The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXV
AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, AND ANIMAL INDUSTRY

Chapter 600
CITRUS MARKETING

View Entire Chapter

CHAPTER 600

CITRUS MARKETING

600.011 Short title.

600.021 Declaration of state policy.

600.031 Purposes of law.

600.041 Definitions.

600.051 Marketing agreements; powers of department.

600.011 Short title.—This act may be known and cited as “Florida Citrus Marketing Act.”

History.—s. 6, ch. 61-88.

600.021 Declaration of state policy.—This act is passed:

(1) In the exercise of the police power of this state to promote and protect the public health, peace, safety, and general welfare, and to stabilize and protect the citrus fruit industry of the state.

(2) Because the citrus fruit crop grown in Florida comprises the major agricultural crop of Florida and the marketing thereof is affected with a public interest.

(3) Because it is hereby found and declared that, because of the increased and ever-increasing production of citrus fruit in Florida and elsewhere, except in years of freezes or other emergencies that substantially reduce the total crop, the marketing of citrus fruit grown in Florida in excess of reasonable and normal market demands therefor, disorderly marketing of such citrus fruit, unfair methods of competition in the marketing of such citrus fruit, and the inherent inability of individual producers to develop new and larger markets for Florida grown citrus fruit result in an unreasonable and unnecessary economic waste of the agricultural wealth of this state. Such conditions and the accompanying waste jeopardize the future continued production of quality citrus fruit for the people of this and other states and areas, prevent citrus fruit producers from obtaining a fair return from their labor and the citrus fruit which they produce, and impair the economic value of their citrus fruit groves. As a consequence, the purchasing power of such producers has been in the past, and in all likelihood will continue to be in the future, unless such conditions are remedied, low in relation to that of persons engaged in other gainful occupations within this state. Citrus fruit producers are thereby prevented from maintaining a proper and reasonable standard of living and from contributing their fair share to the support of the necessary governmental and educational functions, thus tending to unfairly increase the tax burdens of other citizens of this state.

(4) Because the conditions hereinbefore described and set forth vitally concern the health, peace, safety, and general welfare of the people of this state, it is hereby declared to be the policy of this state to aid citrus fruit producers and handlers in preventing economic waste in the production and marketing of their citrus fruit, to develop more efficient and equitable methods in the marketing of citrus fruit, and to aid citrus fruit producers and handlers in restoring and maintaining their purchasing power at a more adequate, equitable, and reasonable level.

History.—s. 1, ch. 61-88; s. 44, ch. 83-334.

600.031 Purposes of law.—The purposes of this act are:

(1) To enable citrus fruit producers of this state, with the aid and under the direction and control of the state, more effectively to correlate the production and marketing of their citrus fruit with market demands therefor.

(2) To establish and maintain orderly marketing of citrus fruit grown in Florida.

(3) To provide methods and means for the development of new and larger markets for citrus fruit grown in Florida.

(4) To eliminate or reduce economic waste in the production, handling, and marketing of citrus fruit grown in Florida.

(5) To restore and maintain adequate purchasing power for the citrus fruit producers of Florida.

(6) To conserve the agricultural wealth of the state.

History.—s. 2, ch. 61-88.

600.041 Definitions.—As used in this act, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Department” means the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

(2) “Person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, business trust, legal representative, or any organized group of individuals.

(3) “Citrus fruit” or “fruit” means and includes grapefruit, oranges, tangerines, Temples, tangelos, and murcott honey oranges grown in Florida as defined in and by s. 601.03, and when regulated by the Florida Citrus Commission of the Department of Citrus, all other citrus fruit grown in Florida, including lemons, sour oranges, limes, and citrus hybrids.

(4) “Variety” or “varieties” means any one or all of the following classifications or groupings of citrus fruit:

(a) Early and mid-season oranges, including Temple oranges, navel types, and other varieties commonly called “round oranges,” except Valencias, Lue Gim Gongs, and similar late maturing oranges of the Valencia type;

(b) Valencias, late Valencias, Lue Gim Gongs, and similar late maturing oranges of the Valencia type;

(d) Duncan and other seeded grapefruit, including pinks and reds;

(e) Tangerines;

(f) Tangelos;

(g) Persian, Key, and Tahiti limes;

(h) Murcott honey oranges; and

(i) Lemons.

(5) “Producer” means any person growing or producing citrus fruit within this state for market.

(6) “Handler” means any person engaged within this state as a distributor in the business of handling and distributing citrus fruit in fresh fruit form in the primary channel of trade, whether such citrus fruit be purchased from the producer thereof or handled for her or his account.

(7) “Distributor” means any person who engages in the operation of packing, selling, marketing, handling, and distributing, in the primary channel of trade, citrus fruit in fresh fruit form in commercial quantities (other than express or gift fruit shippers) which she or he has produced, or purchased or acquired from a producer, or which she or he is marketing on behalf of a producer, but shall include only such persons who own and operate or have available to them facilities for packing the fresh citrus fruit handled by them; provided however, that any common marketing agency handling the sales of fresh citrus fruit for the account of any of such persons who do not maintain their own sales force or organization shall be deemed a distributor as herein defined.

(8) “Marketing agreement” means an agreement entered into, pursuant to the provisions of this act, by and between the department and handlers and distributors engaged in the handling and distributing of citrus fruit in fresh fruit form regulating the handling of such citrus fruit.

(9) “To handle” means to engage in the business of handler and distributor as herein defined.

(10) “To distribute” means to engage in the business of a distributor as herein defined.

(11) “Standard-packed box” has the same meaning as provided in s. 601.03.

(12) “Shipping season” means that period of time beginning August 1 of one year and ending July 31 of the following year.

(13) Whenever and wherever the context so admits any word or term used in this act which is not herein specifically defined shall have the meaning given by the laws of Florida.

History.—s. 3, ch. 61-88; ss. 14, 29, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 255, ch. 71-377; s. 54, ch. 91-220; s. 966, ch. 97-103; s. 3, ch. 2012-182.

600.051 Marketing agreements; powers of department.—

(1) In order to effectuate the declared policy and purposes of this act, the department shall have the power to enter into, administer, and enforce marketing agreements with handlers and distributors engaged in any one or more of the citrus districts established in and by s. 601.09, in the handling and distributing of citrus fruit in fresh fruit form or any variety or varieties, grade, size, or quality thereof, regulating the handling of such citrus fruit in the way and manner and to the extent therein prescribed and agreed upon, which said marketing agreements shall be binding only upon the signatories thereto exclusively. The execution of any such marketing agreement shall in no manner affect the issuance, administration, or enforcement of any marketing order otherwise provided for by chapter 601, and any marketing agreement executed hereunder shall be ineffective to the extent that it is in conflict with any rule, regulation, marketing order, or marketing agreement under any federal law relating to the handling of citrus fruit grown in Florida.

(2) The department may issue and execute a marketing agreement, or any amendment thereof after its issuance, if it finds and sets forth in such marketing agreement that such agreement or amendment, as the case may be, will, with respect to the citrus fruit covered thereby, tend to:

(a) Reestablish or maintain prices received by producers for citrus fruit at a level which will give to such citrus fruit a purchasing power, with respect to the articles and services which producers commonly buy, equivalent to the purchasing power of such citrus fruit in the base period. The base period shall be such prior period in which the department finds that:

1. The volume of production of citrus fruit was adequate to supply the requirements of consumers thereof; and

2. The returns to producer of citrus fruit were sufficient to provide an adequate standard of living to the citrus fruit producer and his or her family.

(b) Approach such equality of purchasing power at as rapid a rate as is feasible in view of the market demand for citrus fruit.

(c) Prevent the unreasonable or unnecessary waste of the wealth of the citrus fruit industry of Florida by developing new and larger markets for citrus fruit.

(d) Protect the interests of consumers of citrus fruit by exercising the powers of this act only to such extent as is necessary to establish the equality of purchasing power described in paragraph (a).

(3) In making the findings set forth above in this section, the department shall take into consideration any and all facts available to it with respect to the following economic factors:

(a) The quantity of citrus fruit available for distribution.

(b) The quantity of citrus fruit normally required by consumers.

(d) The purchasing power of consumers as indicated by reports and indices.

(e) The level of prices of similar and other commodities which compete with or are utilized as substitutes for Florida citrus fruit.

(4) Subject to the legislative restrictions and limitations set forth herein, any marketing agreement entered into between the department and signatories thereto pursuant to this act may contain any or all of the following provisions for regulating the handling or distributing of citrus fruit in fresh fruit form within this state in the primary channel of trade, but no others:

(a) Provisions for determining the existence and extent of the surplus of citrus fruit or of any variety, grade, size, or quality thereof, and providing for the control and distribution of such surplus and for equalizing the burden of such surplus elimination or control among the handlers or other distributors affected.

(b) Provisions for limiting the total quantity of citrus fruit, or of any variety, grade, size, or quality thereof, which may be distributed or otherwise handled in the primary channel of trade by any and all affected persons engaged in such distributing or handling during any specified period or periods. The total quantity of any such citrus fruit so regulated and permitted to be distributed, or otherwise handled, shall not be less than the quantity which the department finds is reasonably necessary to supply the market demands of consumers of such citrus fruit.

(c) Provisions for allotting the quantity of citrus fruit, or of any variety, grade, size, or quality thereof, which each handler signatory to such agreement may purchase or acquire from, or handle on behalf of, any and all producers thereof in the primary channel of trade during any specified period or periods, under a uniform rule applicable to all handlers so regulated based upon the current season’s production or sales of such producers, or upon production or sales of such producers in such prior period as the department determines to be representative, or both, to the end that the total quantity of such citrus fruit or any variety, grade, size, or quality thereof, so purchased or handled in the primary channel of trade, shall be apportioned equitably among the producers thereof.

(d) Provisions for the establishment of surplus or reserve pools of citrus fruit, or of the representative value of such citrus fruit, or of any variety, grade, size or quality thereof, and providing for the sale or other disposition of such surplus citrus fruit and the equitable distribution among the persons interested therein of the net returns or other consideration derived from the sale or other disposition of such citrus fruit or such distribution of such representative value of such citrus fruit.

(e) Prohibiting unfair methods of competition and unfair trade practices.

(f) Provisions for the establishment of plans or programs for advertising, merchandising, sales promotion and incentive payments, or matters connected therewith, to create new or larger markets for citrus fruit or any variety, grade, size, or quality thereof grown in the state.

(g) Provisions incidental to and not inconsistent with the terms, conditions, and provisions hereinbefore specified and necessary to effectuate the other provisions of such marketing agreement and the provisions of this act, including, but not limited to, provisions for paying the costs and expenses of administration of any such agreement, and provisions for penalties and for liquidated damages for violation of any such agreement.

History.—s. 4, ch. 61-88; ss. 14, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 6, ch. 78-95; s. 4, ch. 90-127; s. 967, ch. 97-103; s. 6, ch. 2022-117.

F.S. 600 on Google Scholar

F.S. 600 on Casetext

Amendments to 600

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 600

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 600.

Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S600

R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

S316.600 Vehicle equipped with open toilet - Points on Drivers License: 0

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SEILA LAW LLC, v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (U.S. 2020)

. . . non-probative "boilerplate" because it applies "to the entire, 848-page Dodd-Frank Act" and "appears almost 600 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. THURAISSIGIAM, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Rev. 575, 599-600 (2008) (Halliday & White). . . .

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

. . . permitted to serve in the Army in any capacity, and their prompt separation is mandatory"); Army Reg. 600 . . .

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, v. COWPASTURE RIVER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION LLC, v., 140 S. Ct. 1837 (U.S. 2020)

. . . granted a right-of-way that would allow Atlantic to place a 0.1-mile segment of pipe approximately 600 . . . whether the Leasing Act enables the Forest Service to grant a subterranean pipeline right-of-way some 600 . . . And, the final pipeline will lie approximately 600 feet below the Trail. . . .

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC, LLC, III v. LLC, v. LLC, n De De La El Y v., 140 S. Ct. 1649 (U.S. 2020)

. . . In 1950, Congress enacted Public Law 600, "in the nature of a compact" with Puerto Rico and subject to . . . L. 600, §§ 2, 3, 64 Stat. 319; see Act of July 3, 1952, 66 Stat. 327; A. . . . Under the terms of the compact, Public Law 600 itself was submitted to the people of Puerto Rico, who . . . With the passage of Public Law 600 and the adoption and recognition of the Puerto Rico Constitution, . . . No. 2275, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1950) (Public Law 600 was a "reaffirmation by the Congress of the . . .

UNITED STATES, v. SINENENG- SMITH, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (U.S. 2020)

. . . She was also ordered to pay $43,550 in restitution, a $15,000 fine, and a $600 special assessment. . . .

RAMOS, v. LOUISIANA, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Scade , 30 Mo. 600, 603, and the Ohio Supreme Court in 1853 called it one of "the essential and distinguishing . . .

KANSAS, v. GARCIA v. v., 140 S. Ct. 791 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Id. , at 1126, 1131, 401 P.3d at 596, 600. . . .

INTEL CORPORATION INVESTMENT POLICY COMMITTEE, v. M. SULYMA, 140 S. Ct. 768 (U.S. 2020)

. . . United States , 511 U.S. 600, 615-616, n. 11, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994) ("[K]nowledge can . . .

SHULAR, v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 779 (U.S. 2020)

. . . United States , 511 U.S. 600, 619, n. 17, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994) ; Chapman v. . . . United States , 495 U.S. 575, 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). . . .

KRAKAUER, v. T. CHRISTIAN,, 140 S. Ct. 1107 (U.S. 2020)

. . . No. 19-600 Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

ELHADY, v. H. KABLE,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 562 (E.D. Va. 2019)

. . . Thompson , 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BAPTISTE,, 935 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Seals , 419 F.3d 600, 606 (7th Cir. 2005) ; see also, e.g. , United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. TOWN OF COLORADO CITY,, 935 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Watkins , 600 F.2d 201, 204-05 (9th Cir. 1979). . . .

IN RE BOWLES,, 935 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bowles's October 19, 2017 motion had been pending for 600 days when Florida's Governor signed his death . . .

R. PESCI, v. BUDZ, LLC, LLC,, 935 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Pesci is not a prisoner; like the other roughly 600 residents of FCCC, he has already served out his . . .

VALTIERRA, v. MEDTRONIC INC. a, 934 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . EEOC produced an appendix to the regulations, termed "interpretive guidance," encompassing more than 600 . . .

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

. . . Marcus Freeman , 730 F.3d at 600 ("For the same reasons that many of [the agent's] opinions were not . . .

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

. . . Johnson , 655 F.3d 594, 600 (7th Cir. 2011). . . .

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

. . . Comm'rs , 41 F.3d 600, 604 (10th Cir. 1994). . . . Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd. , 600 F.3d 1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2010) ("The district court has broad discretion . . .

UNITED STATES v. TURNER,, 934 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Cook, 842 F.3d 597, 600 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Florida v. . . .

SENNE v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP. LLC LLC LP St. LLC LLC LLC LLC L. P. L. P. LLC LLC L. P. AZPB L. P. P LLC LLC LP LLP LLC LLC,, 934 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Hairu Chen , 7 Cal.5th at 600, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 594, 444 P.3d 727. . . .

STATES v. RYAN,, 935 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . buy: ten bundles of heroin for $1,000; and a Smith and Wesson AR-15 rifle and a Mossberg shotgun for $600 . . . unusually dangerous weapons-AK-47s and TEC-9s-to people he knew to be drug dealers." 811 F.3d 592, 600 . . .

UNITED STATES v. NORMAN,, 935 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 495 U.S. 575, 600-02, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) ). . . . Id. at 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143. . . .

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

. . . Valencia , 600 F.3d 389, 423 (5th Cir. 2010) ("We review the admission or exclusion of expert testimony . . .

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

. . . South Carolina , 107 U.S. 597, 600, 2 S.Ct. 636, 27 L.Ed. 574 (1883) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CLARK,, 935 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Johnson , 655 F.3d 594, 600 (7th Cir. 2011). . . .

LILLY, v. CITY OF NEW YORK NYPD No. NYPD No., 934 F.3d 222 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . offer of judgment and 6.5 hours of work preparing the attorney's fee application at an hourly rate of $600 . . . qualifications to other civil rights attorneys who have received attorney's fee awards in the low $600 . . . Reasonable Hourly Rate Lilly argues that the district court erred in reducing Rothman's rate from $600 . . . Reasonable Hourly Rate Determination In his fee application, Lilly requested an hourly rate first at $600 . . .

DOCTOR S ASSOCIATES, INC. v. ALEMAYEHU,, 934 F.3d 245 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . RE-1J , 981 P.2d 600, 603 (Colo. 1999) (explaining that "consideration" and "mutual assent" are "the . . .

ARCHER AND WHITE SALES, INCORPORATED, v. HENRY SCHEIN, INCORPORATED L. L. C. L. L. C., 935 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Dennis , 218 N.C.App. 600, 721 S.E.2d 369, 371 (2012) (quoting Taylor v. . . .

CLARK, v. WARDEN,, 934 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 734 F.3d 600, 607 (6th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. NG LAP SENG, Ng, Ng W. C., 934 F.3d 110 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 541 U.S. 600, 608, 124 S.Ct. 1941, 158 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004). . . .

REYES, v. FISCHER, J. X., 934 F.3d 97 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . found the defendants liable for violating Hassell's due process rights and awarded nominal damages of $600 . . .

E. ANDREWS, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., 932 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 49 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir. 1995) ("[I]f a party discloses information . . .

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

. . . Sadeghi, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, Jonathan A. . . . Chafuen, Weil Gotshal & Manges, 2001 M Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, Thomas R. . . .

UNITED STATES v. C. HODGE, 933 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . McMillan , 600 F.3d 434, 457 n.75 (5th Cir. 2010). iii. . . . Valencia , 600 F.3d 389, 423 (5th Cir. 2010) ). . . . McMillan , 600 F.3d at 457 n.75. III. Juror No. 7 A. . . .

WYNNEWOOD REFINING COMPANY, L. L. C. v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, 933 F.3d 499 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Safety Comm'n , 600 F.2d 12, 14 (5th Cir. 1979) (quotation omitted). . . . proceedings ... were first instituted." 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(1) (emphasis added); see also Southland Mower , 600 . . .

PARENT PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE M. W. a F. D. S. S. a S. Y. v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS J., 934 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 600, 119 S.Ct. 2176. . . .

P. DYER, v. VENTRA SANDUSKY, LLC,, 934 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Pregis Innovative Packaging, Inc. , 600 F.3d 748, 750-51 (7th Cir. 2010). . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. HARPER,, 934 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Doody , 600 F.3d 752, 755 (7th Cir. 2010) ; see also United States v. . . .

BOUCHER, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 934 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . We are not sure what 600-page administrative record the government is looking at, but it does not appear . . .

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

. . . some accommodation from her employer (R. 39-40), she quit and took a small early pension of about $600 . . .

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)

. . . Goodfellow , 717 F.3d 498, 503, 505 (6th Cir. 2013) ; Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. , 600 F.3d 93, 109 . . . district court should have applied what they deem a stricter standard from Tiffany (NJ) v. eBay Inc. , 600 . . . Tiffany , 600 F.3d at 97-98, 109. . . .

T. SCHMITT v. LAROSE,, 933 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . See id. at 1101, 1103 ; see also Molinari , 564 F.3d at 600-01 ("[P]laintiffs here claim that their First . . .

STURGILL, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., 391 F. Supp. 3d 598 (E.D. Va. 2019)

. . . BACKGROUND...600 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW...602 III. DISPARATE-TREATMENT CLAIM...602 A. . . .

LOCAL COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL- CIO v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 392 F. Supp. 3d 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Based upon Kurland's background and experience, the Court finds that an hourly rate of $600 is a reasonable . . . Supp. 3d at 658 ($600 hourly rate approved for attorney with 32 years' experience). . . . Jan. 2, 2019) ("Courts in this district have approved hourly rates of $250 to $600 for civil rights attorneys . . . relevant time entries, the Court's rough lodestar calculation credits Kurland with 1,095 hours at $600 . . .

KORTRIGHT CAPITAL PARTNERS LP, TY v. INVESTCORP INVESTMENT ADVISERS LIMITED,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . by citing to cases in which judges in this district have approved hourly rates in the ballpark of $600 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SIMPSON, 932 F.3d 1154 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . producing or distributing child pornography, the record reflects he received at least 300 but fewer than 600 . . .

N. TIMM K. v. GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD., 932 F.3d 986 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co ., 863 F.3d 600, 611 (7th Cir. 2017). We find no errors here. . . .

GGNSC LOUISVILLE HILLCREEK, LLC GGNSC LLC GGNSC LLC, v. ESTATE OF C. BRAMER, BY AND THROUGH A. BRAMER, A., 932 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Beverly Enters., Inc. , 376 S.W.3d 581, 600 (Ky. 2012). The nursing home concedes this issue. . . .

UNITED STATES v. COLLIER,, 932 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Jones , 600 F.3d 985, 990 (8th Cir. 2010). . . .

CARDOZA SALAZAR, v. P. BARR,, 932 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 495 U.S. 575, 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), which applied the categorical . . .

ORDUNO, v. PIETRZAK, v., 932 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Negley , 626 F.2d 600, 604 (7th Cir. 1980). . . .

MITCHELL, v. MACLAREN,, 933 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Seibert , 542 U.S. 600, 124 S. . . .

D. LEISER, v. KLOTH,, 933 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bender , 600 F.3d 770, 778 (7th Cir. 2010). . . .

UNITED STATES v. OLOYEDE, v. a k a a k a v. a k a a k a T. v. a k a, 933 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 512 U.S. 594, 600-01, 114 S.Ct. 2431, 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994) (holding that Rule 804(b . . .

J. GILLIAM, C. Ad v. SEALEY, E. C. T. A. Sr. C. T. A. WTVD LLC J. C. Ad v. C. T. A. E. C. T. A. Sr. WTVD LLC, 932 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 599-600, 68 S.Ct. 302. And in Ferguson v. . . . (4) neither Brown nor McCollum was aware of his rights; and (5) both Appellees were "tricked," J.A. 600 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HENNESSEE,, 932 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Sneed , 600 F.3d 1326, 1333 (11th Cir. 2010) ; United States v. Thomas , 572 F.3d 945, 950 (D.C. . . .

UNITED STATES v. DANIEL A. v. H., 933 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Seale , 600 F.3d 473, 496 n.12 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CEASAR,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 194 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . This compares to the 360 to 600 months' imprisonment requested by the government. . . .

JOHNSON O v. DUXBURY, MASSACHUSETTS, 931 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600, 611 (5th Cir. 2013 . . .

BORCHARDT v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,, 931 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ins. of Winterthur, 525 N.W.2d 600, 606 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) ; Minn. . . .

UNITED STATES v. OCHOA,, 932 F.3d 866 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ochoa admitted to possessing more than 600 images of child pornography. . . .

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. LLC,, 931 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . The Atlantic Coast Pipeline ("ACP") is a proposed 600-mile pipeline designed to transport natural gas . . .

HUNT, WAL- MART STORES, INC., 931 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Wisconsin Dep't of Corrections , 469 F.3d 600, 606 (7th Cir. 2006). . . .

DOLS, v. SAUL,, 931 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Reed v. . . .

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

. . . Astrue , 499 Fed.Appx. 598, 600 (7th Cir.2013) ; Skarbek , 390 F.3d at 504. . . .

FACIANE, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA,, 931 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Verizon Comm'cns, Inc. , 600 F.3d 1180, 1188 (9th Cir. 2010) ; Chuck v. . . .

PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTHWEST OHIO REGION v. DEWINE, 931 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . 2000, the FDA approved the use of mifepristone to end a pregnancy based on a dosage protocol that used 600 . . . Thus, it required physicians using mifepristone to induce abortion to prescribe a 600 milligram dose . . . allowing a 200 milligram dosage and prescription through 70 days post-LMP, rather than the original 600 . . .

Z. J. a BY AND THROUGH Je JONES, v. KANSAS CITY BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS,, 931 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bender , 600 F.3d 770, 786 (7th Cir. 2010), the reasoning of the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth circuits demonstrates . . . Bender , 600 F.3d 770, 784-86 (7th Cir. 2010). . . . See Bender , 600 F.3d at 784-86 (stating "the use of a flash bang device is justified when 'potentially . . .

P. ADIA, v. GRANDEUR MANAGEMENT, INC. I., 933 F.3d 89 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . abandoned his ATS claims on appeal, they need not be considered, see Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. , 600 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MUSCHETTE, 392 F. Supp. 3d 282 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . See Trial Tr. 600-666. . . .

HAHN, v. MOSELEY,, 931 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ct. 1318, 203 L.Ed.2d 600 (2019). See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. . . .

CARVAJAL VASQUEZ, v. GAMBA ACEVEDO,, 931 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . parents were in the United States using temporary work visas, which weighed against an intention to stay. 600 . . .

N DIAYE, v. P. BARR,, 931 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Dec. 600, 601 (BIA 1978) (holding that unless qualified or limited for a specific purpose, a "remand . . .

PEREZ, v. ABBOTT,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 803 (W.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . Id. at 600 (emphasis in original). . . .

UNITED STATES v. IWAI,, 930 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Allard , 600 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1979) ("[T]he search cannot be justified solely because an agent . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. WILLIAMS,, 931 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 495 U.S. 575, 600-01, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). . . . The defendant there financed drug dealing in part by buying "600 cold pills" to make more than three . . .

DIAZ- QUIRAZCO, v. P. BARR,, 931 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Dist ., 402 U.S. 600, 603, 91 S.Ct. 1746, 29 L.Ed.2d 206 (1971) )). . . .

MATSON, v. SANDERSON FARMS, INC., 388 F. Supp. 3d 853 (S.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . United States , 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir. 2010). . . .

J. UCCARDI, v. LAZER SPOT, INC., 390 F. Supp. 3d 911 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . this morning, argued that the court should vacate the Order of July 16, 2019 and require that the $600 . . .

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, v. AMAZON. COM, INC., 390 F. Supp. 3d 964 (W.D. Wis. 2019)

. . . American Cyanamid Co. et al. , 760 F. 3d 600 (7th Cir. 2014). . . .

IN RE DAWOOD,, 602 B.R. 640 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2019)

. . . See Dismissal Opinion (Docket # 113) at 23 in Case No. 18-56801; In re Basrah Custom Design, Inc. , 600 . . . (Dismissal Opinion (Docket # 113) at 26; In re Basrah Custom Design, Inc. , 600 B.R. at 385.) . . . (Dismissal Opinion (Docket # 113) at 26; In re Basrah Custom Design, Inc. , 600 B.R. at 385.) . . . These opinions are reported at 600 B.R. at 386 and 602 B.R. 31. . . .

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. CHICAGO TRUST COMPANY, THE BABY FOLD,, 930 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Security Insurance , 258 F.3d 595, 600-02 (7th Cir. 2001). . . .

VASSEUR, v. F. SOWELL L. III, TEI, 930 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Brader , No. 4:15-600, 2015 WL 9872070, n.11 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2015). . . .

IN RE TRONOX, v. LLP D. A., 603 B.R. 712 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Franklin Advisers, Inc. , 600 B.R. 214, 230 n. 14 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ; Giese v. Community Tr. . . . Franklin Advisers, Inc. , 600 B.R. 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), for example, the Court held that state-law breach . . .

MARINELARENA, v. P. BARR,, 930 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Martinez-Lopez , 864 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting Taylor , 495 U.S. at 600, 110 . . . See Taylor , 495 U.S. at 600-02, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (referring to both methods as the "categorical approach . . . United States , 495 U.S. 575, 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) ("Congress intended the sentencing . . . United States , 495 U.S. 575, 600-01, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) (emphasis added). . . .

RAYNA P. v. CAMPUS COMMUNITY SCHOOL, M. P. v., 390 F. Supp. 3d 556 (D. Del. 2019)

. . . Jan. 13, 2016) (awarding counsel fees at $600 per hour); Kirsch , 2017 WL 131808, at *6 (awarding hourly . . .

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

. . . Co., 73 Mass.App.Ct. 205, 897 N.E.2d 593, 600 (2008). . . .

CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 84 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . Herman , 600 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 2010) (noting that "[t]he conflation of jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional . . .

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

. . . Dep't of Natural Resources , 600 F.3d 798, 806 (7th Cir. 2010) ("[B]ecause Ms. . . .

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

. . . Odell, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, 1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 . . .

VENCKIENE, v. UNITED STATES, 929 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . See Ordinola , 478 F.3d at 600. . . . Ordinola , 478 F.3d at 600. . . . Ordinola , 478 F.3d at 600. . . .

PHILLIPS, v. V. SPENCER,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 136 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . Wilson , 721 A.2d 591, 600 (D.C. 1998) ). Mr. . . .

PENNSYLVANIA v. PRESIDENT UNITED STATES D. C., 930 F.3d 543 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Feldman, The Feldman Firm, 600 West Germantown Pike, Suite 400, Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462, Counsel for . . .

UNITED STATES v. PEREZ,, 929 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 495 U.S. 575, 600-02, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). . . .

UNITED STATES v. M. SMITH,, 929 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . child pornography and was sentenced to 90 months of imprisonment, 20 years of supervised release, a $600 . . .

UNITED STATES v. PEREZ,, 932 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 495 U.S. 575, 600-02, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). . . .

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

. . . FIG.6 A shows a process 600 for determining the variability in the recent R to R intervals and identifying . . . The system performing process 600 can compare the most recent R to R interval (e.g., RR(n,n-1) of FIG . . .

RUSH, v. SAUL,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 957 (D.N.M. 2019)

. . . MRFCA cannot properly be considered part of the substantial evidence supporting an ALJ's RFC finding." 600 . . .