The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . They note that, while the Mining Plan EA calculated' that approval of the modification would result in 28.16 . . .
. . . Boating Under the Influence); 28.15 (Boating Under the Influence Causing Property Damage or Injury); 28.16 . . . adopted in 2009 [6 So.3d 574] and amended in 2012 [87 So.3d 679], and 2014 [146 So.3d 1110], and 2016. 28.16 . . .
. . . Boating Under the Influence; 28.15 — Boating Under the Influence Causing' Property Damage or Injury; 28.16 . . . a license tax for operation” from the definition of the word “vessel” in instructions 28.14, 28.15, 28.16 . . . respect to new instruction 29.3, and the proposed amendments to instructions 12.1, 12.2, 28.14, 28.15, 28.16 . . . the Committee declined to modify its proposed amendments to instructions 12.1, 12.2, 28.14, 28.15, 28.16 . . . 11.18, 12.9, 14.10, and 29.3, and amended instructions 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 7.11, 12.1, 12.2, 28.14, 28.15, 28.16 . . .
. . . Hebert requests an award of $28.16 for gas purchased on May 28, 2013 in Hammonton, New Jersey. . . .
. . . 28.14 Influence Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 Comment This instruction was adopted in 2009 and amended in 2011. 28.16 . . .
. . . violation invoice from the NTTA listing the same fifteen transactions, amounting to collective tolls of $28.16 . . .
. . . Boating Under the Influence; 28.15 — Boating Under the Influence Causing Property Damage or Injury; 28.16 . . . New instructions 28.14, 28.15, 28.16, and 28.17, relating to boating under the influence, are not traffic . . . the 327.35(1) 28.14 Influence_ Attempt_777.04(1) 5.1 Comment This instruction was adopted in 2009. 28.16 . . .
. . . Cochran on June 27, $232.16, on June 28th, $92.00, the bar on May 27th for $23.00, and June 27th for $28.16 . . .
. . . Results from testing at the other three airports indicated an 8-hour TWA of .01 to 28.16 ppm and peak . . .
. . . and April were, respectively, $81.09 and $70.35; the charges for the second trailer were $36.36 and $28.16 . . .
. . . Davis, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE § 28.16 (1982 Supp.); K. . . .
. . . Chenango Court, Inc., 447 F.2d 296, 303 (2d Cir.1971) (quoting Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16 . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 at 984 (1970 Supp.)) . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16, at 965 (Supp.1970)). . . .
. . . Defendant notes a discrepancy between the package weight as recorded in Brazil — 28.16 pounds — and that . . .
. . . Brennan, 502 F. 2d 79, 87-88 (CA3 1974) (quoting Davis §28.16, p. 984 (1970 Supp.)). . . .
. . . 9.45 76.98 20.16 20.60 27.71 26.17 13.61 48.93 6.23 13.21 31.91 33.14 31.33 36.27 5.68 21.82 23.40 28.16 . . . 27.71 25.31 20.36 26.32 11.20 55.32 28.95 26.97 29.07 33.12 20.64 38.50 16.32 5.28 33.63 21.10 32.73 28.16 . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, secs. 28.07, 28.16 (1958 ed. Supp. 1982). . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1982 Supplement § 28.16 (1982). . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16 (1958) and Administrative Law of the Seventies, § 28.16 ( . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16, at 80 (1958). . . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 (1958); Saf-erstein, Nonreviewability: A Functional Analysis . . .
. . . Davis, supra n. 9, § 28.16, at 499 (criticizing the test and pointing out that “[d]iscretion which is . . .
. . . Che-nango Court, supra, 447 F.2d at 303 (quoting Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1970 Supplement, § 28.16 . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 (Supp.1970) at 966. . . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treaties § 28.16 (1958 & Supp. 1982); Saferstein, Nonreviewability: A Functional . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 (Supp. 1982). . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1970 Supplement § 28.16 at 965. . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 (1982 Supp.). . . .
. . . This analysis dovetails nicely with Davis’ rationale [Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16 (Supp . . .
. . . eligible black population to be the most appropriate: Seventh Sixth Percentage of Blacks in Eligible 28.16% . . . Undetermined Grand Jury Black 50% Black Participation Percentage of Eligible Blacks in the Eligible Population 28.16% . . . 28.16% 28.16% Percentage of Blacks on Jury or Jury Venire 19.43% 16.64% 16.67% Disparity 8.73% 11.52% . . . Seventh-Grade Sixth-Grade _Education_Education Percentage of Eligible Blacks in the Eligible Population 26.31% 28.16% . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16-1 (Supp.1970). . 5 U.S.C. § 301 (1976) provides in pertinent . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Sec. 28.16 at 965 (Supp. 1970), or “ ‘the subject matter is for some reason . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law of the Seventies § 28.16 (1976); K. C. . . . Davis, Administrative Law Treaties § 28.16 (1958 & Supp.1970); Saferstein, Nonreviewability: A Functional . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law § 28.16 at 82 (1958). That deference is appropriate here. . . .
. . . Stockholders Shares owned Percentage of outstanding stock Jack Paparo . 97,737 6.90 Irving Paparo . 399,136 28.16 . . . Under see. 318(a) Jack constructively owned 28.16 percent from his son, Irving; 3.04 percent from the . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 (1958 & Supps. 1970 & 1976). . . .
. . . Davis Administrative Law § 28.16 at 965 (Supp.1970) or 3) “ ‘the subject matter [of the agency’s action . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law of the Seventies §§ 28.16—28.16-1 at pp. 638—41 (1976) and Saferstein, Nonreviewability . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law of the Seventies §§ 28.16-28.16-1 at pp. 638-41 (1976) and Saferstein, Non-reviewability . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 (Supp.1970) at 966, cited in Mun. . . .
. . . Davis, supra, § 28.16-1, at 641. . . .
. . . See 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16, especially pp. 81-82 (1958 & 1970 Supp.). . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 (1958); See generally Saferstein, Nonreviewability: A Functional . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16, at 82 (1958). 415 F.2d at 1276. . . .
. . . See Da vis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16 at 964-65 (1970 Supp.). . . .
. . . (See also 2 Harper and James, Torts, §§ 28.15-28.16, pp. 1569-1574; Prosser, Strict Liability to the . . .
. . . See Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 at 80-81, and 1970 Supplement § 28.16 at 964-65. . . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16 (Supp.1970). . See Wolff v. . . .
. . . See 4 Davis, Admin.Law, § 28.16. . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 (1958, Supp. 1965); Saferstein, Nonreviewability: A Functional . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16 at 984 (1970 Supp.). . . .
. . . .) ; Interruptible, 28.16 cents per Mcf.” . . .
. . . .) ; Interruptible, 28.16 cents per Mcf.” Source: 36 Fed. . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16 [3]. . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 at 64-65 (1970 Supp.). . . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 at 965 (Supp.1970) (emphasis added). . . .
. . . Udall, 336 F.2d 706, 711-712 (CA9, 1964); Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16 (Supp. 1970). . . .
. . . Administrative Law Treatise, 1970 Supplement § 28.16 at 965, cited in Langevin v. . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16. . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16, at 82 (1958).] In Ogletree v. . . .
. . . Davis, AdmiNistrative Law Tkeatise § 28.16, at 82 (1958).] In Ogletree v. . . .
. . . Cf., Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1970 Supp., § 28.16, p. 964. . . .
. . . discretionary power is not so far ‘committed.’ ” Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1970 Supp., § 28.16 . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise H 28.16 at 86 (1958). . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16(4) at 982-990 (1970 Supp.), he has also recognized, as have . . .
. . . a unit price of $17.30 each (f.o.b. destination), and ¡56,070 pairs of trousers at a unit price of $28.16 . . .
. . . .) § 28.16 pp. 977-78. . . .
. . . See 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, §§ 28.01, 28.16. . . .
. . . See generally; Davis, Administrative Law, § 28.16 (1970 Supp.) and the cases there cited; the authorities . . .
. . . Davis, 4 Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 (1958). . . .
. . . Davis Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 at 82 (1958).” We agree. Judgment of dismissal affirmed. . . .
. . . Davis Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 (Supp. 1970) at 966: “One important area of administi'a-tive . . .
. . . See 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16; Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 374 . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 (1958). . . .
. . . Administrative Law Treatise, 1970 Supplement, § 28.16 at 965. . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16 at 80 (1958). . . .
. . . .-01, 28.16. . . .
. . . merely ‘involves’ discretion which is nevertheless reviewable. 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 . . .
. . . merely ‘involves’ discretion which is nevertheless reviewable. 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 . . .
. . . Administrative Law § 28.16 (1958, Supp. 1965). . . .
. . . See 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, §§ 28.01, 28.16. . . .
. . . Davis, supra, § 28.16; L. Jaffe, supra, 363-369. . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 28.08, 28.16 (1958, Supp.1965). . “[BY THE COURT] Q. . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16, at 82 (1958). , The integrity of these authorities and the . . . Cir. 1969) (both opinions) ; 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise ch. 28 (1958) and, in particular, § 28.16 . . .
. . . Walker, 409 F.2d 477 (9 Cir. 3/27/69); see also, Davis, Administrative Law, § 28.16 (Supp.1965). . . .
. . . Arbitrariness and Judicial Review, 65 Col.L.Rev. 55 (1965); 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law § 28.16 (1958, Supp. 1965). . . .
. . . Judicial Review, 65 Colum.L.Rev. 55 (1965) ; responded to in 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 . . .
. . . Weakley, 4 Cir., 356 F.2d 242 (1966); 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16 (1958 ed. and 1965 . . .
. . . Celebrezze, 356 F.2d 1, 5 (2 Cir. 1966); 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 28.08, 28.16 (1958) . . .
. . . of the character expressly made reviewable by § 1009(e) (1). 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, §.28.16 . . .
. . . Davis, Administrative Law Text § 28.16 (1958). . . .
. . . buyer against the person who sold the dangerous article to him.” 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts § 28.16 . . .
. . . Treatises: 2 Harper & James, Law of Torts § 28.16, p. 1570-1574 (1956); Prosser on Torts § 97, p. 676 . . .
. . . merely “involves” discretion which is nevertheless reviewable. 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.16 . . .
. . . the unfit commodity for a purpose ordinarily to be expected.” 2 Harper and James, The Law of Torts § 28.16 . . .
. . . See Davis, Administrative Law, § 28.16 (1958). . . . See 4 Davis, Administrative Law, §§ 28.16 and 30.02. Cf. Switchmen’s Union v. . . . See generally Davis, Administrative Law, § 28.16 (1958). See also Switchman’s Union v. . . .
. . . See Harper & James, Torts § 28.16 (1956) and Prosser, Torts § 84 (2d ed. 1955). . . .
. . . In 2 Harper & James, Law of Torts, 1570, § 28.16, in discussing the refusal of many courts, which have . . .
. . . In Volume 4, Sec. 28.16, he states: “All of section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, dealing with . . .
. . . . § 1001(g). . 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.16 (1958). . Heikkila v. . . .