Cases from cite.case.law:

KELLY SERVICES, INC. LLC, v. CREATIVE HARBOR, LLC,, 846 F.3d 857 (6th Cir. 2017)

. . . .”); 3 McCarthy on Trademarks § 19.14, at 19.48 (“Congress did not intend the issue to be resolved simply . . .

DOE, v. BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY,, 177 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mass. 2016)

. . . . § 19.14). . . .

M. Z. BERGER CO. INC. v. SWATCH AG SA, 787 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, 3 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 19.14, at 19.47-48 (4th ed. 2014) . . . See Lane, 33 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1355; 3 McCarthy on Trademarks § 19.14, at 19.48 (“Congress did not intend . . .

ASHLAND INC. v. GAR ELECTROFORMING,, 729 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D.R.I. 2010)

. . . Laws § 23-19.14-12, provides: A party who is exempt from liability under §§ 23-19.14-7, 23-19.14-8 or . . . 23-19.14-10 of this chapter shall not be liable for claims for contribution regarding matters addressed . . .

TOTOLO KING JOINT VENTURE, v. UNITED STATES,, 89 Fed. Cl. 442 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . . § 8127, FAR 19.14 and FAR 19.10.” Id. at 690. . . . must continue to be considered for placement under ... the [SDVOSB] Procurement Program (see Sub-part 19.14 . . . Accordingly, the court juxtaposed 38 U.S.C. § 8127 and FAR 19.14, recognizing that § 8127 imposes a mandatory . . . In contrast, the set-aside prescriptions of FAR 19.14 are permissive. . . . compliance with FAR subpart 19.10 could concurrently satisfy the permissive prioritization of FAR subpart 19.14 . . .

TOTOLO KING, A v. UNITED STATES,, 87 Fed. Cl. 680 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . . § 8127, FAR [J 19.14 and FAR [] 19.10.” Id. at 3. . . . placement under ... the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Procurement Program (see Subpart 19.14 . . . rather, this acquisition should be evaluated under the authorities promulgated by 38 U.S.C. § 8127, FAR 19.14 . . . At any rate, FAR subpart 19.14 notably is distinguishable as it is applicable to “all Federal agencies . . .

D. F. CORVELLO, v. NEW ENGLAND GAS COMPANY, INC. v. v. v., 532 F. Supp. 2d 396 (D.R.I. 2008)

. . . Laws §§ 23-19.14-1 et seq., and the Hazardous Waste Management Act (“HWMA”), R.I. Gen. . . .

MILLER v. CUNNINGHAM, v. Of, 512 F.3d 98 (4th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 30-19.4 (2004), or pay office expenses, see id. at § 30-19.14' — are clearly constitutional, despite . . .

In SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION, 343 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.P.R. 2004)

. . . Glad California Insurance Law Handbook § 46:19.14 (2004 ed.); see also, Kirk Alan Walton, California . . .

ARNOLD ASSOCIATES, INC. v. MISYS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, a PLC LLC, a, 275 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (D. Ariz. 2003)

. . . enforceable without regard to the time necessary for its complete performance. 4 Corbin on Contracts § 19.14 . . .

VICKERS, v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (M.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.1999); 2 Couch on Insurance § 19.14 (2d ed.1983). . . . .

LOCURTO, v. SAFIR, v. v., 264 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 202.07[2][b][ii], at 202-36 & n. 19.14 (3d ed.2000) (collecting . . .

J. EINHORN, v. FLEMING FOODS OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., 258 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2001)

. . . App. 80 (Drivers’ CBA, art., 22, sec. 4(b)); App. 116 (Mechanics' CBA, art. 19.14). . . . . App. 80 (Drivers’ CBA, art., 22, sec. 4(b)); App. 116 (Mechanics’ CBA, art. 19.14). . . . . App. 80 (Drivers’ CBA, art., 22, sec. 4(b)); App. 116 (Mechanics' CBA, art. 19.14). . . .

ESTATE OF R. SIMPLOT, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 249 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . 16,677.303 11.79% Family members of Class A shareholders (children, spouses 27,042.707 and grandchildren) 19.14% . . . A third trust, whose beneficiaries were other Sim-plot family members and their affiliates, owned 19.14% . . .

MULTIMEDIA GAMES, INC. A v. WLGC ACQUISITION CORP. a k a a A a, 214 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (N.D. Okla. 2001)

. . . (2d ed.1986), 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 12.03 (12-32 n. 18) (1980 ed.), 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 19.14 . . .

MAKE UP FOR EVER, S. A. a v. SOHO FOREVER, LLC, a, 198 F.R.D. 56 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice P 19.14(2-4) (2d ed.1979). . . .

SIMS, v. BOEING CO., 60 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Kan. 1999)

. . . Section 19.14 Signing Grievance Does Not Concede Arbitrable Issue. . . . identified in Section 1.3(f), shall be handled pursuant to the provisions of Section 19.4 and 19.6 through 19.14 . . .

TRANS PACIFIC LEASING CORPORATION, v. AERO MICRONESIA, INC., 26 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . A, § 19.14. . E.g., Wilton v. . . .

M. CHESSER, v. D. WEST, Jr., 11 Vet. App. 497 (Vet. App. 1998)

. . . surres-ponse to the appellant’s response and supplements; in his surresponse, the Secretary argues that 19.14 . . . response to the Court’s June 18, 1998, order, the Secretary seeks to exclude as unreasonable fees for 19.14 . . . Additionally, the Secretary objects specifically to the 19.14 hours partly claimed for an analysis of . . .

L. ASKEW, L. Sr. G. Sr. NAACP v. CITY OF ROME,, 127 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 1997)

. . . Of the 4,952 black persons in Rome who were 25 years and over, 19.14% (948) attended some college or . . .

CHARTER INTERNATIONAL OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 925 F. Supp. 104 (D.R.I. 1996)

. . . R.I.Gen.Laws § 23-19.14-6 (emphasis added). . . . R.I.Gen.Laws § 23-19.14—l(i). . . . Laws § 23-19.14-6 (emphasis added). . . . R.I.Gen.Laws § 23-19.14-6 (emphasis added). . . . R.I.Gen.Laws § 23-19.14-6 (emphasis added). . . .

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, J. Ed M. NAACP v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, A. A. E. s A. P. A. G. L. Sr. O. G. a a Dr. a a a a a a Dr. a a W. D. a a a a a a Dr. a a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, J. Ed M. NAACP v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, A. A. E. s A. P. A. G. L. Sr. O. G. a a Dr. a a a a a a Dr. a a W. D. a a a a a a Dr. a a, 56 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 1995)

. . . -American Zone 3 24,578 4.52% African--American Zone 4 24,216 5.12% African--American Zone 5 24,456 19.14% . . .

J. PODBERESKY, v. E. KIRWAN,, 838 F. Supp. 1075 (D. Md. 1993)

. . . graduating with a G.P.A. greater than 2.0 are as follows: 1992 (21.1%); 1991 (21.51%); 1990 (19.6%); 1989 (19.14% . . .

JEAN PATOU, INC. v. THEON, INC., 9 F.3d 971 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 1112; See also McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 19.14, (3d ed. 1992). . . .

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. W., 831 F. Supp. 1453 (E.D. Ark. 1993)

. . . population; 4.52% black; Zone 4—24,216 total population; 5.12% black; Zone 5—24,456 total population; 19.14% . . .

B. DURANT J. d b a v. TRADITIONAL INVESTMENTS, LTD. N. V. B. T., 135 F.R.D. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . Moore, 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 19.14[1], at 19-244 to 19-248 (1990). . . .

OF AMERICA BANK, MID- MICHIGAN, N. A. a E. W. v. UNITED STATES, 752 F. Supp. 764 (E.D. Mich. 1990)

. . . 2007 90.20 21.80 2008 95.02 21.21 2009 100.09 20.65 2010 105.44 20.12 2011 111.07 19.62 2012 117.00 19.14 . . .

FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH B. M. A. Jr. A. a A. Jr. a a J. v. T. BENTON, M. K. N. C. L. E. E. R. FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH B. M. A. Jr. A. a A. Jr. a a J. v. T. BENTON, M. K. N. C. L. E. E. R. FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH B. M. A. Jr. A. a A. Jr. a a J. v. T. BENTON, M. K. N. C. L. E. E. R. FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH B. M. A. Jr. A. a A. Jr. a a J. v. T. BENTON, M. K. N. C. L. E. E. R., 815 F.2d 485 (8th Cir. 1987)

. . . Id. 670-15.3, 19.14 to 19.15. . . .

ROSE, v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,, 800 F.2d 563 (6th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 19.14 (allowing employee representatives to be present during NRC inspections), 10 C.F.R. § 19.15 . . .

LARIMORE, M. G. v. COMPTROLLER OF CURRENCY,, 789 F.2d 1244 (7th Cir. 1986)

. . . . §§ 19.12-19.14 (1985), providing that after the hearing has been conducted and the finding of facts . . .

ALKOT INDUSTRIES, INC. v. TAKARA CO. LTD., 106 F.R.D. 373 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . Accord, 3A Moore & Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice H 19.14 [2.-4], at 19-258 (2d ed. 1985). . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 18.39 20.39 17.51 34.59 18.77 18.01 20.06 21.28 23.64 14.72 12.87 26.94 13.13 33.58 20.72 23.12 23.97 19.14 . . .

LEACHMAN, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, A, 694 F.2d 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

. . . Krause, Aviation Tort Law § 19.14 (1979); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment h (1965) (“a product . . .

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT DISC CORPORATION, v. SANGAMO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT DISC CORPORATION, v. SANGAMO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT DISC CORPORATION, v. SANGAMO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 686 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1982)

. . . D 19.14[1] at 19-265 to 19-267. . . . .

COSTELLO PUBLISHING CO. v. E. ROTELLE, O. S. A. COSTELLO PUBLISHING CO. INC. v. E. ROTELLE, O. S. A., 670 F.2d 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

. . . See pp. 1045-1046 infra. . 3A Moore’s Federal Practice 19.14[2 — 4] (2d Ed. 1974); 7 Wright & Miller, . . .

In ESTATE OF MOSLEY, MOSLEY, v. THOMAS,, 402 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . See The Florida Bar, Basic Practice Under Florida Probate Code § 19.14 (2d ed. 1981). . . .

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v. RADIATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., 519 F. Supp. 1266 (D.N.J. 1981)

. . . . §§ 19.14(a), 30.52. . . . records kept by him pursuant to the regulations in this chapter. 10 C.F.R. § 30.52; see 10 C.F.R. § 19.14 . . . Commission inspectors during ... phases of an inspection.” 10 C.F.R. § 19.14(b). . . . The licensee’s “walkaround” privilege under 10 C.F.R. § 19.14(b) is not a condition of the Commission . . . See 10 C.F.R. §§ 19.14(b), (g), .15. . . . .

J. CROY S. v. M. CAMPBELL,, 624 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . In December, 1974, the Croys purchased from Simpkins his 19.14% general partnership interest. . . .

MICRO- ACOUSTICS CORPORATION, v. BOSE CORPORATION,, 493 F. Supp. 356 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)

. . . We think it did; see 3A Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 19.14[2.-3] (1974). . . .

GOULD, v. CONTROL LASER CORPORATION, 462 F. Supp. 685 (M.D. Fla. 1978)

. . . See generally, 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 19.14[2.-2]. . . .

R. WILLINGHAM, STAR CUTTER COMPANY, v. B. LAWTON, 555 F.2d 1340 (6th Cir. 1977)

. . . , 269 U.S. 459, 46 S.Ct. 166, 70 L.Ed. 357 (1926). . 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 19.06 at 2218, ¶ 19.14 . . .

NATIONAL AMERICAN CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 420 F. Supp. 954 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)

. . . . ¶ 19.14[1], at 2402 (1967). . 28 U.S.C. § 1359. . . .

CAPRI JEWELRY INCORPORATED v. HATTIE CARNEGIE JEWELRY ENTERPRISES, LTD. G., 539 F.2d 846 (2d Cir. 1976)

. . . We think it did; see 3A Moore, Federal Practice K 19.14 [2.-3] (1974). . . .

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, 485 F.2d 78 (4th Cir. 1973)

. . . See Moore, ¶ 19.14 [1]; 7 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 1608 (1972). . . .

DOYLE, d. b. n. c. t. a. B. v. UNITED STATES, 358 F. Supp. 300 (E.D. Pa. 1973)

. . . McGinnes, 330 F.2d supra at 240; 2 Mertens, Federal Gift & Estate Taxation, § 19.14, p. 689, n. 25.5 . . . Commissioner, 45 TC 247 (1965); 2 Mertens, Federal Gift & Estate Taxation § 19.14, p. 548 (1959 and 1970 . . .

In SERVICE RENDERED BY FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION, 37 Fla. Supp. 63 (Fla. P.S.C. 1972)

. . . The 1970 results were not materially different with an indicated failure rate of 19.14% for restoration . . .

NATIONAL BOARD OF YOUNG WOMEN S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF U. S. A. v. YOUNG WOMEN S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 335 F. Supp. 615 (D.S.C. 1971)

. . . cert. denied, 366 U.S. 911, 81 S.Ct. 1085, 6 L.Ed.2d 235 (1961); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice para. 19.14 . . .

CELESTIAL ARTS, INC. v. NEYLER COLOR- LITH CO., 339 F. Supp. 1018 (E.D. Wis. 1971)

. . . Accordingly, the plaintiff may sue such infringers as he chooses. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ft 19.14 . . .

SUPERIOR TESTERS, INC. v. DAMCO TESTERS, INC., 336 F. Supp. 37 (E.D. La. 1971)

. . . the contempt proceedings: Court Reporters' Fees $1810.30 Subpoenas and Witness Fees 297.40 Exhibits 19.14 . . .

LEESONA CORPORATION v. DUPLAN CORPORATION, 319 F. Supp. 223 (D.R.I. 1970)

. . . National Molasses Co., 394 F.2d 645 (9th Cir. 1968); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, paragraph 19.14 [2. . . .

UNITED STATES MINER, v. R. ERICKSON,, 428 F.2d 623 (8th Cir. 1970)

. . . Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 34 S.Ct. 396, 58 L.Ed. 676 (19.14). . . .

EVERETT PLYWOOD AND DOOR CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 190 Ct. Cl. 80 (Ct. Cl. 1969)

. . . competitive bid volumes, the amendment stated that the amortization rates would be as follows : Douglas-flr_$19.14 . . .

PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 187 Ct. Cl. 129 (Ct. Cl. 1969)

. . . 29.47 36.95 18.18 60.80 1947- 28.94 35.31 16.81 52.02 1948- 28.88 32.80 20.49 43.58 1949- 26.92 30.29 19.14 . . .

ATLANTIC CITY, a v. AMERICAN CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 254 F. Supp. 396 (D.N.J. 1966)

. . . La Paz Guest Ranch, 289 F.2d 814 (9 Cir. 1961); 3 Moore’s Fed.Pract. (2d ed. 1964) ¶ 19.14 [1] p. 2178 . . .

E. MEESE, R. M. M. v. EATON MANUFACTURING COMPANY,, 35 F.R.D. 162 (N.D. Ohio 1964)

. . . Ohio 1959); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 19.14 (2d Ed.1950). . . .

N. G. v., 40 T.C. 84 (T.C. 1963)

. . . V American Law of Property, secs. 19.1-19.8, 19.13, and 19.14 (1952). SEC. 341. . . .

a v., 38 T.C. 633 (T.C. 1962)

. . . (d) In January 1956 the accrued taxes of $19.14 were paid. . . .

ELECTRONIC DETECTION PRODUCTS, INC. v. S. CHAPIN,, 26 F.R.D. 121 (D. Mass. 1959)

. . . Barron & Holtzoff, section 399; Moore, section 19.14(2). Accordingly, it is ordered that Donald F. . . .

COMMERCE OIL REFINING CORPORATION, v. W. MINER, 170 F. Supp. 396 (D.R.I. 1959)

. . . .) § 19.14. . . .

GENERAL TRANSISTOR CORP. v. PRAWDZIK A. B. L. M., 21 F.R.D. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)

. . . Chandler, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 85 F.Supp. 131; Moore, Federal Practice ¶¶19.07, 19.14. . . .

BORIS, d. b. n. c. t. a. F. C. v. R. MOORE a, 152 F. Supp. 595 (E.D. Wis. 1957)

. . . Plaintiffs cite 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 19.14(1), pp. 2177-78, to support this proposition. . . .

EGAN, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 236 F.2d 343 (8th Cir. 1956)

. . . Reserve ............ 577.93 1,291.07 3,510.05 4,424.55 Advance to Employees and others.. 300.21 24.13 19.14 . . .

ROBBINS MUSIC CORP. v. ALAMO MUSIC,, 119 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1954)

. . . Dangberg, C.C.D.Nev., 81 F. 73; see 3 Moore’s Federal Practice par. 19.14. . . .

KROESE v. GENERAL STEEL CASTINGS CORPORATION, 9 F.R.D. 273 (D. Neb. 1949)

. . . Practice, 2d Ed., 1948, Sec. 19.14, p. 2176. Also see Consolidated Textile Corporation v. . . .

K, Co., 16 Cust. Ct. 223 (Cust. Ct. 1946)

. . . and, presumably, was covered by either a general bond or single entry bonds as required by section 19.14 . . .

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. WEEKS, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER,, 297 U.S. 135 (U.S. 1936)

. . . the other by use of' 3, 4 and 5,- producing, respectively, as calculated by petitioner, 19.35% and 19.14% . . .

LEHIGH N. E. R. CO. v. FINNERTY, 61 F.2d 289 (3d Cir. 1932)

. . . other law in New Jersey giving an attorney a lien npon bis client’s cause of action than the act of 19.14 . . .

J. F. ROWLEY CO. v. CHESTER B. WINN,, 41 F.2d 88 (W.D.N.Y. 1929)

. . . That Bock himself did the first repair job on the Led-win leg, Defendant’s Exhibit 2, in July, 19.14, . . .

Co. v., 6 B.T.A. 1257 (B.T.A. 1927)

. . . 1914, we find that they amounted to a total of $18,309.08 in the eight years immediately preceding 19.14 . . .

ROCKHILL IRON COAL CO. v. CITY OF TAUNTON, 273 F. 96 (1st Cir. 1921)

. . . for any further coal which might be tendered under the contract; whereupon, on the 19th of December, 19.14 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERBERGER, 272 F. 278 (W.D. Wash. 1921)

. . . at his office; nor had he called upon any other German official after the breaking out of the war in 19.14 . . .

ROBERTSON v. GARVAN,, 270 F. 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1920)

. . . On September 29, 19.14, the Mammoth Copper Mining Company entered into a contract with Beer, Sondheimer . . .

NATIONAL CIRCLE, DAUGHTERS OF ISABELLA v. NATIONAL ORDER OF DAUGHTERS OF ISABELLA, 252 F. 815 (N.D.N.Y. 1918)

. . . , Tex. .Dec. 6, 19.14. Ill 247. Adrian, Minn. .Nov. 22, 1914. 107 248. Hudson, N. . . .

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. STATE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS ET AL. STATE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL., 245 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1918)

. . . For some years prior to December 1, 19.14, interstate passenger rates between St. . . .

J. P. v., 74 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1917)

. . . D. 19.14, to the damage of this defendant in the sum of, to-wit, $275.00, which amount the defendant . . .

UNITED STATES v. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO., 234 F. 127 (E.D. Mo. 1916)

. . . provisions of leases alleged to be prohibited by section 3 of the act of Congress approved October 15, 19.14 . . .

In HOPKINS, 229 F. 378 (2d Cir. 1916)

. . . Hopkins was adjudicated a bankrupt July 25, 19.14, and on August 17th, Lawrence Hull was appointed trustee . . .

In IRVING, 220 F. 969 (D. Ariz. 1915)

. . . “The evidence introduced at said hearing showed that on February 13, 19.14, Nellie Irving, the lawful . . .

LAKE STEAM SHIPPING CO. v. BACON, 129 F. 819 (S.D.N.Y. 1904)

. . . A correction of the error involved an additional claim of $19.14. . . .

GEORGE DEWEY v. THE UNITED STATES, 35 Ct. Cl. 172 (Ct. Cl. 1900)

. . . .); breadth, 19.14 m. (65.29 ft.); depth of hold, 4.8 m. (15.74ft.); extreme draft, 3.8 m. (12.46 ft. . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)