A, 942 F.2d 726 (10th Cir. 1991)

. . . of limitations will have run ... the court should retain jurisdiction. 3 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .

In JOINT EASTERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRICTS ASBESTOS LITIGATION, 769 F. Supp. 85 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice § 14.26 at 14-118 (1991) (citing United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. HILL,, 898 F.2d 72 (7th Cir. 1990)

. . . Hill was found to be in possession of 14.26 pounds of marijuana plant material and 6.43 pounds of marijuana . . .

DALE R. HORNING CO. INC. d b a Co. v. FALCONER GLASS INDUSTRIES, INC., 730 F. Supp. 962 (S.D. Ind. 1990)

. . . Plaintiff proffered the figure of $14.26 per hour, and there is no evidence rebutting this. . . .

H. HYATT, O. P. v. SULLIVAN,, 711 F. Supp. 833 (W.D.N.C. 1989)

. . . spent on this case: Attorneys Hours Wester 246.60 Coenen 399.80 Ratteree 46.10 Sasser 1,288.80 Bebber 14.26 . . .

BEREL COMPANY, v. SENCIT F G McKINLEY ASSOCIATES, v. SULLIVAN ARFAA, P. C. v. NARDY,, 125 F.R.D. 100 (D.N.J. 1989)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, 4 14.26 (1982). . . .

A. JOHNSON J. v. UNITED STATES, 16 Cl. Ct. 321 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . Overhead Totals 1983 32.8 X "$15785 X 2 $1,039.76 1984 2.3 X 17.31 X 2 = 79.63 1985 0.4 x 17.83 X 2 14.26 . . .

C. SEITTER, v. P. SCHOENFELD, v. LAVENTHOL AND HORWATH CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS,, 678 F. Supp. 831 (D. Kan. 1988)

. . . Id. at ¶ 14.26. . . .

C. SEITTER, v. P. SCHOENFELD, v. LAVENTHOL AND HORWATH CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS,, 88 B.R. 343 (D. Kan. 1988)

. . . Id. at ¶ 14.26. . . .

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, v. E. JIRIK,, 498 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1986)

. . . See generally, The Law of Nichols’ Eminent Domain (Rev. 3d ed. 1985), § 14.26, at 14-649 to 654. . . . result in serious damages to the other. 4A Nichols, The Law of Eminent Domain (Rev. 3d ed. 1985), § 14.26 . . .

C. HOLMAN, Jr. C. v. WALLS, a a M. A. A. KLENOSKI, v. CASSELL, L. Jr. a L. a N. a R. a M. a B. a a W. a M. a, 648 F. Supp. 947 (D. Del. 1986)

. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 14.26. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. MECCA EXPORT CORP. INVESTORS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. MECCA EXPORT CORP., 647 F. Supp. 924 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice It 14.26, at 14-113 (1985) and cited cases. . In Dery v. . . .

v. Co. Co. v., 10 Ct. Int'l Trade 644 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶14.26, at 14-113 (1985) and cited cases. In Dery v. . . .

UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. REED, E. v. F. OWENS,, 649 F. Supp. 837 (D. Kan. 1986)

. . . Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1444 at 224-25; Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice II 14.26 . . .

AGRISTOR LEASING, v. KJERGAARD, 582 F. Supp. 39 (D. Minn. 1983)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at p. 14-108 (2d ed. 1983); Waylander-Peterson Co. v. . . .

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK STATE, a k a a k a a k a v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA, v. STATE OF NEW YORK,, 719 F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 14.26, at 14-108 & n. 6 (1982). B. . . .

ABCKO MUSIC, INC. v. BEVERLY GLEN MUSIC, INC. BEVERLY GLEN MUSIC, INC. v. WOMACK,, 554 F. Supp. 410 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)

. . . Wyer, 265 F.2d 804, 806-07 (2d Cir.1959); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 (1982 rel.); Lyons v. . . .

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a v. ONE PARCEL OF LAND IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, MA, 691 F.2d 702 (4th Cir. 1982)

. . . . § 14.26. . . . See id. § 14.26, at 14-649 to 654; United States v. 105.40 Acres of Land, 471 F.2d 207, 212 (7 Cir. 1972 . . . the leading authority on the subject, however, see 4A Nichols’ The Law of Eminent Domain, supra, § 14.26 . . .

MARYVILLE ACADEMY, v. LOEB RHOADES CO. INC., 530 F. Supp. 1061 (N.D. Ill. 1981)

. . . federal ancillary jurisdiction under Rules 13 and 14, Fed.R.Civ.P. 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 13.36; 14.26 . . . claim, and these fall within the court’s ancillary jurisdiction. 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 13.36, 14.26 . . .

BARCLAYS BANK OF NEW YORK, v. GOLDMAN v. DANKNER DIAMONDS ISRAEL LTD., 517 F. Supp. 403 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . Bernard Sirot-ta Co., 344 F.2d 583 (2d Cir. 1965); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, H 14.26. . . .

PASCO INTERNATIONAL LONDON LTD. v. STENOGRAPH CORPORATION,, 637 F.2d 496 (7th Cir. 1980)

. . . presence would otherwise destroy diversity for jurisdictional purposes. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .

In JEFFERY, PINEMONT BANK, v. JEFFERY,, 2 B.R. 199 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1980)

. . . See generally 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶¶ 14.26, 14.-40 and 17.16[3] (14th ed. 1979). . . .

BROWN, v. F. T. CHAFFEE, W. C. H. G. P. R. B. A. H. E. J. J. T. FM BROWN, v. AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY,, 612 F.2d 497 (10th Cir. 1979)

. . . Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, 441 F.Supp. 1235, 1246 (E.D.Va.1977); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice H 14.26 at 14 . . .

In SCHOENFIELD, H. DICKMAN, v. SCHOENFIELD,, 608 F.2d 930 (2d Cir. 1979)

. . . fraudulently made a false oath in connection with the bankruptcy. 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 14.25 and ¶ 14.26 . . .

CORPORACION VENEZOLANA FOMENTO, v. VINTERO SALES CORPORATION CA., 477 F. Supp. 615 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)

. . . Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1444 at 237 (1972); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .

ROSARIO, v. AMALGAMATED LADIES GARMENT CUTTERS UNION, LOCAL I. L. G. W. U. I. L. G. W. U. ROSARIO, v. AMALGAMATED LADIES GARMENT CUTTERS UNION, LOCAL I. L. G. W. U. AFL- CIO,, 605 F.2d 1228 (2d Cir. 1979)

. . . Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1433, 1436; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 13.36, 14.26 . . .

B. AYER, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP., 82 F.R.D. 115 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 14-527 (1974). As stated in Eikel v. . . . Wyer, 265 F.2d 804 (2d Cir. 1959); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 14-532 (1974). . . .

TOWER MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a IDS a v. REYNOLDS, v. D. MASSEY,, 81 F.R.D. 560 (W.D. Okla. 1978)

. . . action and need not be supported by an independent basis of jurisdiction. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .

L. DRAPER, W. v. AIRCO, INC. AIRCO, INC. No. v. W. V. PANGBORNE CO. INC. No. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION No., 580 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1978)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶1 14.26. . . . .

MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. NEW ENGLAND MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK v. TOWN BANK TRUST COMPANY, 438 F. Supp. 97 (D. Mass. 1977)

. . . Manon Power Shovel, 520 F.2d 737 (7th Cir. 1975); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, n. 6 and cases . . .

SEMLER, v. PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE OF WASHINGTON, D. C. v. FOLLIARD, SEMLER, v. PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE OF WASHINGTON, D. C. INC. v. FOLLIARD,, 538 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1976)

. . . Moore, 3 Federal Practice §§ 14.25, 14.26 (2d ed. 1974). . . .

In ALBERT MAGUIRE SECURITIES CO. INC. M. COLLINS, v. FREEDMAN, v. M. MAGUIRE, 70 F.R.D. 361 (E.D. Pa. 1976)

. . . Employers M.L.I. of Wis., 392 F.Supp. 76 (D.Del.1975); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 14.26. . . . Alan Wood Steel Co., 201 F.Supp. 203 (E.D.Pa.1962); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 14.25, § 14.26. . . .

K. KEISTER v. LAUREL MT. DEVELOPMENT CORP. a k a v. M. WILLIS, 70 F.R.D. 10 (W.D. Pa. 1976)

. . . jurisdiction is appropriate if the requirements of Rule 14 are met, see 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 14.26 . . .

RARE EARTH, INC. v. HOORELBEKE HOORELBEKE v. BRIDGES, 401 F. Supp. 26 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)

. . . Moore, supra ¶ 14.26 at 14-532—14-533. . . .

LORANCE, v. MARION POWER SHOVEL COMPANY, INC. a MARION POWER SHOVEL COMPANY, INC. a v. AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING CO. a, 520 F.2d 737 (7th Cir. 1975)

. . . the main claim and no independent jurisdictional ground is required. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 'I 14.26 . . .

CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF BUCK HILL FALLS, By v. GRANT, U. S., 388 F. Supp. 394 (M.D. Pa. 1975)

. . . construct projects under the relevant law, P.L. 566, unless the benefits of such project exceed the costs. 14.26 . . .

NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY v. GROUNDS Jr. CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY v. ASHLAND OIL AND REFINING COMPANY CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY, v. COLUMBIAN FUEL CORPORATION CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY v. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION NATIONAL HELIUM CORPORATION, v. PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY, 393 F. Supp. 949 (D. Kan. 1974)

. . . 5.38 $ 3.85 $ 4.15 Value of Commingled helium at Lessee-Producer delivery point $ 2.74 $11.39 $13.04 $14.26 . . . Commingled Helium at Lessee-Producer delivery point $12.74 $12.74 $14.10 $15.49 $16.20 $14.83 $14.37 $14.26 . . .

CLARK, v. UNITED STATES, 379 F. Supp. 1399 (N.D. Iowa 1974)

. . . Wyer, 265 F.2d 804, 807 (2nd Cir. 1959); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice If 14.26 (1974). . . .

MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF WINONA, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. R. THOMPSON,, 377 F. Supp. 1344 (D. Minn. 1974)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 (2d ed. 1974); see also Lawrence v. Great Northern Ry. . . .

ELMER v. PFEIFER SHULTZ, INC. a PFEIFER SHULTZ, INC. a v. FORT HOWARD PAPER CO. a, 62 F.R.D. 395 (E.D. Wis. 1974)

. . . and third party defendant will not deprive the court of jurisdiction. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .

PAONE, v. AEON REALTY CORPORATION, a AEON REALTY CORPORATION, v. L. STEPHENS, D., 58 F.R.D. 531 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, 1f 14.26, at 703 (2d ed. 1970). . . .

SOUTHEAST GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY, LTD. a v. RODMAN RENSHAW, INC. a C. MIRIANI v. RODMAN AND RENSHAW, INC. a RODMAN RENSHAW, INC. v. C. MIRIANI, SOUTHEAST GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY, LTD. a v. C. MIRIANI, a SOUTHEAST GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY, LTD. a v. CHEMICAL BANK, 358 F. Supp. 1001 (N.D. Ill. 1973)

. . . See Moore, Federal Practice, ff 14.26 at 703 and cases cited therein. . . .

KENROSE MFG. CO. INC. a v. FRED WHITAKER COMPANY, INC. v. KILODYNE, INC., 512 F.2d 890 (4th Cir. 1972)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 at 701-702 (1968). . . . .

C. BAGBY, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER SMITH, INC. v. COMMERCE BANK OF KANSAS CITY, v. TRADERS NATIONAL BANK Co., 348 F. Supp. 969 (W.D. Mo. 1972)

. . . See: 3 Moore, Federal Practice If 14.26, p. 708 (1968 ed.). . . . .

MAHKIMETAS, v. DASCOLA a, 336 F. Supp. 689 (E.D. Wis. 1971)

. . . Burke, 344 F.2d 393, 395 (6th Cir. 1965); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 701 (1965). . . .

In P. GIBSON, 409 F. Supp. 399 (S.D. Miss. 1971)

. . . Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 14.26 (Emphasis supplied). . . .

J. CONNOR v. B. JOHNSON, 330 F. Supp. 506 (S.D. Miss. 1971)

. . . 22nd District, 13.58%. over-represented by 25th District, 10.66%. under-represented by 29th District, 14.26% . . .

SAFEWAY STORES, INC. v. L. D. SCHREIBER CHEESE COMPANY, v. STANDARD MILK COMPANY,, 326 F. Supp. 504 (W.D. Mo. 1971)

. . . jurisdiction of this Court as to the third-party claim of Schreiber, see: 3 Moore, Federal Practice, 1U 14.25, 14.26 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CITY OF ANCHORAGE, STATE OF ALASKA, FISH AND FARM PRODUCTS, INC. v. CITY OF ANCHORAGE, STATE OF ALASKA,, 437 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1971)

. . . Creek to the northwest corner of Anchorage Townsite; thence East 89.06 chains; thence North 0° 08' West 14.26 . . .

L. ROSS v. J. SMITH, d b a J. a v. LOCKE PLUMBING COMPANY,, 315 F. Supp. 1064 (E.D. Ark. 1970)

. . . Maryland Casualty Company, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 241; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 14.26; Williams, et al v. . . .

H. PIERCE, W. H. A. H. H. D. T. v. GLOBEMASTER BALTIMORE, INC. v. W. SEIP, Co. A., 49 F.R.D. 63 (D. Md. 1969)

. . . See generally 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 (2d Ed.1968). . . .

T. McGONIGLE v. PENN- CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a PENN- CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. D. SALUTI T., 49 F.R.D. 58 (D. Md. 1969)

. . . that the third-narty claim should involve a Federal question. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 499, Par. 14.26 . . . See generally 3 Moore, Federal Practice If 14.26 (2d Ed.1968). . . .

LYONS, v. MARRUD, INC. Co. J. E. A. M. Jr., 46 F.R.D. 451 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)

. . . .-04, ¶ 14.26 (2d ed. 1964). . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. N. WINN,, 208 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1968)

. . . During that time the client was living with her parents and her earnings were $14.26 per week as a beautician . . .

J. McCANN, v. FALGOUT BOAT COMPANY, v. R. T. METZNER,, 44 F.R.D. 34 (S.D. Tex. 1968)

. . . See 3 Moore, Federal Practice para. 14.26, at 701; Railey v. Southern Ry. . . .

KING, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BROWN,, 274 F. Supp. 824 (W.D. Ark. 1967)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, Vol. 3, § 14.25, § 14.26, and eases there cited. . . .

E. THOMPSON, v. UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE CIRCUIT, INC. v. NATIONWIDE THEATRE INVESTMENT CO., 43 F.R.D. 197 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

. . . Wyer, supra, 265 F.2d at 807; 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, at 703 (2d ed. 1966). . . .

H. L. PETERSON COMPANY, v. S. W. APPLEWHITE, II, S. W. APPLEWHITE, II, v. A. O. SMITH CORPORATION H. L., 383 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1967)

. . . F.2d 583; Barron & Holtzoff (Wright Ed., 1960) § 424, pp. 650-651; 3 Moore, Federal Practice, par. 14.26 . . .

S. WILLIAMS, v. UNITED STATES v. STATE OF NEW YORK,, 42 F.R.D. 609 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

. . . See 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 n. 6 and accompanying text at 703 (1964). But see Fed.R. . . .

STEMLER, E. F. W. W. v. BURKE, a, 344 F.2d 393 (6th Cir. 1965)

. . . Graves, 337 F.2d 486, 489, C.A.6th; Moore’s Federal Practice, Volume 3, Section 14.26, page 701. . . .

AGRASHELL, INC. v. BERNARD SIROTTA COMPANY, M. A. v. HAMMONS PRODUCTS COMPANY,, 344 F.2d 583 (2d Cir. 1965)

. . . there was subject-matter jurisdiction of Agrashell’s suit against Sirotta. 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.26 . . .

DONLEY, a v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, a v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a a, 234 F. Supp. 869 (E.D. Mich. 1964)

. . . See Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 424; Moore’s Federal Practice, Vol. 3, § 14.26 . . .

DAVID CRYSTAL, INC. v. CUNARD STEAM- SHIP COMPANY T., 223 F. Supp. 273 (S.D.N.Y. 1963)

. . . Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 424 at 650-51 (Rules ed. 1960); 3 Moore Federal Practice f[ 14.26 . . .

BURLINGHAM, UNDERWOOD, BARRON, WRIGHT WHITE, a v. LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, v. FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY,, 208 F. Supp. 544 (S.D.N.Y. 1962)

. . . vast majority of federal courts view a third-party claim as ancillary to the main action, 3 Moore f[ 14.26 . . .

LaCHANCE, R. v. SERVICE TRUCKING CO. a E. v. R. LaCHANCE, LaCHANCE v. SERVICE TRUCKING CO. a E. v. R. LaCHANCE, M. WEBBER v. SERVICE TRUCKING CO. a E. v. R. LaCHANCE, LaCHANCE v. SERVICE TRUCKING CO. a E. v. R. LaCHANCE W. Jr., 208 F. Supp. 656 (D. Md. 1962)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., para. 14.26; Foster v. Brown, D.Md., 22 F.R.D. 471. . . .

CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY E. Jr. Co- E. v. UNITED STATES HERRLINGER, R. Jr. J. v. UNITED STATES CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY, R. v. UNITED STATES, 305 F.2d 393 (Ct. Cl. 1962)

. . . This gave a total weighted value of $14.26. . . . 7.50 @ 16%% ...................... 1.25 100% ..................................................... 14.26 . . .

THE CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY AND ALBERT E. HEEKIN, JR. CO- EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ALBERT E. HEEKIN, DECEASED v. THE UNITED STATES KATHARINE HEEKIN HERRLINGER, JAMES R. HEEKIN, JR. AND THE CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTORS UNDER THE WILL OF JAMES J. HEEKIN, DECEASED v. THE UNITED STATES THE CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY, SUCCESSOR EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE UNDER THE WILL OF ALMA R. HEEKIN, DECEASED v. THE UNITED STATES, 158 Ct. Cl. 504 (Ct. Cl. 1962)

. . . This gave a total weighted value of $14.26. . . . on invested capital — 31.34 @ 16%%_ 5.22 Value based on stock sales — 7.50 @ 16%%___ 1.25 100%...... 14.26 . . .

PETER PAN FABRICS, INC. Co. v. KAY WINDSOR FROCKS, INC. v. ESQUIRE FABRICS, INC., 187 F. Supp. 763 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)

. . . as this where there is no controversy between those parties. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., f 14.26 . . .

SOUTHERN MILLING COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES, 270 F.2d 80 (5th Cir. 1959)

. . . that the third-party claim should involve a Federal question. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 499, Par. 14.26 . . .

C. HASSETT v. MODERN MAID PACKERS, INC. A. A. A. METCALF v. MODERN MAID PACKERS, INC. a A. F. MOORE v. MODERN MAID PACKERS, INC. a A. STATE OF MARYLAND, I. GORDIEYEFF, V. I. V. v. MODERN MAID PACKERS, INC. a A. A. CLEMENTS, Co. v. MODERN MAID PACKERS, INC. a, 23 F.R.D. 661 (D. Md. 1959)

. . . C.Minn., 12 F.R.D. 69; Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., secs. 14.25, 14.26, especially p. 495. . . . Brown, D.Md., 22 F.R.D. 471, Chesnut, J„ Moore, sec. 14.26. . . .

M. DERY, A. v. WYER,, 265 F.2d 804 (2d Cir. 1959)

. . . This appears from the cases listed in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 14.26 n. 6 and 1958 Supplement, page . . .

E. v., 42 Cust. Ct. 420 (Cust. Ct. 1959)

. . . . #61821 962053 1 Enlarger Foeomat Ila $248.40 46% $134. 14 Accessory lens 26.40 46 % 14.26 Printing . . . boards 13. 92 46% 7.52 973413 3 Enlargers Foeomat Ila 214. 56 46% 115.86 Accessory lens 26. 40 46% 14.26 . . . 65,47-55— -Abs. #61825 WH 100763 14 Enlargers Foeomat Ila 214.56 46% 115.86 Accessory lens 26.40 46% 14.26 . . . Printing boards 13. 92 46% 7.52 796865 2 Enlargers Foeomat Ila 214.80 46%' 115.99 Accessory lens 26.40 46% 14.26 . . .

v., 42 Cust. Ct. 419 (Cust. Ct. 1959)

. . . ._ $213.96 46% 116.54 Accessory lens_ 26.40 46% 14.26 Printing boards_ 13. 92 46% 7. 52 IT IS FURTHER . . .

FOSTER, W. T. W. T. v. BROWN, G., 22 F.R.D. 471 (D. Md. 1958)

. . . Milby, 4 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 137, and 3 Moore, Federal Practice, 2d Ed. s. 14.26. . . .

In KAUFHOLD, W. a R., 256 F.2d 181 (3d Cir. 1958)

. . . Sec. 14.26 at p. 1326. . . .