Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 7.02 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 7.02 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 7.02

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION
Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 7.02
7.02 Baker County.The boundary lines of Baker County are as follows: Beginning at a point at center of township four south, on range line dividing ranges eighteen and nineteen east; thence north on said range line to the Georgia line; thence easterly on said Georgia line to the St. Marys River, and then down said river, concurrent with the boundary line between the States of Georgia and Florida, to where the said river intersects with range line dividing ranges twenty-two and twenty-three east; thence south on said range line to the center line of township four south; and then west on said township line to the point of beginning.
History.s. 1, Feb. 4, 1832; s. 1, Mar. 15, 1844; s. 3, ch. 895, 1858; ch. 1039, 1859; s. 1, ch. 1185, 1861; RS 31; GS 29; s. 1, ch. 6244, 1911; RGS 31; CGL 33.

F.S. 7.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.02 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.02


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.02
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.02.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE HOLMES, v., 603 B.R. 757 (D.N.J. 2019)

. . . Paragraph 7.02 of the Master Deed, titled "Lien in Favor of the Association," states in pertinent part . . . (Master Deed ¶ 7.02). . . .

IN RE TSAWD HOLDINGS, INC. TSA TSA TSA FSB, v. a k a s,, 595 B.R. 676 (Bankr. Del. 2018)

. . . (b) Liens existing on the date hereof and listed on Schedule 7.01(b).... 7.02. Indebtedness. . . .

BAKERY, CONFECTIONERY, TOBACCO WORKERS AND GRAIN MILLERS, INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL- CIO No. G, v. KELLOGG COMPANY,, 904 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 2018)

. . . Under section 7.02(a), which is under the heading "arbitration of grievances," the Master Agreement states . . . The Master Agreement also states in section 7.02(e) that "[t]he Arbitration Board shall have no power . . . .. the matter will be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the procedure provided in Section 7.02 . . . ., the matter will be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the procedure provided in Section 7.02 . . . The section regarding arbitration in the Battle Creek Supplemental Agreement also states that section 7.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. LITTLE, v., 314 F. Supp. 3d 647 (E.D. Pa. 2018)

. . . . § 2 ; Third Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions § 7.02. . . .

RAMEY, v. DAVIS,, 314 F. Supp. 3d 785 (S.D. Tex. 2018)

. . . Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2). . . .

UNITED STATES v. VELASQUEZ,, 881 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2018)

. . . . § 7.02. . . .

IN RE HOLMES,, 573 B.R. 549 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2017)

. . . Paragraph 7.02 of the Master Deed states in pertinent part: 7.02 Lien in Favor of the Association. . . . Master Deed, ¶ 7.02. . . . Community Hills argued that its position is supported by sections 7.01 and -7.02, and 16.03 of the Master . . . Master Deed, ¶7.02. . . .

CRESCOM BANK, v. L. TERRY LLC, n k a CCT LLC LLC CCT LLC,, 269 F. Supp. 3d 708 (D.S.C. 2017)

. . . IV.Local Civil Rule 7.02 Certifications Finally, neither the motion to alter or amend nor the motion . . . Rule 7.02 (D.S.C.). . . .

L. SPEAKS, v. MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION DBA, 701 F. App'x 663 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . 284 Mont. 336, 943 P.2d 1310, 1312 (1997) (describing the McJunkin test); Montana Pattern Instruction 7.02 . . .

C. GARCIA, v. DAVIS,, 704 F. App'x 316 (5th Cir. 2017)

. . . Under the Texas Law of Parties, contained in section 7.02 of the Texas Penal Code, a defendant may be . . . As relevant here, section 7.02(b) provides: If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one . . .

PRYSTASH, v. DAVIS,, 854 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2017)

. . . Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2). . . .

THOMAS, v. TYCO INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC,, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . Tax Acct. 7.02, 2013, WL 6389666, at *2 (“The control environment , component is considered the foundation . . .

MANSHA CONSULTING LLC, v. ALAKAI,, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1267 (D. Haw. 2017)

. . . needed to put forth a valid negligence claim against Defendants, See Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 7.02 . . .

IN RE SUNEDISON, INC., 557 B.R. 303 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Vivint had failed to mitigate its damages and (iii) the damages sought by Vivint pursuant to section 7.02 . . .

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, v. LANIER LAW, LLC,, 194 F. Supp. 3d 1238 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . Bar Rules, art. 10, § 9, Rule 7.02(a)(1); N.Y. Rules of Profl Conduct, Rule 8.4(c); Fla. St. . . .

WATCHTOWER BIBLE TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF PONCE,, 197 F. Supp. 3d 340 (D.P.R. 2016)

. . . safe, peaceful, and attractive residential communities of different sizes and different intensities. 7.02 . . .

TERAN, v. GB INTERNATIONAL, S. P. A. GB S. r. l., 652 F. App'x 660 (10th Cir. 2016)

. . . Governance: Analysis and Recommendations § 7.02 cmt. d (1994). . . .

HL INTERMEDIATE HOLDCO INC. v. N. B. LOVE INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD., 191 F. Supp. 3d 345 (D. Del. 2016)

. . . B at § 7.02) 4. . . . 12 at 10) Defendants assert that this definition of notified should be construed consistently with § 7.02 . . . at 10) Plaintiff further argues that defendants misconstrue “notified” as used in § 3.21(c) with § 7.02 . . . ’s “Notices” provision, as § 7.02 pertains to notices under the Agreement and not preexisting notifications . . .

ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. v. MAKARIOS- OREGON, LLC, LLC,, 180 F. Supp. 3d 745 (D. Or. 2016)

. . . leased premises in good repair, and Makarios is not suing to enforce Ross’s obligations under § 7.01, § 7.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. P. GAW,, 817 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016)

. . . It also quotes Section 7.02: "Employees are generally not required to submit written notice before engaging . . .

B. HIME, v. A. McDONALD,, 28 Vet. App. 1 (Vet. App. 2016)

. . . Id. at ch. 7, § I, para. 7.02(a). . . .

F. SIKORA, v. UPMC, a a k a UPMC, 153 F. Supp. 3d 820 (W.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . . § 7.02. Gregory K. . . .

IN RE HARDEMAN COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT d b a, 540 B.R. 229 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . appointment of a “disbursing agent” in accordance with Bankruptcy Code § 944(b)(2) and as set forth in § 7.02 . . .

IN RE LIBERTY STATE BENEFITS OF DELAWARE, INC. W. As v. N. A. N. A,, 541 B.R. 219 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015)

. . . RICO claims creates a strong argument against applying the stronger standard here. 1-7 Civil RICO ¶ 7.02 . . .

LNV CORP. v. HARRISON FAMILY BUSINESS, LLC,, 132 F. Supp. 3d 683 (D. Md. 2015)

. . . ECF 17-2 § 7.02 at 7, Deed of Trust for HFB Term Loan; ECF 17-7 § 7.02 at 7, Deed of Trust for HFB Revolving . . . ECF 17-2 § 7.02 at 7, Deed of Trust for HFB Term Loan; ECF 17-7 § 7.02 at 7, Deed of Trust for HFB Revolving . . .

SARI, v. AMERICA S HOME PLACE, INC., 129 F. Supp. 3d 317 (E.D. Va. 2015)

. . . Grp., Inc., 865 F.Supp. 401, 405 (E.D.Mich.1994) (quoting Nimmer on Copyright § 7.02(C)). . . .

J. KORESKO, v. UNITED STATES, 123 F. Supp. 3d 654 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . {See Trust § 4.6; Master Plan Document § 7.02(f).)”). See also DOL (09-cv-988), Doc. . . . (See Trust § 4.6; Master Plan Document § 7.02(f).)”); DOL (09-cv-988), Doc. . . .

IN RE EMPRESAS OMAJEDE INC., 537 B.R. 63 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2015)

. . . “Section 7.02 Accumulative Remedies. . . . "Sección 7.02 Remedios Acumulativos. . . .

C. MATHESON, v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, a, 187 So. 3d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Article 7.02 provides restrictions for the use of public parks and requires a majority vote of the electorate . . . In addition, Article 7.02 creates a special class of public parks (which includes Cran-don Park), and . . . Section 7.02, “Restrictions and Exceptions,” of Article 7 ⅛ the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter — . . .

In CITIGROUP ERISA LITIGATION, 104 F. Supp. 3d 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Ex. 5 (Citigroup 401(k) Plan As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009 (“Citigroup Plan”)) § 7.02 . . . 401(k) Plan for Puerto Rico As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009 (“Citibuilder Plan”)) § 7.02 . . .

LUITPOLD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ED. GEISTLICH S HNE A. G. F R CHEMISCHE INDUSTRIE,, 784 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . Paragraph 7.02 of the Commercial Agreement provided that “[tjerms of payment shall be net sixty (60) . . . Id. ¶ 7.02. The parties do not. dispute that it would have been impossible for. . . . Luitpold pay Geistlich for Geistlich’s product within 60 days of shipment, see Commercial Agreement ¶ 7.02 . . .

COTTILLION No. v. UNITED REFINING COMPANY No., 781 F.3d 47 (3d Cir. 2015)

. . . To summarize, per § 7.02 a TVP gets retirement income in accordance with § 5.03, which states that a . . . Under both plans, § 7.02 tells us that a TVP gets retirement income in accord with § 5.03, which states . . . Sections 7.01 and 7.02 of both Plans provide precisely the early retirement benefits described in Bellas . . . Keppelman writes, “The cross-reference [from § 7.02 to § 5.03] did not confer early retirement benefits . . . “the cross reference” does not confer early retirement benefits, but § 7.01 explicitly does, and § 7.02 . . .

NORTHSTAR FINANCIAL ADVISORS INC. v. SCHWAB INVESTMENTS F. A. G. B. R. W. R. W. H. F., 779 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . court finds that the plaintiff is unable to provide fair and adequate representation pursuant to § 7.02 . . .

In MICHAEL BAHARY STEVEN BAHARY PARTNERSHIP,, 523 B.R. 642 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2015)

. . . The Plan also provides, at paragraph 7.02, that all executory contracts not expressly assumed under paragraph . . .

RUBENSTEIN P. A. v. FLORIDA BAR K., 72 F. Supp. 3d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . Disciplinary Rules of Profl Conduct R. 7.02(a)(2); Va. Rules of Profl Conduct R. 7.2(a)(3). . . .

In KATSMAN, v., 771 F.3d 1048 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . Sabbeth, 262 F.3d 207, 217 (2d Cir.2001); Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 7.02[l][a][iv][B] (Alan N. . . .

In KATSMAN, v., 771 F.3d 1048 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . Sabbeth, 262 F.3d 207, 217 (2d Cir.2001); Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 7.02[1][a][iv][B] (Alan N. . . .

HOLIDAY, v. STEPHENS,, 587 F. App'x 767 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . Penal Code § 7.02. . . .

UNITED STATES v. GEWIN,, 759 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

. . . District Court Judges § 7.02, at 236 (6th ed.2013). . . .

SHARMA, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,, 58 F. Supp. 3d 59 (D.D.C. 2014)

. . . Ex. 3B §§ 7.01, 7.02. . . . For similar reasons, the Court rejects plaintiffs reliance on sections 7.01 and 7.02 of the Trust Agreement . . . Nor is section 7.02 relevant to this dispute. . . . See id. § 7.02. Defendants’ reliance on section 10.10 of the Trust Agreement, however, is proper. . . .

UNITED STATES v. GALIMAH,, 758 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2014)

. . . The government, quoting the Eighth Circuit Manual of Model Jury Instructions, 7.02, Committee Comments . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. SLOUGH, S. L. v. A., 51 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2014)

. . . Rule 7.02 Challenges a. Urey Patrick The government challenges Mr. . . .

BETKER, v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE, A., 22 F. Supp. 3d 915 (E.D. Wis. 2014)

. . . Defendant next argues that I should have given Seventh Circuit Pattern Civil Jury Instruction 7.02 which . . .

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. DAVIDSON KEMPNER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, LLC, STS LP, CMBS LLC, Co., 32 F. Supp. 3d 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . Section 7.02 of the Pooling Agreement states, “No Certifieateholder shall have any right to ... control . . . Second, Bedford argues that Section 7.02 of the Pooling Agreement bars the DWS parties from contesting . . . Because the language of section 7.02 clearly contemplates “institut[ing]” an action, it cannot be construed . . . Pooling Agreement § 7.02. . Id. . Id. ¶ 23. . Id. ¶1. . See Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass’n v. . . . I need not reach the effect of section 7.02 on the DWS Parties’ first counterclaim, which is largely . . .

SONGCHAROEN, S. M. D. FACS. P. L. L. C. v. PLASTIC HAND SURGERY ASSOCIATES, P. L. L. C., 561 F. App'x 327 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . PHSA argues that the district court erred in considering the two sections, Sections 7.02 and 6.05, that . . . Songcharoen asserts that Section 7.02 of the Operating Agreement provides that, upon his withdrawal as . . . For Songcharoen, Sections 12.03 and 7.02 address different types of payments owed to him upon termination . . . ; Section 12.03 provides remuneration for his membership unit, while Section 7.02 reimburses him for . . . PHSA discounts Songcharoen’s reliance on Section 7.02 because Section 7.02 addresses payment for liquidating . . .

HARRIS, v. CITY OF BALCH SPRINGS, Z. B. E., 9 F. Supp. 3d 690 (N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Compl. 18, ¶ 7.02. . . . 7.01 Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if set forth verbatim herein. 7.02 . . .

NELLCOR PURITAN BENNETT LLC, v. CAS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., 11 F. Supp. 3d 861 (E.D. Mich. 2014)

. . . subjects still slightly favored FORESIGHT as being more accurate (Arms was 6.15 for FORE-SIGHT and 7.02 . . .

REED, v. STEPHENS,, 739 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . innocence stage permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty as a party under Sections 7.01 and 7.02 . . .

PATRICK, v. TEAYS VALLEY TRUSTEES, LLC,, 297 F.R.D. 248 (N.D.W. Va. 2013)

. . . Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Dkt. 124) is GRANTED because Defendant’s Response violates Local Rule 7.02 . . . Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.02(b)(1) provides that “responses to motions shall be filed and served . . . P. 7.02(b)(1). . . . Local Rule 7.02(b) also states that “[t]he memoranda in response may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages . . . P. 7.02(b)(1)(iii). . . .

B. J. T. J. J. J. B. J. v. HOMEWOOD FLOSSMOOR CHSD Dr., 999 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (N.D. Ill. 2013)

. . . Stat. 5/14-7.02. . . .

IN RE WATERFORD WEDGWOOD USA, INC. S. USA, USA, WW USA, v. WWRD US, LLC,, 500 B.R. 371 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . See id. at §§ 7.01(a), 7.02(a)). . . .

BMC v., 141 T.C. 224 (T.C. 2013)

. . . See Notice 2005-38, sec. 7.02(a), 2005-1 C.B. 1100, 1111. . . . See Notice 2005-38, sec. 7.02(b); Notice 2005-64, sec. 10.08, 2005-2 C.B. 471, 489. . . .

CHILDERS, v. UNITED STATES, v., 112 Fed. Cl. 617 (Fed. Cl. 2013)

. . . Sale A-3 by negative five percent to reflect the fact that it was zoned to allow development up to 7.02 . . . because the sale of Sale A-3 was dependent on rezoning the property, which resulted in an allowance of 7.02 . . . adjusted the price of Sale A-3 by negative five percent to reflect the fact that it could be developed at 7.02 . . .

CHILDERS, v. UNITED STATES, v., 116 Fed. Cl. 486 (Fed. Cl. 2013)

. . . Sale A-3 by negative five percent to reflect the fact that it was zoned to allow development up to 7.02 . . . because the sale of Sale A-3 was dependent on rezoning the property, which resulted in an allowance of 7.02 . . . adjusted the price of Sale A-3 by negative five percent to reflect the fact that it could be developed at 7.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. PEREZ,, 531 F. App'x 246 (3d Cir. 2013)

. . . charged the jury on accomplice liability in accordance with the Third Circuit’s Model Jury Instruction § 7.02 . . .

DEY, L. P. v. TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC. USA, LTD., 958 F. Supp. 2d 654 (N.D.W. Va. 2013)

. . . As noted by Dey, this document does not comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.02(a) and (b) ("Rule . . . 7.02”), which limits memoranda in response to "twenty-five [double-spaced] pages.” . . . Although Rule 7.02 empowers the Court to enlarge the page limits for good cause shown, Teva made no such . . .

GULF POWER COMPANY, v. COALSALES II, LLC, f. k. a., 522 F. App'x 699 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . Per section 7.02, it was “anticipated that the primary source of coal” would be a blend of Sources A . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. WESTERN TRADING COMPANY, INC., 291 F.R.D. 615 (D. Colo. 2013)

. . . Riley was a sales associate for Defendant, which was a full-time position with a pay rate of $7.02 per . . .

F. MARACICH, v. SPEARS, 570 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2013)

. . . Conduct 7.02-7.03 (2013); Va. Rule Prof. Conduct 7.3 (Supp. 2012). That, indeed, was true here. . . .

GONGORA, v. THALER,, 710 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 7.02(b). . . . . innocence stage permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty as a party under Sections 7.01 and 7.02 . . .

CHYTKA, v. WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC., 925 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Colo. 2013)

. . . D, Employee Stock Ownership Plan & Trust Agreement [# 115-4] §§ 7.02, 9.04. . . .

ASSURED GUARANTY MUNICIPAL CORP. f k a v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB ABS, LLC,, 920 F. Supp. 2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . PL Ex. 90 § 6.05; PL Ex. 451 § 7.02; PL Ex. 198 § 8.02. . . .

J. BACHORZ A. v. MILLER- FORSLUND, L., 703 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2012)

. . . Article VII, subsection 7.02 required the plaintiffs to “comply with all of the requirements of all county . . . Miller-Forslund additionally argues that the plaintiffs breached Article VII, subsection 7.02, which . . .

WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. v. CCC ATLANTIC, LLC,, 905 F. Supp. 2d 604 (D.N.J. 2012)

. . . (PSA, § 7.02, p. 264; § 8.01(a), p. 267) B. . . .

SANCHEZ, v. CITY OF CHICAGO,, 700 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2012)

. . . court gave the following instruction, adapted from Seventh Circuit Pattern Civil Jury Instruction No. 7.02 . . . See Seventh Circuit Pattern Civil Jury Instruction No. 7.02, committee comments. . . .

KELLER, Co- Co- Co- v. UNITED STATES, 697 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . And under Section 7.02(a)(2), the assignment of a limited partnership interest does not dissolve the . . .

In U. S. FIDELIS, INC., 481 B.R. 503 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2012)

. . . Section 7.02 No Right to Reversion with Respect to Consumer Restitution Fund Assets. . . .

In PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO., 944 F. Supp. 2d 363 (E.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . Section 7.02 of the Consummation Order enjoined certain claims against the Reorganized Company, including . . . Consummation Order § 7.02. . . . jurisdiction To consider and take appropriate action with respect to the matters referred to in Section 7.02 . . . Section 7.02 of the Consummation Order enjoined claims against the Reorganized Company “on account of . . . Thus, the injunction under § 7.02 of the Consummation Order and the discharge provision in § 3.06 of . . .

UNITED STATES v. JOHNS,, 686 F.3d 438 (7th Cir. 2012)

. . . Ellis, 50 F.3d 419, 422 (7th Cir. 1995); Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 7.02(5)(a)(iv) (“At a minimum, this . . .

UNITED STATES v. JOHNS,, 686 F.3d 438 (7th Cir. 2012)

. . . Ellis, 50 F.3d 419, 422 (7th Cir.1995); Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 7.02(5)(a)(iv) (“At a minimum, this . . .

KELLY CAPITAL, LLC V, LLC, v. S M BRANDS, INC. v. SEI SEI, 873 F. Supp. 2d 659 (E.D. Va. 2012)

. . . In paragraph 112, S & M relies on § 7.02 of the ERTAs, the purchaser’s indemnity entitlement section, . . . Section 7.02, of course, governs S & M’s remedies for breach of contract and it provides that, in the . . . Section 7.02 makes no mention at all of attorney’s fees. . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. PRUETT LWC, 681 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . Davis, 2 Federal Standards of Review § 7.02 (4th ed.2010). . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. THALER,, 463 F. App'x 349 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 7.02 (West 2003). . . .

AXXIOM MANUFACTURING, INC. v. McCOY INVESTMENTS, INC. d b a, 846 F. Supp. 2d 732 (S.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §§ 7.02[A]-[B] (2011). Ten years later, in 1997, U.S. . . . 1909 Act publications, decennial publications, and Berne Era publications. 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.02 . . . Id. § 7.02[C][1], “[T]he general rule under the 1909 Copyright Act is that a work published in the United . . . works published after March 1, 1989, the Berne Convention’s effective date. 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.02 . . . Harper, 598 F.3d 193, 199 (5th Cir.2010) (quoting 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.02[C][3] j. . . .

QUAIL CRUISES SHIP MANAGEMENT, LTD. v. AGENCIA DE VIAGENS CVC TUR LIMITADA,, 847 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . bought MultiServ — in essence, Harseo bought the representations and, according to Sections 2.05 and 7.02 . . . Thus, it is not fair to characterize Sections 2.05 and 7.02 as having prevented Harseo from protecting . . .

TREVINO, v. THALER,, 449 F. App'x 415 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . Texas’ law of the parties doctrine is codified in Texas Penal Code § 7.02. . . . Penal Code § 7.02 (2011). . . . .

WITHCO, LLC v. REPUBLIC SERVICES OF TENNESSEE, LLC,, 818 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (M.D. Tenn. 2011)

. . . Section 7.02 requires RST to reimburse Witheo the amount of any payments made to secure an option at . . . Section 7.02 of the Agreement also states that any Tonnage Royalties do not become due until after the . . .

In QUALIA CLINICAL SERVICE, INC. D. v. LLC,, 652 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . IPA sec. 7.02, J.A. at 53. . . .

In QUALIA CLINICAL SERVICE, INC. D. v. LLC,, 652 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . IPA sec. 7.02, J.A. at 53. . . .

GRAVES, v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY,, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (M.D. Ala. 2011)

. . . as follows: 7.02. . . . VII, § 7.02. V. DISCUSSION A. . . . VII, § 7.02. . . . VII, § 7.02. . . . COUNCIL DISTRICTS. 7.02. . . .

RIVAS, v. THALER,, 432 F. App'x 395 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . . §§ 7.02(b), 19.03. . . . Penal Code Ann. § 7.02(b), the state habeas court found that Rivas had failed to “rebut the presumption . . .

WATER WHEEL CAMP RECREATIONAL AREA, INC. v. LARANCE, v., 642 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . .”); see also Cohen § 7.02[2], 604 (“For a tribal court to hear a case, it must have not only subject . . .

J. v., 136 T.C. 475 (T.C. 2011)

. . . Proc. 2003-71, sec. 7.02, 2003-2 C.B. at 519. While Mr. . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. THALER,, 787 F. Supp. 2d 504 (W.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . Section 7.02, Texas Penal Code Annotated (Vernon 2003). . . .

BLOOMFIELD STATE BANK, v. UNITED STATES, 644 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2011)

. . . Schmudde, Federal Tax Liens § 7.02(i), pp. 151-53 (4th ed. 2001); Peter F. . . .

WOOD, TDCJ No. v. THALER,, 787 F. Supp. 2d 458 (W.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . Petitioner’s fundamental disagreement with the efficacy of Section 7.02 of the Texas Penal Code does . . . undermine public support for, and possibly repeal, the Texas law of parties, currently codified in Section 7.02 . . .

In NATIONAL CENTURY FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. JP, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (S.D. Ohio 2011)

. . . See id. at § 7.02. . . .

ADAMS, v. THALER,, 421 F. App'x 322 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 7.02. . . . Section 7.02 provides: (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct . . . Penal Code Ann. § 7.02 (West 2003). . Adams's claims are based on Enmund v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. GORE,, 636 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . it determined that he was a career offender on the basis of an incorrect statute, Texas Penal Code § 7.02 . . .

K- TEC, a v. VITA- MIX,, 765 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (D. Utah 2011)

. . . According to Lance Gunderson, K-TEC’s actual borrowing rates were: 2006, 7.22%; 2007, 7.02%; 2008, 7.14% . . .

SHELTON, v. RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE C., 780 F. Supp. 2d 653 (M.D. Tenn. 2011)

. . . claim of entitlement’ that if their Conditional Use Permit (‘CUP’) request met the requirements in § 7.02 . . . by right, only upon appeal, and in conformance with the standards set forth in Article VII, Section 7.02 . . . Section 7.02 of the Zoning Resolution sets forth the standards that must be met before a conditional . . . Zoning Resolution § 7.02(A)-(E). . . . When asked if Plaintiffs’ application met the requirements of § 7.02, Planning Director Doug Demosi said . . .

In QUALIA CLINICAL SERVICE, INC. D. v. LLC, 441 B.R. 325 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2011)

. . . In particular, the court noted the recourse provisions contained in section 7.02 of the agreement, which . . . The provision is as follows: 7.02 RECOURSE. This is a full recourse agreement. . . . Invoice Purchase Agreement ¶ 7.02, at 6. . . .

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, F. S. B. F. S. B., 784 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . Similar language can be found in Section 7.02. (Id. at 94.) . . .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GLENN PETERSEN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. TREVOR DORSETT,, 54 V.I. 929 (3d Cir. 2010)

. . . First, the district court used the Third Circuit’s Model Criminal Jury Instructions § 7.02 for aiding . . .

UNITED STATES v. PETERSEN, No. v. No., 622 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2010)

. . . First, the district court used the Third Circuit’s Model Criminal Jury Instructions § 7.02 for aiding . . .

ROCHA, v. THALER,, 619 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . innocence stage permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty as a party under Sections 7.01 and 7.02 . . .

A. PAREDES, v. THALER,, 617 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2); see also Rabbani v. . . .

CITIBANK, N. A. v. MORGAN STANLEY CO. INTERNATIONAL, PLC,, 724 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . See, e.g., Indenture §§ 6.3(a) & (f), 14.2(a) & (b), 14.3; Credit Agreement §§ 7.01, 7.02(a) & (b). . . . .

McDOUGAL, v. G S TOBACCO DEALERS, L. L. C. d b a, 712 F. Supp. 2d 488 (N.D.W. Va. 2010)

. . . summary judgment because the reply was filed outside of the time limits prescribed under L.R.Civ.P. 7.02 . . . (b)(2) and exceeded the 15 page limit established under L.R.Civ.P. 7.02(b)(3). . . . L.R.Civ.P. 7.02(b)(2), as applicable at the time of these filings, provides: “(2) Memoranda in Response . . . L.R.Civ.P. 7.02(b)(3), as applicable at the time of these filings, provides: “The reply memoranda may . . . not exceed 15 pages, subject to the restrictions set forth in LR Civ P 7.02(a) regarding paper and font . . .