Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO RULE REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, 274 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 2019)

. . . The Florida Bar petitions the Court to amend Rule Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar Rule) 4-7.14 (Potentially . . . The Bar proposes removing the requirement from Bar Rule 4-7.14 that a lawyer must be board certified . . . Fla. 2015), which held, in relevant part, that provisions in Bar Rule 4-7.14(a) broadly prohibiting lawyers . . . , and the Bar's response and amended proposal, the Court hereby adopts the amendments to Bar Rule 4-7.14 . . . In addition, the Bar proposes making a number of nonsubstantive amendments throughout rule 4-7.14 for . . . IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO RULE REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR 4-7.14. No. . . .

IN RE MAREMONT CORPORATION,, 601 B.R. 1 (Bankr. Del. 2019)

. . . Governing Law...162 7.12 Settlors' Representative and Cooperation...163 7.13 Dispute Resolution...163 7.14 . . . altogether or at any stage of the process and seek resolution of the dispute in the Bankruptcy Court. 7.14 . . .

IN RE BAY CIRCLE PROPERTIES, LLC, LLC, LLC, v. LLC LP,, 593 B.R. 14 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2018)

. . . property identified as 2810 Spring Road is described as office suites consisting of three buildings on 7.14 . . .

UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY, v. J. COX, v. J., 892 F.3d 1066 (10th Cir. 2018)

. . . even starker for the State House, where a candidate was required to collect signatures from between 7.14% . . .

UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY, v. J. COX, v. J., 885 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2018)

. . . even starker for the State House, where a candidate was required to collect signatures from between 7.14% . . .

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR- SUBCHAPTER LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICES, 238 So. 3d 164 (Fla. 2018)

. . . references to past results unless suchthe information is objectively verifiable, subject to rule 4-7.14 . . .

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR BIENNIAL PETITION, 234 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2017)

. . . However, as addressed below, we decline to adopt the Bar’s proposed amendments to Bar Rule 4-7.14 (Potentially . . . We decline to adopt the Bar’s proposal to amend Bar Rule 4-7.14 (Potentially Misleading Advertisements . . . Court for the Northern District of Florida, which held, in relevant part, that provisions in Bar Rule 4-7.14 . . . criteria in subdivisions (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), and (a)(5)(C) are similar to those in other parts of rule 4-7.14 . . . important issue requires further study, we decline to adopt the Bar’s proposed amendments to rule 4-7.14 . . .

UNITED STATES v. WELLS, 873 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 7.14(a)). . . .

BARBOSA, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,, 263 F. Supp. 3d 207 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . . §§ 7.11-7.14. . . .

MUMIN v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. LLC, v. LLC, USA LLC, LLC, LLC,, 239 F. Supp. 3d 507 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . Mallh similarly estimates his effective wage to be $7.14; (Id. 15.) During Mumin’s time with. . . .

IN RE ORLEANS HOMEBUILDERS, INC., 561 B.R. 46 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)

. . . Article VII of the Plan, entitled Executory Contracts, includes Section 7.14 (the “Revesting Provision . . . ”), which provides: 7.14 Agreements Related to the Developments. . . . failure by the Debtor to list any particular agreement or other document referred to in this Plan Section 7.14 . . . remain in full force and effect on and after the Effective Date in accordance with this Plan Section 7.14 . . . Plan, § 7.14. . N.J, Stat. Ann. § 45:22A-26(a)(l) and (2) (punctuation in original). . . .

M. BAHRS, v. BAKER, 641 F. App'x 601 (7th Cir. 2016)

. . . See Pattern Civil Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit 7.14 (2015); Francis v. . . .

UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY, v. J. COX,, 177 F. Supp. 3d 1343 (D. Utah 2016)

. . . one of the State’s seventy-five state House districts would have to collect signatures from between 7.14% . . . because signature gathering percentage requirements for the URP in state House district races range from 7.14% . . .

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS v. P. BECKER, J. L. F. R. Jr. R. W. Jr. R. M. Jr. Jr. J. Jr. C. Jr. J. III, L. A. Jr. C. Jr. L. Jr. A. Sr., 371 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (N.D. Ga. 2016)

. . . The excerpt constituted 7.14% of the 420-page book [Id. ]. . . . The excerpt consisted of 30 pages, or 7.14% of the entire work [Pls. Ex. 406]. . . .

DeLORME PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. LLC, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,, 805 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. . . discussing Williston); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 212(2) (1981); Farnsworth on Contracts § 7.14 . . .

D. SEARCY v. FLORIDA BAR, 140 F. Supp. 3d 1290 (N.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Rule 4-7.14(a)(4) prohibits, “a statement-that a.lawyer is board certified, a specialist, an expert, . . . condition is not met for the first challenged rule (Rule 4-7.13) but is met for the second (Rule 4-7.14 . . . (2) references to past results unless such information is objectively verifiable, subject to rule 4-7.14 . . . V The result is different for Rule 4-7.14, which provides in relevant part: A lawyer may not engage in . . . Bar Rule 4-7.14 (emphasis added). . . .

M. SEGARRA, v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK,, 802 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . Joint App. 7.14 (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . that FRBNY “possessed information about Goldman that could cause Goldman to ‘explode.’ ” Joint App. at 7.14 . . .

CHESS, v. J. DOVEY, CDC CDC CDC CDC G. s M. S. T., 790 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . Jury Instr. of 7th Cir., §§ 7.14, 7.15 (2009 rev.); 8th Cir. Civ. . . .

SINGH, On v. G. C. P. SCHIKAN, A. E. V. A. M. A. J. P. LLC, LLC n k a LLC KBC USA LLC, N. V., 106 F. Supp. 3d 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . this announcement, the share price dropped from a high of $24 per share to close on September 20 at $7.14 . . .

FELDMAN, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 779 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2015)

. . . Feldmann (18.9%), and Robert Donahue (1.29%); granddaughters Jan Reynolds (12.99%), Sharon Coklan (7.14% . . .

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A. v. WINGET J., 602 F. App'x 246 (6th Cir. 2015)

. . . Section 7.14 states: This Pledge Agreement shall continue in effect ... until no Obligations or commitments . . .

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A. v. WINGET J., 602 F. App'x 246 (U.S. 2015)

. . . Section 7.14 states: This Pledge Agreement shall continue in effect ... until no Obligations or commitments . . .

FINCH, v. HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY,, 83 F. Supp. 3d 1211 (N.D. Ala. 2015)

. . . . § 7.14. . Koldras Declaration, Exhibit 1 (Sara Lee Corporation Severance Pay Plan) § 1.3. . . . . Koldras Declaration, Exhibit 1 (Sara Lee Corporation Severance Pay Plan) § 7.14. . . . .

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

. . . of more information than most types of advertising in order to comply with Rules 4-7.13(a)(2) and 4-7.14 . . . The Bar is ENJOINED from enforcing Rules 4-7.13 and 4-7.14 as restated in the Guidelines to completely . . . References to past results are also subject to Rule 4-7.14, which prohibits "engaging] in potentially . . . Rule 4-7.14(a)(l)-(2). . . . . The Bar also notified Plaintiffs that their advertisements violated Rule 4-7.14 as well by "stat[ing] . . .

W. CROMEANS, Jr. v. MORGAN KEEGAN CO. INC., 69 F. Supp. 3d 934 (W.D. Mo. 2014)

. . . Smith, Legal Malpractice (2014 ed.), § 7.14, Recurring Issues — Negligent Misrepresentation (“General . . .

In MANAGED CARE, v., 756 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . Settlement Agreement § 7.14(d). . . .

UNITED STATES v. PEGO,, 567 F. App'x 323 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . court’s charge to the jury is a verbatim quotation of Sixth Circuit Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 7.14 . . .

UNITED STATES v. PETERSON,, 569 F. App'x 353 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . include his proposed language— which would have supplemented Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 7.14 . . . The above is the same language as Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 7.14. . . . Peterson’s proposed language came from the commentary to Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 7.14, . . .

JONES R. E. N. C. Jr. v. CITY OF BOSTON,, 752 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2014)

. . . 2004_522/4_1260/4_492_ 2005_529/3_1289/1 1.43_ 2006 522/5 1289/2 1.95 1999 to 2006 4222/55 10,885/30 7.14 . . . The standard deviation of 7.14 for all years combined is far greater than the average of the standard . . .

UNITED STATES v. SURINE,, 555 F. App'x 213 (3d Cir. 2014)

. . . testimony that Surine distributed “most of’ 4.7 kilograms of cocaine base and may have distributed up to 7.14 . . .

BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, v. GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE,, 5 F. Supp. 3d 25 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . . ¶ 7.14. . . .

GONZALEZ, s v. SEARS HOLDING COMPANY a k a s, 980 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.P.R. 2013)

. . . See ECF Nos. 51-1, ¶¶ 1.7, 1.9, 1.12, 1.14-1.15, 7.13-7.14, 7.16-7.17; 63-1, ¶¶ 1.7, 1.9, 1.12, 1.14- . . . 1.15, 7.13-7.14, 7.16-7.17. . . .

MIRON, v. TOWN OF STRATFORD,, 976 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D. Conn. 2013)

. . . Miron submitted his application to the SPD, the SPD had in place policy 7.14, regarding processing of . . . Policy 7.14 states that its purpose is to “establish procedures for reviewing, controlling, maintaining . . . investigation also found that Defendants McNeil and Farmer had violated various SPD policies, including Policy 7.14 . . .

LILLARD LILLARD, P. C. v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION,, 971 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . See Ex. 1 § 7.14. . Plaintiff brings one count under the CPPA. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-11. . . . .

CRISCUOLO, v. GRANT COUNTY,, 540 F. App'x 562 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . Grant County Sheriffs Office Policy 7.14 provides that animals “who are vicious and/or attacking persons . . .

MARIN, v. XEROX CORPORATION,, 935 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . The current Xerox LTD Plan came into effect April 2007 and includes the following provision: Section 7.14 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR- SUBCHAPTER LAWYER ADVERTISING RULES, 108 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 2013)

. . . of Rules); 4-7.12 (Required Content); 4-7.13 (Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements); 4-7.14 . . . address a concern expressed by commenters regarding the proposed requirement in new rules 4-7.18 and 4-7.14 . . . (2) references to past results unless such information is objectively verifiable, subject to rule 4-7.14 . . . RULE 4-7.14 POTENTIALLY MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS A lawyer may not engage in potentially misleading advertising . . . including official certification logos, subject to the requirements of subdivision (a)(4) of rule 4-7.14 . . . initial consultation and fee schedule, subject to the requirements of subdivisions (a)(5) of rule 4-7.14 . . . dissemination of portions of a lawyer’s Internet website(s) that are not in compliance with rules 4-7.14 . . .

BUILDING INVESTORS LLC, v. CITY OF SEATTLE,, 912 F. Supp. 2d 972 (W.D. Wash. 2012)

. . . Complaint at ¶¶ 6.1(c), 7.14. ‘ Finally, Exhibits D, E, and F are three letters dated October 6, 2010 . . . Complaint at ¶¶ 6.1(c), 7.14, 9.1-9.5. . . .

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A. v. WINGET, 901 F. Supp. 2d 955 (E.D. Mich. 2012)

. . . Notwithstanding Section 7.14 and notwithstanding any other provision in this Pledge Agreement or elsewhere . . .

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS v. P. BECKER, J. L. F. R. Jr. R. W. Jr. R. M. Jr. Jr. J. Jr. Jr. J. III, L. A. Jr. C. Jr. L. Jr. A. Sr., 863 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (N.D. Ga. 2012)

. . . The excerpt was one full chapter of an eight chapter book and represents 7.14% of the total work. . . . Even if the Court accepts Plaintiffs’ calculations that the amount copied was 7.14%, that is still a . . .

OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., 858 F. Supp. 2d 341 (D. Del. 2012)

. . . NMR Spectrum; (CD3SOCD3) 2.34 (s, 3H), 3.36 (s, 6H), 3.75-3.8 (m, 4H), 4.1-4.5 (m, 4H), 7.14 (d, 1H). . . .

UNITED STATES a a Nu a v. CITY OF NEW YORK, A, 847 F. Supp. 2d 395 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Tables A-7.14-A-7.23.) . . .

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% . . .

TECHNOLOGY PATENTS LLC, v. DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG,, 774 F. Supp. 2d 732 (D. Md. 2010)

. . . Plaintiff's Terms 11B-C, 12, 12B-E, 12, 13B, 14, 14A, 16, 19, 20, 21; Defendants’ Terms 7.1-7.14, 7.38 . . .

WILLISTON BASIN INTERSTATE PIPELINE COMPANY, v. FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 270 F.R.D. 456 (D.N.D. 2010)

. . . .); Farnsworth on Contracts §§ 7.10-7.14 (3rd ed.2004). . . . Sears Pension Plan, 144 F.3d 461, 466 (7th Cir.1998); see generally Farnsworth on Contracts, §§ 7.10-7.14 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MOORE,, 390 F. App'x 503 (6th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 7.14 (2009) (permitting a jury to consider a defendant’s flight following his alleged commission . . .

TAYLOR D. v. ACXIOM CORPORATION a v. ACS a BGS, a a a LP, a R. v. a a a a a ISO a a v. a LP, a a USA LLC, a U. S. a a a a a LLC, ABC Co. R. Jr. LLC LLC D. B. Jr. v. LML U. S. ADP LLC LLC ID LP URAPI v. USA USA TXU, 612 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . Va.Code § 91-8-7.14 (2009). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. WILSON,, 385 F. App'x 497 (6th Cir. 2010)

. . . Wilson objected to the proposed jury instruction on flight, which was based on pattern jury instruction 7.14 . . .

D. B. v. BEDFORD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,, 708 F. Supp. 2d 564 (W.D. Va. 2010)

. . . scored 32.14, and on his third Grade 2 Reading Benchmark test, he scored 25 — representing a drop of 7.14 . . .

GIRL SCOUTS OF MANITOU COUNCIL INC. v. GIRL SCOUTS OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC., 700 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (E.D. Wis. 2010)

. . . Butler, The Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law § 7.14 (3rd ed. 2003). . . . See Bowen and Butler, The Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law § 7.14. . . . Bowen and Butler, The Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law § 7.14; see also Van v. . . .

In TEXANS CUSO INSURANCE GROUP, LLC,, 426 B.R. 194 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . ARAPA, at 3; § 7.14; TR, Jan. 14, 2010 at 77:3-25; 98:3-17. . . . ARAPA, at § 7.14; TR, Jan. 14, 2010 at 98:10-17. . . . ARA-PA, at § 7.14. . . . ARAPA, at § 7.14; Curley Ex. 261, at 2; TR, Jan. 14, 2010 at 157:21-25 (Kirkindoll Direct) (“I didn’t . . . See section IV.C.l.a supra; ARAPA, at § 7.14. . . .

AZAMAR, v. STERN,, 662 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D.D.C. 2009)

. . . full-time employee for seventy hours per week, and that his regular rate of pay was approximately $7.14 . . .

FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN SIOUX FALLS, a v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK SOUTH DAKOTA, SPC, INC. d b a, 655 F. Supp. 2d 979 (D.S.D. 2009)

. . . several different occasions in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader promoting a certificate of deposit with a 7.14 . . .

D. WEST, v. AK STEEL CORPORATION RETIREMENT ACCUMULATION PENSION PLAN,, 657 F. Supp. 2d 914 (S.D. Ohio 2009)

. . . also reduced by 5% of total, to account for duplicative entries among counsel, or 8.31 for Gary and 7.14 . . .

R. W. BECK, INC. a v. CONSULTING, LLC, a, 577 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 405(a)(2); 2 Nimmer on Copyright, supra § 7.14[A][1], at 7-133. . . .

In VALLAMBROSA HOLDINGS, L. L. C. IV, L. L. C. v. L. L. C., 419 B.R. 81 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2009)

. . . Stipulated Exhibit B, ¶7.14, pgs. 48-49; and (2) Debtor and Tucker were pledging all the property owned . . .

In ACCESS CARDIOSYSTEMS, INC. J. F. Jr. R. v., 404 B.R. 593 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2009)

. . . (citing Harper & James, Torts § 7.14) (collecting Massachusetts cases). . See, e.g., Suna v. . . .

In VALLAMBROSA HOLDINGS, L. L. C. IV, L. L. C. v. L. L. C., 411 B.R. 899 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2009)

. . . Stipulated Exhibit B, ¶ 7.14, pgs. 48-49; and (2) Debtor and Tucker were pledging all the property they . . .

UNITED STATES v. ROBSON,, 307 F. App'x 907 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . the proposed jury instruction mirrored the standard Sixth Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction 7.14 . . .

MASSACHUSETTS, v. MYLAN LABORATORIES,, 608 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D. Mass. 2008)

. . . Harper et al., The Law of Torts, § 7.14 (date unavailable)). . . .

J. THABAULT, v. CHAIT, LLP LLP,, 541 F.3d 512 (3d Cir. 2008)

. . . Cause,” which provides that where there is a claim of an intervening or superseding cause, Civil Charge 7.14 . . . Nevertheless, the District Court did not issue Civil Charge 7.14. . . . Because Civil Charge 7.14 is very similar to PwC’s requested instruction and PwC objected to the absence . . . Model Civil Charge 7.14 states, in part: “You must determine whether the alleged intervening cause was . . .

HATHCOCK, Jr. v. S. COHEN, A., 287 F. App'x 793 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . (“SOP 7.14”). . . . SOP 7.14(A). . . . SOP 7.14(B). . . . SOP 7.14(D). . . . The BSO’s procedures in SOP 7.14(D) are clearly reasonable. . . .

I. LAASKO, v. XEROX CORPORATION, A M. SHPS, a SHPS HMS, a, 566 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (C.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . The provision states: Section 7.14. Restriction of Venue. . . . be brought in Federal District Court in Monroe County, New York. (2005 Restatement of the LTD Plan § 7.14 . . . Section 7.14 was added to the LTD Plan as part of a wider overhaul of the LTD Plan that took effect after . . . First, § 7.14 applies to any action brought by an “Employee or beneficiary.” (Id. at § 2.9.) . . . Thus, she is subject to § 7.14. . . .

R. SELLMON, v. F. REILLY, Jr., 551 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . In 28 cases (36.36%), the Board departed from the Regulations; however, in only 7 of those cases (7.14% . . .

KLOTZ, v. XEROX CORPORATION, SHPS SHPS SHPS, 519 F. Supp. 2d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Section 7.14 of the LTD Plan Document states: Restriction of Venue. . . . Thus, the forum selection clause in Section 7.14 of the LTD Plan Document reasonably conveyed to plaintiff . . .

TINNEY, v. GENESEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. LLC, TCW PCS, M. PCS,, 502 F. Supp. 2d 409 (D. Del. 2007)

. . . A at § 7.14) On November 27, 2001, the shareholders of AirGate approved the Merger Agreement. . . . A at § 7.14). . . .

UNITED STATES v. SWAIN, Jr., 227 F. App'x 494 (6th Cir. 2007)

. . . This instruction closely followed the Sixth Circuit Pattern Instruction 7.14, which reads: (1) You have . . . We have discussed Pattern Instruction 7.14 in two relatively recent cases: United States v. . . . Carter approved of Pattern Instruction 7.14, finding it “states that evidence of flight may or may not . . . decision to instruct the jury on flight, and the given jury instruction tracks Pattern Instruction 7.14 . . . district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on flight using Pattern Instruction 7.14 . . .

GILES, L. v. WYETH INC, a, 500 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (S.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . antidepressants versus a placebo for Jeffs age group was 2.29, with a 95% confidence interval between .73-7.14 . . .

P. NEIMARK, v. RONAI RONAI, LLP,, 500 F. Supp. 2d 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.14[A] (1984)); Innovative Networks, Inc. v. . . .

CAMPBELL, v. JOHNSON, t, 465 F. Supp. 2d 597 (E.D. Va. 2006)

. . . See DOP 866-7.14. . . .

PATTON, v. UNITED STATES,, 74 Fed. Cl. 110 (Fed. Cl. 2006)

. . . Perillo, Corbin on Contracts § 7.14 (1993); E. . . .

CODAY, v. STATE, 946 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2006)

. . . (Crim.)’ 7.14. . . .

BOMINFLOT, INCORPORATED v. THE M V HENRICH S IMO No. H H GMBH Co KG MS S,, 465 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2006)

. . . The first clause relates to the enforcement of a lien against the Vessel: 7.14 Products and services . . .

In ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 348 B.R. 136 (D. Del. 2006)

. . . Plan..........................203 7.13 Hart-Scott-Rodino Compliance.............................203 7.14 . . . and waiting periods applicable under such Act to such Entity shall have expired or been terminated. 7.14 . . .

GASKINS, v. M. JOHNSON,, 443 F. Supp. 2d 800 (E.D. Va. 2006)

. . . See DOP 866-7.14. . . .

In WORLDCOM, INC., 347 B.R. 123 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . Class 6 claims are to receive 7.14 shares of “New Common Stock” (as defined in the Plan) for each $1,000 . . .

NEGRON, v. L. RIVERA,, 433 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D.P.R. 2006)

. . . Thus, 1/14 or 7.14% of the phonorecord contains Plaintiff's works. . . .

COLINDRES, v. QUIETFLEX MANUFACTURING,, 235 F.R.D. 347 (S.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . showed that from 1998 to 2002, Department 906 was approximately 90.9% Hispanic, Department 910 was 7.14% . . .

UNITED STATES v. LIGON, v., 440 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 7.14(a) (emphasis added). . . .

UNITED STATES Of v. ASARCO INCORPORATED D Of Of v. D Of Of v. D, 430 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2005)

. . . remaining costs for the Box), which is $35.7 million; and 3) calculated 20% of that amount, which is $7.14 . . .

BURTON, v. TOWN OF LITTLETON,, 426 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2005)

. . . Cf. id. ch. 71, § 38G; 603 Mass.Code Regs. 7.14(8)(a). . . . See 603 Mass.Code Regs. 7.14(8)(h). . . . . before the Commissioner revokes, suspends, or limits the license of any teacher, see 604 Mass.Code Regs. 7.14 . . .

J. RAHL, Jr. v. BANDE, C. S. C. Co. n k a LLP,, 328 B.R. 387 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . . § 7.14.) . . . .

J. O NEAL, v. CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, 378 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (N.D. Ga. 2005)

. . . Sections 7.04 and 7.14 of the Fund Plan outline its administrative appeal procedure. Albert E. . . .

CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON, v. ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE, INC. a, 452 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (D. Or. 2005)

. . . Qwest challenged Portland’s business license requirements (City Code Chapters 7.12 and 7.14), general . . .

MASSACHUSETTS, v. MYLAN LABORATORIES,, 357 F. Supp. 2d 314 (D. Mass. 2005)

. . . Harper et al., The Law of Torts, § 7.14 (date unavailable)). . . .

DUPUY, v. SAMUELS,, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005)

. . . Id. at 5/7.14. . . . Stat. 5/7.14. . . .

BROADCAST MUSIC, INC. v. ROGER MILLER MUSIC, INC., 396 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2005)

. . . Roger Miller’s children held equal shares in the remaining fifty-percent of the renewal copyrights, or 7.14% . . . Because its position was that Turner was entitled to 7.14% of the total royalties, RMMI did not dispute . . . The practical result of our interpretation of § 304(a) is that Turner holds a 7.14% interest in the renewal . . .

NORMAN, v. UNITED STATES,, 63 Fed. Cl. 231 (Fed. Cl. 2004)

. . . Because the area where the Ranch was located received an annual average of only 7.14 inches of natural . . .

KAPP, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,, 350 F. Supp. 2d 597 (M.D. Pa. 2004)

. . . . §§ 2.2, 2.11, 7.14. . . . See Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 7.14; see also Possessky v. . . . See id.; Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 7.14. . . . See id.; see also Rahn, 106 A.2d at 464; Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes §§ 2.13, 7.14. . . . Bucciarelli, 691 A.2d at 448-50; Restatement (Third) of Property: Servi-tudes § 7.14. . . . .

DAVIS, v. L. STANFORD,, 382 F. Supp. 2d 814 (E.D. Va. 2004)

. . . See DOP 866-7.14. . . .

In WORLDCOM, INC. ERISA LITIGATION ALL ACTIONS, 339 F. Supp. 2d 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . creditors, or to a recovery of a cash payment of approximately 17.85% of the amount of the claim, plus 7.14 . . . unsecured claim, Merrill Lynch will receive 17.85% of the allowed amount of the claim in cash, and 7.14 . . .

QWEST CORPORATION, a v. CITY OF PORTLAND,, 385 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2004)

. . . Qwest challenges Portland’s business license requirements (City Code Chapters 7.12 and 7.14), general . . .

J- L CHIEFTAIN, INC. v. WESTERN SKYWAYS, INC., 351 F. Supp. 2d 587 (E.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . including buying and selling products and services; (3) sales in the State of Texas amounting to as much as 7.14% . . . Moreover, sales to Texas customers over this period have ranged from 3.83% in 1998 to 7.14% in 2002 of . . . products from Texas companies; (3) a significant amount of ASSI’s total sales come from Texas, as much as 7.14% . . . The fact that business in Texas has constituted as much as 7.14% of ASSI total sales in one year and . . .

In KMART CORPORATION, v. In v. In v., 310 B.R. 107 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2004)

. . . A separate Plan provision, Article 7.14 on page 39 of the Plan, as modified by the Confirmation Order . . . provides for the retention of causes of action in favor of Reorganized (the “Retention Provision”): 7.14 . . . Plan provision 7.14 is effective as to all creditors, and there is a possibility that any of them could . . . Defendants therefore suggest that Article 7.14, which begins by reserving the “Retained Actions,” does . . . Again, the intention here is unmistakable: Debtors have, in the proviso clause of Article 7.14, — the . . .

G. LAWRENCE, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, P. A. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. M. G. J. III, Ms., 308 F. Supp. 2d 709 (E.D. Va. 2004)

. . . VDOC DOP 816-7.14 requires that "[g]rievances are to be filed within 30 calendar days from the date of . . .

D. COSBY, v. N. R. MEADORS, USP B., 351 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2003)

. . . court orders directing him to make the required payments, he paid the district court a total of only $7.14 . . . he received deposits of $90.79 from June 2002 until the dismissal of his case, Plaintiff paid only $7.14 . . .

POTH, v. A. RUSSEY,, 281 F. Supp. 2d 814 (E.D. Va. 2003)

. . . Paragraph 7.14 stated that “[fjollowing the Closing, the ViaSource Companies, [Exealibur] and the Shareholders . . . cause Eric Poth to be released from all personal guarantees of the obligations identified on Schedule 7.14 . . . addressing the 10 percent holdback), paragraph 10.6 (addressing Poth’s employment agreement), paragraphs 7.14 . . . personal guarantees on leases for vehicles and equipment acquired by Viasource from Excalibur (see id. ¶¶ 7.14 . . .

In WILLIAMS COMPANIES ERISA LITIGATION, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (N.D. Okla. 2003)

. . . See 7/01 Plan § 7.14; 4/98 Plan § 7.14. . . . See 7/01 Plan § 7.14; 4/98 Plan § 7.14. . . .

MOGILEVSKY, v. BALLY TOTAL FITNESS CORPORATION, 263 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D. Mass. 2003)

. . . During the third quarter of 2000, Mogilev-sky should have been paid an additional $7.14 (150% of $4.76 . . .

TULIP COMPUTERS INTERNATIONAL B. V. v. DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION,, 262 F. Supp. 2d 358 (D. Del. 2003)

. . . B at § 7.14.) . . .