The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 7.07

7.07 Calhoun County.—The boundary lines of Calhoun County are as follows: Beginning at a point in the thread of the Apalachicola River where the northern boundary of township two north, range seven west, crosses said river; thence west on said township line to the thread of the Chipola River; thence southerly down the thread of the stream of the said Chipola River to a point where a line drawn through the center of township two north, crosses said river; thence west on said middle township line to the range line between ranges eleven and twelve west; thence south on said range line, concurrent with the east boundary of Bay County, to the southwest corner of section nineteen, township three south, range eleven west; thence east on the south line of said section nineteen and other sections across ranges eleven west, ten west and a portion of nine west to where said section line intersects the thread of the Apalachicola River between sections twenty-three and twenty-six, township three south, range nine west; thence follow the thread of said river to the place of beginning.

History.—s. 1, Jan. 26, 1838; s. 1, ch. 1850, 1873; s. 1, ch. 2061, 1875; RS 17; ss. 1, chs. 4576, 4577, 1897; GS 15; s. 1, ch. 6506, 1913; RGS 17; s. 1, ch. 10132, 1925; CGL 19.

F.S. 7.07 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.07 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.07

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.07

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.07.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

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

. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 (Am. Law Inst. 2006). . . .

TD BANK N. A. v. W. HILL, II,, 928 F.3d 259 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 cmt. b (2006) (explaining that the Third Restatement abandoned . . .

C. BLOCK, v. INTEROIL CORPORATION,, 373 F. Supp. 3d 683 (N.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . 45.00 per InterOil share payable in Exxon shares, and (ii) a contingent resource payment ("CRP") for $ 7.07 . . .

HABAS SINAI VE TIBBI GAZLAR ISTIHSAL END STRISI, A. S. A. S. v. UNITED STATES,, 361 F. Supp. 3d 1314 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2019)

. . . Commerce preliminarily calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 5.29 percent for Habas and 7.07 . . .

NAVAJO NATION v. J. DALLEY,, 896 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2018)

. . . statute sanction[ed] this interference with tribal self-government"); COHEN'S HANDBOOK , supra , § 7.07 . . . COHEN'S HANDBOOK , supra , § 7.07[4], at 673 & n.92; see Bay Mills , 134 S.Ct. at 2032 (acknowledging . . .

GARNETT, v. REMEDI SENIORCARE OF VIRGINIA, LLC,, 892 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2018)

. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency Law § 7.07. . . . Id. § 7.07 (2006) ("An employee acts within the scope of employment when performing work assigned by . . .

CALABRESE, v. FOXX, s, 338 F. Supp. 3d 775 (N.D. Ill. 2017)

. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency, § 7.07 (2006). . . . not intended by the employee to serve any purpose of the employer," Restatement (Third) of Agency, § 7.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN COMMERCIAL LINES, L. L. C., 875 F.3d 170 (5th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 7.07 cmt. b. . . .

CONCERNED CITIZENS AND RETIRED MINERS COALITION, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,, 279 F. Supp. 3d 898 (D. Ariz. 2017)

. . . temporary access roads to bring a tracked drill rig and a service truck to off-road locations, affecting 7.07 . . .

A. BARNES, v. UNITED STATES, 707 F. App'x 512 (10th Cir. 2017)

. . . quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 245 cmt. f (1958)); see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 . . .

A. JONES v. ROYAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, INC., 887 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 7.07 (agent is an employee and commits a tort while acting within the scope of employment); id. § . . . conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to allege control), with Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 . . . controls or has the right to control the manner and means of the agent's performance of work"), and id. § 7.07 . . . at 504 (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(2) ); see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 . . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(1),(3), cmt. f (Am. Law Inst. 2006). . . .

IN RE BLOOD REAGENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. To, 266 F. Supp. 3d 750 (E.D. Pa. 2017)

. . . Plan”), November 15, 2000,: 10; Ortho product prices increased by anywhere from $7.07 ($10.97 to $18.04 . . .

HIATT, v. COLORADO SEMINARY, a, 858 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 2017)

. . . APA Rule 7.07 states "[psychologists do not engage in sexual relationships with students or supervisees . . .

G. RODRIGUEZ, v. CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,, 687 F. App'x 386 (5th Cir. 2017)

. . . (quoting RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY § 7.07). . . .

N. STANLEY, v. GALLEGOS, Ed, 852 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2017)

. . . Restatement (Third) Agency § 7.07 cmt. c. . . .

M. ANDERSON, v. VALDEZ, In, 845 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 2016)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 (2006) (emphasis added); see Bohnsack v. . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07. . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07. . Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421-22, 126 S.Ct. 1951. . Id. . . . .

D. C. v. HASRATIAN El El El, 304 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (D. Utah 2016)

. . . RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY § 7.07 (2006). . . .

ABRASIVES- SOUTH, INC. v. AWUKO ABRASIVES WANDMACHER GMBH CO. KG,, 225 F. Supp. 3d 568 (D.S.C. 2016)

. . . Plaintiff first argues that Local Civil Rules 7.04 and 7.07 bar the Court from considering the documents . . . See Local Rule 7.07 (limiting the scope of a reply to “matters raised initially in [the] response to . . .

IN RE W. PETRALIA, W. v. St. d b a s P. C. LLC,, 559 B.R. 275 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2016)

. . . failure to determine the value of his vehicle before seizure would be unfair or deceptive under 940 CMR 7.07 . . . , § 34, or the property is otherwise exempt by law from such dispossession or disablement.” 940 CMR 7.07 . . . Thus, the seizure cannot be found to have been unfair under § 1692f due to any violation of 940 CMR 7.07 . . .

GREEN, v. H. COSBY, Jr., 138 F. Supp. 3d 114 (D. Mass. 2015)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 7.03, 7.07 (2006); see also Rivera v. Nat’l R.R. . . .

In D. SCHWARTZ, 799 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 7.07 (we say “primarily” because Barclays’ challenge under section 707(b) was not limited to subsection . . .

A. PEARCE, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC. a LLC, a, 116 F. Supp. 3d 948 (D. Neb. 2015)

. . . Rest. 3d Agency § 7.07, the new counterpart to Rest.2d Agency § 228, continues to require an-, inquiry . . . Rest, 3d Agency § 7.07(2). . . .

PE A, v. GREFFET, 110 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (D.N.M. 2015)

. . . Daniels, 115 N.M. at 49, 846 P.2d at 355; Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2) (2006)). . . . subject to vicarious liability to a third party harmed by an agent’s conduct when (a) as stated in § 7.07 . . .

REIFF, v. UNITED STATES, 107 F. Supp. 3d 83 (D.D.C. 2015)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(3)(a) (2006) (“[A]n employee is an agent whose principal controls . . .

J. HALCOMB, v. BLACK MOUNTAIN RESOURCES, LLC, 303 F.R.D. 496 (E.D. Ky. 2014)

. . . Papa John’s, 244 S.W.3d at 51-52 (quoting Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 (2006)). . . .

U. S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, v. BYRNES,, 58 F. Supp. 3d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2); see also Burlington Indus., Inc. v. . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2) (emphasis added). . . .

HERRERA, T. H. a v. SANTA FE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Fe J. Fe J. Fe Fe a ASI LLC,, 41 F. Supp. 3d 1027 (D.N.M. 2014)

. . . Paint & Decorating Ctr., Inc., 142 N.M. 583, 588 [168 P.3d 155] (2007); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 (emphasis added). Ms. . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07. Accordingly, ASI may be held liable for the torts of Ms. . . .

J. HALCOMB, v. BLACK MOUNTAIN RESOURCES, LLC, 46 F. Supp. 3d 707 (E.D. Ky. 2014)

. . . (quoting Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 (2006)). . . .

In MUD KING PRODUCTS, INC., 514 B.R. 496 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Herrera, 927 S.W.2d 597, 601 (Tex.1996); see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(1). . . . Id. § 7.07(2).” see Bohnsack v. Varco, L.P., 668 F.3d 262, 273-274 (5th Cir.2012). . . .

MERIT CONSTRUCTION ALLIANCE v. CITY OF QUINCY,, 759 F.3d 122 (1st Cir. 2014)

. . . id. 7.04(l)(b)(23), 7.13; instructor qualifications, see id. 7.04(2); apprentice enrollment, see id. 7.07 . . . (1); reporting, see id. 7.07(2); and termination, see id. 7.08(3). . . .

McCULLEN, v. COAKLEY,, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (U.S. 2014)

. . . See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 229 (1957); see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2), and . . .

KONG, v. ALLIED PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 750 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes, § 7.07, at 664 (16th ed. 2012) (“[Djirect action statutes . . .

UNITED STATES v. CORTEZ- DIAZ,, 565 F. App'x 741 (10th Cir. 2014)

. . . It included a base offense level of 88 given Cortez-Diaz’s responsibility for 7.07 kilograms (over fifteen . . .

MILLER, v. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, 565 F. App'x 88 (3d Cir. 2014)

. . . Walter, Employment Discrimination Law and Practice § 7.07[A] (4th ed. 2009) ("The more objectionable . . .

M. JACKSON, D. v. TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, E. E. N. V., 997 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . The Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 similarly states, An employee acts within the scope of employment . . . torts of theft and fraud can be within the scope of employment), citing Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07. Herrera v. Aguilar, 2013 WL 4784125, at *3 (W.D.Tex. . . .

E. FISCHER, M. L. v. UNITED STATES A., 996 F. Supp. 2d 724 (W.D. Wis. 2014)

. . . The test is similar to that set forth in the Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2) (2006): An employee . . .

In ESTATE OF ANDERSON, v. DENNY S INC. H. R. A. De s v. H. A. R., 987 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (D.N.M. 2013)

. . . Daniels, 115 N.M. at 49, 846 P.2d at 355; Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2) (2006)). . . .

FLOYD, a v. CITY OF NEW YORK,, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Accord id. (12/8/08 at 7.07-7.42) (suggesting that officers with low activity will be transferred); id . . .

SCHNEIDER, v. CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION POLICE DEPARTMENT, D. A., 717 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . .”); id. at § 7.07 ("The deliberate indifference standard has ... played a pervasive role in the law . . .

TIPPS, v. McCRAW, 945 F. Supp. 2d 761 (W.D. Tex. 2013)

. . . Restatement (3d) of Agency § 7.07. . . .

RICE, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. LLC, MCM, 933 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Ill. 2013)

. . . Regs. 7.07(24) (requiring disclosure that debtor cannot be sued on time-barred debt), but Illinois is . . .

PENA, v. GREFFET, 922 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (D.N.M. 2013)

. . . Daniels, 115 N.M. at 49, 846 P.2d at 355; Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2) (2006)). . . . Daniels, 115 N.M. at 49, 846 P.2d at 355; Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2) (2006)). . . .

UNITED STATES v. HILTON, Jr. v. v. H., 701 F.3d 959 (4th Cir. 2012)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2) (2006). . . .

In J. PORST, J. v., 480 B.R. 97 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012)

. . . Section 7.07 of the regulations provides a list of practices that are considered unfair or deceptive . . .

SIMON, v. KEYSPAN CORPORATION,, 694 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2012)

. . . “Astoria Hedge,” executed on January 11, 2006, provided that if the market price were higher than $7.07 . . . If the price were below $7.07, Morgan Stanley would pay the difference (times 1800 MW) to Astoria. . . . The net effect of the agreement was that Astoria was assured of always receiving exactly $7.07 per KW-month . . . profits (if the market price were above $7.57) and subsidized any losses (if the market price were below $7.07 . . .

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. LLC v., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(1) (2006). However, as explained in A & M Records, Inc. v. . . .

SCOVIL, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. d b a, 886 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D. Me. 2012)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 (2006); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 (1958). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. MORGAN STANLEY,, 881 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Under the hedge, if the market price rose above $7.07 per kW-month, Astoria would pay Morgan Stanley . . . the difference times 1800 MW; if the market price dipped below $7.07, Morgan Stanley would pay Astoria . . .

Dr. ADAMSON, Dr. v. CLAYTON COUNTY ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION BOARD, P. F., 876 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D. Ga. 2012)

. . . 30,199 80.74% 79.98% 28,891 78.46% 77.77% -2.28% -2.21% 3 26,657 86.20% 85.01% 28,822 79.13% 77.73% -7.07% . . .

M. CRAIG, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., 686 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2012)

. . . Section 220 of Restatement (Second) of Agency is now part of section 7.07 of Restatement (Third) of Agency . . . Because the Kansas courts have relied on section 220, we believe they would similarly look to section 7.07 . . . .2d at 1112 (distinguishing between the exercise of the control and the right to control) and section 7.07 . . .

KELLOGG BROWN ROOT SERVICES, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 103 Fed. Cl. 714 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

. . . DCAA found that its sample of twelve subcontracts represented an average PPPD rate of $7.07, whereas . . . the average PPPD and determined that the average PPPD rate at the twelve comparison sites was not $7.07 . . .

MENTAL DISABILITY LAW CLINIC, v. F. HOGAN,, 853 F. Supp. 2d 307 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Law § 7.07. By statute, it must “charge fees for its services to patients and residents.” . . .

B. CAILLET H. v. REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 282 F.R.D. 406 (W.D. La. 2012)

. . . Par. 7.07. . . .

JAVIER D. v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE, a C., 670 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 2012)

. . . Dennis Rasmussen, Inc., 273 Wis.2d 106, 682 N.W.2d 328, 333-37 (2004); Restatement (Third) op Agency § 7.07 . . . though the master did not sanction it, or even though he forbade it.”); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 . . . The Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 cmt. b (2006) has since commented that the language used in . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2) (2006). . . .

H. BOHNSACK, v. VARCO, L. P., 668 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . Herrera, 927 S.W.2d 597, 601 (Tex.1996); see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(1). . . . Id. § 7.07(2). . . .

In A. BRAVERMAN J. v. A. J., 463 B.R. 115 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2011)

. . . Section 7.07 of the Declaration allows the Association to recover “[a]ll costs and expenses” incurred . . . Moreover, the Association’s attorney’s fees are assessments: section 7.07 provides that the fees will . . .

BROWN- BAUMBACH, v. B B AUTOMOTIVE, INC., 437 F. App'x 129 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . Walter, Employment Discrimination Law and Practice § 7.07[A] (4th ed. 2009) ("The more objectionable . . .

AZZAM, v. RIGHTWAY DEVELOPMENT INC., 789 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . guard was a servant rather than independent contractor of the store); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 . . .

SIMON, v. KEYSPAN CORPORATION, 785 F. Supp. 2d 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . Under that agreement, if the market price for installed capacity was above $7.07 per kW-month, Astoria . . . would pay Morgan Stanley the difference times 1800 MW; if the market price was below $7.07, Morgan Stanley . . . ) while Astoria would pay Morgan Stanley $.33 x 1800 MW under the Astoria Hedge ($7.40/ kW-month — $7.07 . . . Thus, Astoria was locked into the fixed price of $7.07/ kW-month under the Astoria Hedge. . . .

DE LA MORA, v. ANDONIE,, 51 So. 3d 517 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Code R. 12D-7.07 (4) (2006) (stating that a person not residing in a taxing unit but owning property . . .

In PREMIER ENTERTAINMENT BILOXI LLC d b a LLC d b a v. U. S. LLC,, 445 B.R. 582 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2010)

. . . Claim No. 101 was based upon the provisions of § 7.07(a) of the Indenture regarding the payment of reasonable . . . Indenture § 7.07, Trial Ex. 1; Test, of Todd Raziano, Trial Tr. at 441:1-442:22. . . . .

SCHMIDT, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a, 605 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . Id.., § 7.07(3)(a). . . .

MILLER, v. BRUNSMAN,, 599 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2010)

. . . His wallet was found some distance downstream, his front pants pockets had been turned out, and $7.07 . . .

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,, 697 F. Supp. 2d 213 (D. Mass. 2010)

. . . In addition, Section 7.07 of the TRA states: Except as otherwise provided in Section 7.01 through 7.06 . . . (a) and 7.07(b), above, shall be apportioned on the same basis as would arise under applicable common . . . The MBTA next contends there is an inconsistency between Sections 7.03 and 7.07 of the agreement. . . . (a) and 7.07(b) apply. . . . (See TRA Section 7.07, Compl. Ex. . . .

In COMSCAPE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., 423 B.R. 816 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2010)

. . . Other provisions of the Regulations that are relevant to this dispute include §§ 5.07, 7.04, 7.05 and 7.07 . . . In addition, § 7.07(D) of the Regulations states: Meeting of Other Corporations. . . . Although it is true that the CEO has authority under § 7.07(D) of the Regulations to “act and vote, on . . . Regulations § 7.07(D). . . .

UNITED STATES v. SPEAKMAN,, 594 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010)

. . . See generally Restatement (Third) Agency § 7.07 (2006). . . .

MYERS, v. GARFIELD JOHNSON ENTERPRISES, INC., 679 F. Supp. 2d 598 (E.D. Pa. 2010)

. . . controls the “manner and means of the agent’s performance of work,” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 . . . controls the “manner and means of the agent’s performance of work,” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 . . . Id. § 7.07 cmt. f. . . .

DISABILITY ADVOCATES, INC. v. A. PATERSON, F. F., 653 F. Supp. 2d 184 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . . §§ 5.07, 7.07. . . . Law §§ 5.07, 7.07, 41.03, 41.42, 41.39; N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18 §§ 485-87. . . . Law §§ 7.01, 7.07. . . . Law § § 5.07, 7.07. . Id. §§ 41.03, 41.42, 41.39. . Id. § 7.07. . Id. . . . . . § 7.07(a); id. § 5.07 (requiring OMH to formulate each year "a statewide comprehensive five-year plan . . .

SMITH, v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., 662 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . CBA Art. 7.01-7.07. . . .

In MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 639 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . The following day, Plaintiffs allege Maxim’s stock price fell an additional 7.07%, from $20.80 to $19.33 . . .

ESTATE OF MILLER, v. THRIFTY RENT- A- CAR SYSTEM, INC., 637 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . §§ 2.04, 7.03, 7.07-.08. . . . Id. § 7.07(3)(a). . . . E.g., Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 2.04, 7.03, 7.07-.08. . . . See, e.g., Restatement (Third) Agency § 7.07(3)(a). . . .

RENAISSANCE MARKETING, INC. v. MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ABC XYZ, 606 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.P.R. 2009)

. . . whose removal is now sought only seeks a declaratory judgment against Monitronics as to paragraphs 7.07 . . . In Section 7.07 of the Alarm Monitoring Purchase Agreement, the parties agreed that said contract, and . . .

CEMENT- LOCK, v. GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, LLC, S. E. S. LLC, a, 618 F. Supp. 2d 856 (N.D. Ill. 2009)

. . . Shapo, 246 F.Supp.2d at 962; Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07. . . .

In PARMALAT SECURITIES LITIGATION, 598 F. Supp. 2d 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 (2006). Accord, e.g., Cement-Lock v. . . .

In PARMALAT SECURITIES LITIGATION, 640 F. Supp. 2d 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 (2006). Accord, e.g., Cement-Lock v. . . .

DISABILITY ADVOCATES, INC. v. A. PATERSON, F. F., 598 F. Supp. 2d 289 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . . §§ 5.07, 7.07. . . . L. § 7.07. . . . L. § 7.07. . . . L. § 7.07(a). . . . L. § 7.07(b). . . . .

H. O BRYAN, E. J. v. HOLY SEE,, 556 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . Employee of a Foreign State Kentucky law appears to have adopted the Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 . . .

In EXTREME NETWORKS, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. To, 573 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . Oct. 23, $7.07 This was the third lowest share Unknown 2003 price for the month. . . .

CBS CORPORATION CBS CBS CBS L. P. KUTV v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION, 535 F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 7.07. . . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 cmt. f (including as an explicit factor in determining employment . . .

JOSEPH S. W. v. F. HOGAN, F. A., 561 F. Supp. 2d 280 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . . § 7.07. . . .

In ENGMAN,, 389 B.R. 36 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2008)

. . . same occurred within the scope of the servant’s engagement See, Restatement Third, Agency §§ 7.03 and 7.07 . . .

SUCCESSFACTORS, INC. a v. SOFTSCAPE, INC. a DOES, 544 F. Supp. 2d 975 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . Rest. (3d) Agency § 7.07 cmt. c. . . .

SUARATO, v. BUILDING SERVICES PENSION FUND,, 554 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . entitlement to a Disability Pension hereunder, in their sole and absolute discretion as provided in Section 7.07 . . . Section 7.07 Powers of Trustees. . . . The Pension Fund’s Plan document describes the Trustees’ discretionary power as follows: Section 7.07 . . .

CARBERRY, v. TEXTRON PENSION PLAN,, 543 F. Supp. 2d 729 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

. . . plus provided, however, if such Member received or was deemed to receive a single sum under Section 7.07 . . .

G. GIBBONS, v. FRONTON, D. O. M. D., 533 F. Supp. 2d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . tests revealed that Gibbons had prostate-specific antigen (“PSA”) levels of 5.52 on November 21, 2001, 7.07 . . .

GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, GRI LLC, v. G. REHMAT,, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . their intentional torts committed withing the scope of their agency); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 . . .

CEMENT- LOCK, v. GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, LLC, S. E. S. LLC, a, 523 F. Supp. 2d 827 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . intentional torts when they are acting within the scope of their authority); Restatement (Third) of Agenoy § 7.07 . . .

BEAUFORT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, v. UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 519 F. Supp. 2d 609 (D.S.C. 2007)

. . . Local Rule 7.07 explicitly provides that "a party desiring to reply to matters raised initially in a . . .

CROUCH, v. J. C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., 562 F. Supp. 2d 833 (E.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . Section 7.07(2) states that “[a]n employee acts within the scope of employment when ... engaging in a . . . RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF Agenoy § 7.07(2) (2006). . . . As such, it is likely to follow the related provision in Section 7.07, Rodriguez, 129 F.3d at 768, and . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2), cmt. b (2006). . . .

HARRINGTON, v. CACV OF COLORADO, LLC, J. A. PC,, 508 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Mass. 2007)

. . . indicates that 93A is violated if Federal consumer protection statutes are violated. 9. 94,0 C.M.R. 7.07 . . . take action that cannot legally be taken); 940 C.M.R. § 3.16(1) (unconscionability); and 940 C.M.R. § 7.07 . . . representation in [a] communication ... as to [the debt’s] status in any legal proceeding” under 940 C.M.R. § 7.07 . . . However, I need not decide this issue here, as a claim under 940 C.M.R. § 7.07(2) turns on the same factual . . . , 209 C.M.R. § 18.16(5) (threatening to take action that cannot legally be taken), and 940 C.M.R. § 7.07 . . .

v. SAN JUAN COUNTY J. M. D. L. R. St. s R., 497 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 7.07[2][a], at 658 (2005 ed.) . . . foreign judgment may be rebuffed on any number of grounds, see Wilson, 127 F.3d at 810; Handbook § 7.07 . . .

v. SAN JUAN COUNTY J. M. D. L. R. St. s R., 497 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 7.07[2][a], at 658 (2005 ed.) . . . foreign judgment may be rebuffed on any number of grounds, see Wilson, 127 F.3d at 810; Handbook § 7.07 . . .

In OMEPRAZOLE PATENT LITIGATION. AB, v. AB, v. Dr. S. A. AB, v. Co. D. D. AB, v. AB, v., 490 F. Supp. 2d 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Davies found the mean pH of 5% suspensions of the Esteve supplied omeprazole was 7.07, the mean pH of . . .

UNITED STATES v. JONES,, 228 F. App'x 506 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . The plastic bag was determined to contain 7.07 grams of crack, or less than one-third of an ounce. . . . DISCUSSION Jones argues that the quantity of crack he allegedly possessed, 7.07 grams, in combination . . .

SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC. PNC, 226 F. App'x 192 (3d Cir. 2007)

. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07. . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2) (1958) (emphasis added). . . .

F. KOLPACKE, v. CSX PENSION PLAN, CSX CSX CSX CSX, 554 F. Supp. 2d 733 (E.D. Mich. 2007)

. . . Section 7.07 of the Plan provides that the Plan Administrator shall have the exclusive discretionary . . .

UNITED STATES v. MILWITT,, 475 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2007)

. . . Section 157 was “consciously patterned on the federal mail fraud statute.” 1 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 7.07 . . . statute in holding the bankruptcy fraud statute constitutional); see also, 1 Collier on Bankruptcy § 7.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MILWITT,, 356 B.R. 1150 (9th Cir. 2007)

INTERNATIONAL EQUITY INVESTMENTS, INC. v. OPPORTUNITY EQUITY PARTNERS LTD. f. k. a. CVC, 472 F. Supp. 2d 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . . § 7.07. . Ctrclm. ¶ 1. . Id. ¶ 4. . Id. . Id. ¶ 32. . . . Id. § 7.07 ("[N]either Citibank nor any affiliate of Citibank will have any obligation to any Party hereto . . .

Co. H. K. Co. Co. Co. Co. v., 30 Ct. Int'l Trade 736 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006)

. . . the ACC data and the ranged Nekkanti/Devi data do not include the values of $7.09 per kilogram or $7.07 . . .