The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 7.26

¹7.26 Hendry County.—The boundary lines of Hendry County are as follows: Beginning where the north line of township forty-three south, intersects the range line between ranges twenty-seven and twenty-eight east, at the line between Charlotte and Glades Counties; thence south on said range line to the north line of township forty-six south; thence east on the north line of township forty-six south, to the east line of range thirty east; thence south on said east line of range thirty east, to the north line of township forty-nine south; thence east on said north line of township forty-nine south, to the east line of range thirty-four east, and the west boundary of Broward County; thence north on said east line of range thirty-four east, concurrent with the west boundary of Broward and Palm Beach Counties, to where said east line intersects the south shore of Lake Okeechobee; thence due north on said east line of range thirty-four east, to the northeast corner of section thirty-six, township forty south, range thirty-four east; thence southwesterly in a straight course to a point two miles east of the range line between ranges thirty-three and thirty-four east, on the line between townships forty-two and forty-three south; thence west on the north line of township forty-three south, to the southwest corner of section thirty-three, township forty-two south, range twenty-nine east; thence north on the west line of said section thirty-three to the northwest corner of said section thirty-three; thence west on the north boundary line of sections thirty-two and thirty-one of township forty-two south, range twenty-nine east, to the northwest corner of the northeast quarter of section thirty-one in said township and range; thence south on the middle section line of said section thirty-one to the north line of township forty-three south; thence west on said township line to the place of beginning.

The existing boundaries of Hendry County are hereby enlarged and extended so as to comprise and include the following described additional territory: Begin on the county line between Hendry and Glades County, on the south line of Section 36, Township 42 South, Range 29 East, at a point 2572.81 feet westerly of the southeast corner of said Section 36, thence from a tangent bearing of north 73 °20′59″ East run northeasterly along a curve concaved to the southeast having a radius of 1196.28 feet through a central angle of 16°37′14″ for a distance of 347.02 feet to the end of curve; thence North 89°58′13″ East 2230.64 feet to east line of Section 36, Township 42 South, Range 29 East; thence North 89°58′13″ East 2563.80 feet; thence North 89°55′43″ East 1170.63 feet; thence North 89°57′23″ East 3029.37 feet; thence North 89°54′53″ East 3900.00 feet; thence North 89°56′53″ East 4114.17 feet; thence North 89°55′53″ East 2612.89 feet; thence North 89°54′08″ East 6272.94 feet; thence North 89°52′53″ East 3411.00 feet; thence South 89°45′26″ East 2789.00 feet; thence South 89°47′46″ East 700.00 feet; thence South 89°45′26″ East 1300.00 feet; thence South 89°53′26″ East 95.20 feet to the east line of Section 36, Township 42 South, Range 30 East, at a point 5259.75 feet south of the northeast corner of said Section 36; thence continue South 89°53′26″ East 3340.50 feet; thence South 89°56′11″ East 4664.30 feet; thence South 89°57′11″ East 1500.00 feet; thence South 89°59′31″ East 2000.00 feet; thence South 89°57′11″ East 1064.05 feet; thence South 89°58′11″ East 2493.95 feet; thence North 89°53′49″ East 4142.00 feet; thence North 89°55′09″ East 2234.94 feet to the east line of Section 34, Township 42 South, Range 31 East, at a point 5229.50 feet South of the northeast corner of said Section 34; thence continue North 89°55′09″ East 5.38 feet; thence South 89°43′31″ East 3859.68 feet; thence South 89°41′51″ East 1390.84 feet to the west line of Section 36, Township 42 South, Range 31 East, at a point 5251.30 feet south of the northwest corner of said Section 36; thence continue South 89°41′51″ East 5083.59 feet to beginning of curve concaved to the southwest having a radius of 1196.28 feet and a central angle of 18°05′19″; thence southeasterly along said curve a distance of 377.67 feet to its intersection with the south line of Section 36, Township 42 South, Range 31 East on the county line between Glades and Hendry Counties.

Such deletion from Glades County and addition to Hendry County shall not affect the computation of taxes on or from gasoline made pursuant to law.

History.—s. 1, ch. 9360, 1923; s. 1, ch. 10090, 1925; CGL 72, 73; s. 1, ch. 18568, 1937; s. 7, ch. 22858, 1945; s. 2, ch. 63-200; ss. 1, 2, ch. 63-391.

¹Note.—Section 1, ch. 63-391, enlarged the boundaries of Hendry County to include the territory listed in the second paragraph of s. 7.26. Section 2, ch. 63-391, which was compiled as the third paragraph of s. 7.26, provides that the deletion of territory from Glades County and addition to Hendry County “shall not affect the computation of taxes on or from gasoline made pursuant to law.” Chapter 63-391 did not amend s. 7.22 pertaining to Glades County to revise the property description for that county.

F.S. 7.26 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.26 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.26

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.26

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.26.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, v. SIENNA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 888 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

. . . Therefore, "about 6.6 × 1011 particles per ml" encompasses of a range of at most from 5.94 × 1011 to 7.26 . . . coefficient, the Board found no concentrations disclosed in the '575 disclosure were between 5.94 × 1011 and 7.26 . . . limitation "about 6.6 × 1011 particles per ml" encompasses of a range of at most from 5.94 × 1011 to 7.26 . . . range overlaps with the claimed range of "about 6.6 × 1011 particles per ml" or from 5.94 × 1011 to 7.26 . . .

MARSH, v. J. ALEXANDER S LLC, v. v. v. AMC v. P. F. s v. P. F. s v. P. F. s v. LLC, R. v. s LLC, s,, 869 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . Although all employers must pay their employees a minimum wage of at least $7.26 per hour, id., the FLSA . . .

GAUGHAN, v. A. RUBENSTEIN,, 261 F. Supp. 3d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . The FLSA requires covered employers to pay employees a minimum wage of $7.26 per hour during the relevant . . .

LANDRY Jr. v. SWIRE OILFIELD SERVICES, L. L. C., 252 F. Supp. 3d 1079 (D.N.M. 2017)

. . . method, such as Constancio and Ruiz, experienced numerous'weeks-in which their salaries fell below the $7.26 . . .

CADDELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 129 Fed. Cl. 383 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . of Solicitation for the construction of an embassy compound at Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, on a 7.26 . . .

E. PEREZ, v. OCEAN VIEW SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, INC. I. M., 217 F. Supp. 3d 868 (D.S.C. 2016)

. . . Instead, according to Plaintiff, Defendants should pay damages for the full $7.26 federal minimum wage . . . According to Defendants, Plaintiffs argument they should pay the full $7.26 per hour for these hours . . .

CADDELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 125 Fed. Cl. 264 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . of Solicitation for the construction of an embassy compound at Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, on a 7.26 . . .

CARPENTERS HEALTH AND SECURITY TRUST OF WESTERN WASHINGTON, v. PARAMOUNT SCAFFOLD, INC., 159 F. Supp. 3d 1229 (W.D. Wash. 2016)

. . . Johnson’s brother, James Johnson, owned 7.26% of Paramount’s common shares. Dkt. #108, Ex. 1 at 13. . . .

MEDIA. NET ADVERTISING FZ- LLC, v. NETSEER, INC., 156 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2016)

. . . . § 701(a); 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.26; see 17 U.S.C. § 701(b)(2) (“[T]he Register of Copyrights shall . . .

D. POERTNER, H. J. M. v. GILLETTE COMPANY,, 618 F. App'x 624 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . The nationwide class comprised nearly 7.26 million persons who, with certain exclusions not relevant . . . Class counsel calculated this amount by multiplying the number of class members (7.26 million) by the . . .

ANTHOULIS, v. NEW YORK,, 586 F. App'x 790 (2d Cir. 2014)

. . . probation, five years’ debarment from public work in New York, and restitution of up to approximately $7.26 . . .

B. MOULD, v. NJG FOOD SERVICE INC., 37 F. Supp. 3d 762 (D. Md. 2014)

. . . As a server, Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage of $3.63 and an overtime hourly wage of $7.26. . . . aware that, as a tipped employee, he received an hourly wage of $3.63/hour (and an overtime rate of $7.26 . . .

In FAMILY DOLLAR FLSA LITIGATION. v., 988 F. Supp. 2d 567 (W.D.N.C. 2013)

. . . whose wages changed over time, the hourly employees who worked in Saxon’s store earned an average of $7.26 . . . employees whose wages changed over time, nonexempt employees received an average hourly wage of only $7.26 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GOMEZ,, 548 F. App'x 221 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . the preponderance of the evidence showed that Gomez should be held accountable for sixteen pounds or 7.26 . . .

M. JORDAN, v. PAUL FINANCIAL, LLC,, 285 F.R.D. 435 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, 7.26 (4th ed. 2005). . . .

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)

. . . Professor Orr requested that pages 9-26, which is the entirety of chapter one and totals 7.26% of the . . .

VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 661 F.3d 54 (D.C. Cir. 2011)

. . . Commission disbursed $5.35 billion in support of universal service; by 2009, that number had risen to $7.26 . . . In 2009, total expenditures under that fund totaled $4.3 billion of the $7.26 billion Program. . . .

BARRUS, v. DICK S SPORTING GOODS, INC. s, 732 F. Supp. 2d 243 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . . § 7.26 The Court must then exercise its discretion to determine whether class certification is appropriate . . .

In TFT- LCD FLAT PANEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION., 267 F.R.D. 583 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, 7.26 (4th ed.2005). . . .

In TFT- LCD FLAT PANEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION., 267 F.R.D. 291 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, 7.26 (4th ed.2005). . . .

In COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 273 F.R.D. 586 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . Newberg, New-berg on Class Actions § 7.26 (4th ed. 2005)). . . .

D. SARVISS, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., 663 F. Supp. 2d 883 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . .) § 7.26. B. . . .

In CONNETICS CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 257 F.R.D. 572 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, 7.26 (4th ed.2005). . . .

OTSUKA v. POLO RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,, 251 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . issues presented by plaintiffs complaints.” 2 Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, Newbergon Class Actions § 7.26 . . .

IMPERIAL MERCHANT SERVICES, INC. a v. G. HUNT,, 528 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2008)

. . . CRS then sent Hunt a letter demanding payment of the check, along with a $35 service charge, and $7.26 . . .

IMPERIAL MERCHANT SERVICES, INC. a v. G. HUNT,, 528 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2008)

. . . CRS then sent Hunt a letter demanding payment of the check, along with a $35 service charge, and $7.26 . . .

UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ, a k a, 285 F. App'x 518 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . In aggregate, Rodriguez’s estimate amounted to as much as 7.26 kilograms of methamphetamine. . . . objected to the portion of the PSR that included Rodriguez’s statements that he had possessed up to 7.26 . . .

NOCELLA, v. BASEMENT EXPERTS OF AMERICA,, 499 F. Supp. 2d 935 (N.D. Ohio 2007)

. . . prevent dismissals from interfering with realizing the statutory policy.” 2 Perritt at 71, Section 7.26 . . .

HUNT, v. CHECK RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC., 241 F.R.D. 505 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . December 6, 2005, includes a demand for the check amount, a “Mise.” charge of $35.00, and interest of $7.26 . . .

HUNT, v. CHECK RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC., 478 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . December 6, 2005, included a demand for the check amount, a “Mise.” charge of $35.00, and interest of $7.26 . . . December 2, 2005, Defendant demanded the check amount, a “Mise.” charge of $35.00, and interest of $7.26 . . . December 6, 2005, Defendant demanded the check amount, a “Mise.” charge of $35.00, and interest of $7.26 . . .

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

. . . .............................208 7.25 Compliance with QSF Regulations...........................209 7.26 . . . Statement” to the Asbestos PI Trustees in accordance with Treasury Regulations section 1.468B-3(e). 7.26 . . .

SHARIFF, v. GOORD,, 235 F.R.D. 563 (W.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . Id. at § 7.26 The Court must then exercise its discretion to determine whether class certification is . . .

In GEOPHARMA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 399 F. Supp. 2d 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . . ¶ 27 (warrants, convertible if stock trades higher than $7.26/share for five consecutive trading days . . .

BRANDAID MARKETING CORPORATION. v. S. S. v., 418 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . (JPTO ¶ 7.26; Tr. at 204, 306-07, 323; PX V-16.) . . .

UNITED STATES v. CABALLERO, El, 420 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . to the PSR, methamphetamine transactions between Caballero, Land, and Salmas resulted in the sale of 7.26 . . .

FREW, v. HAWKINS,, 401 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . Maximus' Texas Health Steps toll-free line had an average abandonment rate of 8.58% for 2004, up from 7.26% . . .

SHOOK v. EL PASO COUNTY, El El, 386 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 2004)

. . . J.B., 186 F.3d at 1290, n. 7 (quoting 2 Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 7.26 . . .

G. ONG G. ONG IRA G. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK CO. J. R. T. K. R. E. F. R. E. Co. Co. Co., 388 F. Supp. 2d 871 (N.D. Ill. 2004)

. . . Sears also reported that year-over-year delinquencies decreased from 7.26% to 6.87%, “indicating stable . . . Sears reported that delinquencies had “decreased 39 basis points” in 2002 compared with 2001 (from 7.26% . . .

GENTRY v. DEUTH,, 381 F. Supp. 2d 614 (W.D. Ky. 2004)

. . . decision, as petitioner points out, may well have been resolved under the “palpable error” standard of RCr 7.26 . . .

f. k. a. v., 120 T.C. 69 (T.C. 2003)

. . . Actuarial present value of future service 4.81 6.63 7.26 7.19 5. . . . Average present value of future service 4.81 6.63 7.26 7.19 H. . . . Average present value of future service 4.81 6.63 7.26 7.19 F. . . .

D. JOHNSON, v. HONDA OF AMERICA MANUFACTURING, INC., 221 F. Supp. 2d 853 (S.D. Ohio 2002)

. . . prevent dismissals from interfering with realizing the statutory policy.” 2 Perritt at 71, Section 7.26 . . .

ERIE- NIAGARA RAIL STEERING COMMITTEE, v. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD, CSX CSX, 247 F.3d 437 (2d Cir. 2001)

. . . efficiencies were captured by this transaction, the thresholds for rate regulation would only rise 7.26% . . .

J. B. a M. HART, Y. A. D. A. E. A. F. A. V. C. C. C. R. E. C. E. J. E. E. E. E. J. S. a H. v. J. VALDEZ, H. Jr. J. W. E. R. O M. s, 186 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1999)

. . . See 2 Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 7.26 (3d ed.1992). . . . Allied Maintenance Corp., 574 F.2d 656, 661 n. 15 (2d Cir.1978); Newberg & Conte, supra, at § 7.26. . . . Newberg & Conte, supra, at § 7.26 (citing cases). . . . .

G. ANDRADE, v. J. CHOJNACKI,, 65 F. Supp. 2d 431 (W.D. Tex. 1999)

. . . Andrade Third Consolidated Complaint, ¶7.26. . . .

PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY v. TOUR I LIMITED, RESORTS OF PINEHURST INCORPORATED, v. GOLFORMS INCORPORATED I, 155 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 1998)

. . . McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §§ 3.01[1], 7.26, at 3-2, 7-113 (3d ed.1994) . . .

ALLFAST FASTENING SYSTEMS, v. BRILES RIVET CORP., 16 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (C.D. Cal. 1998)

. . . McCarthy on Trademarks, § 7.26[3][e][ii]. . . . McCarthy on Trademarks, § 7.26[3][e][ii]. . . .

RENFRO d b a v. CITY OF KAUFMAN,, 27 F. Supp. 2d 715 (N.D. Tex. 1998)

. . . See Complaint ¶¶ 7.01-7.26. . . . Complaint ¶ 7.26. . . . .

PEREZ, v. PASADENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 958 F. Supp. 1196 (S.D. Tex. 1997)

. . . vote in South Houston; 9.38 percent of the vote in Rayburn; 14.64 percent of the vote in Dobie; and 7.26 . . .

PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY, v. TOUR I, LTD., 942 F. Supp. 1513 (S.D. Tex. 1996)

. . . has the burden of proving nonfunctionality of its asserted trademark or trade dress.” 1 McCarthy § 7.26 . . .

THOMAS BETTS CORPORATION v. PANDUIT CORPORATION,, 935 F. Supp. 1399 (N.D. Ill. 1996)

. . . features of trade dress are not entitled to trademark protection under the Lanham Act. 1 McCarthy § 7.26 . . . exclusive trade dress right to one of those alternatives will not impair free competition. 1 McCarthy § 7.26 . . .

A. NEWTON, v. S. CHATER,, 92 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 1996)

. . . He earned between $6.50 and $7.26 per hour and worked at least forty hours per week. . . .

KRUEGER INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. NIGHTINGALE INC., 915 F. Supp. 595 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . 1 McCarthy § 7.26[3][b]. . . . See also 1 McCarthy § 7.26[3][e] (“the availability of alternative designs is a very important, if not . . .

In LEE, 189 B.R. 692 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1995)

. . . See Lundin, Keith, M., Chapter 13 Bankruptcy vol. 2, § 7.26, at 7-47 (2d ed. 1994). . . .

A. ELMER HTH, v. ICC FABRICATING, INC., 67 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

. . . McCarthy § 7.26[3][d] (discussing split in the circuits concerning burden of proving functionality/nonfunctionality . . .

FABRICATION ENTERPRISES, INC. v. HYGENIC CORPORATION,, 64 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 1995)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 7.26[1] (3d ed. 1993) (hereinafter " . . .

VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC. a v. DURACRAFT CORPORATION,, 58 F.3d 1498 (10th Cir. 1995)

. . . Lamp Co., 247 F.2d 730, 732 (3d Cir.1957); McCarthy, supra, § 7.26[1]; Dratler, supra, 1988 U.Ill.L.Rev . . .

RUBIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY v. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1995)

. . . the Secretary of the Treasury) prohibit the disclosure of alcohol content on beer labels. 27 CFR § 7.26 . . . Ibid.; see also §§7.26(b)-(d). . . . BATF has suspended § 7.26 to comply with the District Court’s order enjoining the enforcement of that . . .

DOGLOO, INC. a v. DOSKOCIL MANUFACTURING CO. INC. a, 893 F. Supp. 911 (C.D. Cal. 1995)

. . . Functional features are not susceptible of protection as trademarks or trade dress. 1 McCarthy § 7.26 . . . results from a comparatively simple, cheap or superior method of manufacturing the article. 1 McCarthy § 7.26 . . . if certain functional benefits cannot be duplicated through the use of other designs.” 1 McCarthy § 7.26 . . .

J. LYONS COMPANY LTD. v. REPUBLIC OF TEA, INC. J. LYONS COMPANY LTD. v. CONOPCO INC. d b a J. Co. J. LYONS COMPANY LTD. v. INTERPORT NATIONAL CORP. d b a Co., 892 F. Supp. 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks § 7.26[3][a] (1992). . . .

QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO. INC., 514 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1995)

. . . remain available in the industry” and the color is not “functional”); see also 1 McCarthy §§3.01[1], 7.26 . . .

DURACO PRODUCTS, INC. v. JOY PLASTIC ENTERPRISES, LTD. d b a, 40 F.3d 1431 (3d Cir. 1994)

. . . perceived by customers as an indicia [sic] of origin”); cf. 1 McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 7.26 . . .

AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, v. H. KEAN,, 856 F. Supp. 903 (D.N.J. 1994)

. . . . & Regs. tit. 6 § 235; Cal.Code Regs. tit. 17 div. 3.1(8.5)(1) § 94502; Mass.Regs.Code tit. 310 § 7.26 . . .

SHAKESPEARE COMPANY, v. SILSTAR CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED,, 9 F.3d 1091 (4th Cir. 1993)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 7.26 (3d ed. 1992). . . .

ADOLPH COORS COMPANY, v. BENTSEN, U. S., 2 F.3d 355 (10th Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 7.26(a) which provides that ”[t]he alcoholic content and the percentage and quantity of the original . . .

WHITE, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PDB KMS B B NFL, 836 F. Supp. 1458 (D. Minn. 1993)

. . . See supra ¶¶ 6.4(f), 7.21. 7.26 The court also rejects the Eagles’ contention that the licensing payments . . . White, 822 F.Supp. ¶ 7.26, at 1431 (citing Alexander, 1977-2 Trade Cas. . . .

WHITE, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PDB KMS B B NFL, 822 F. Supp. 1389 (D. Minn. 1993)

. . . determination of the constitutionality of certain agency procedures, the court’s decision was not advisory). 7.26 . . .

MARS, INC. v. CONLUX USA CORP., 818 F. Supp. 707 (D. Del. 1993)

. . . during the period from August of 1990, to December of 1992, the monthly Treasury Bill rates ranged from 7.26% . . .

V. KRUEGER, Jr. v. E. LYNG, J. J. D., 927 F.2d 1050 (8th Cir. 1991)

. . . operations of the county office” and executes the policies established by the county committee. 7 CFR § 7.26 . . .

H. BAKER, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, B., 917 F.2d 318 (7th Cir. 1990)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 7.26 at 128-32 (2d ed. 1979). See also Morton v. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. G. LOUKAS, U. S., 29 M.J. 385 (C.M.A. 1990)

. . . Larkin, Military Evidence § 7.26 at 153 n.86 (2d ed.1978). . . .

J. FILIBERTO SANITATION, INC. v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 857 F.2d 913 (3d Cir. 1988)

. . . This Rule, codified at N.J.Admin.Code tit. 7, § 7.26-6.5(k)(3), became effective on October 7, 1985, . . .

HEDMAN, v. UNITED STATES,, 15 Cl. Ct. 304 (Cl. Ct. 1988)

. . . . §§ 7.4 to 7.15 and 7.26(a); Publication 22-PM, Part 5, H 90; 9 Harl.Agricultural Law § 63.07[1], pp . . . . § 7.21(b); and (c) authority to staff County offices to the County Executive Director, 7 C.F.R. § 7.26 . . .

J. HAMLET, v. UNITED STATES,, 14 Cl. Ct. 62 (Cl. Ct. 1988)

. . . 7.21(b), and is responsible for carrying out the policies established by the county committee. 7 CFR § 7.26 . . . Hamlet as a County Program Assistant, a position in the county office. 7 CFR § 7.26(b). . . .

BROWN, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS,, 671 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Kan. 1987)

. . . This increased to 7.26% the following year. . . .

PAVAO, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,, 762 F.2d 988 (Fed. Cir. 1985)

. . . See, 7 CFR 7.26, 7.29-7.34 (1983). . . .

BACHE HALSEY STUART SHIELDS INCORPORATED, v. H. GUEST, 602 F. Supp. 39 (C.D. Cal. 1985)

. . . On July 23 the silver market opened at a price of $7.26 and proceeded to rise in price rapidly for the . . .

INDUSTRIAL HOLOGRAPHICS, INC. K. Yu, v. J. DONOVAN,, 722 F.2d 1362 (7th Cir. 1983)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 7.26 (2d ed. 1979). . . .

JEAN, v. C. NELSON,, 711 F.2d 1455 (11th Cir. 1983)

. . . See also Davis, §§ 7.26, 9.7 (same). . . .

TASBY, v. Dr. WRIGHT,, 550 F. Supp. 262 (N.D. Tex. 1982)

. . . .* 1/4/82-7/23/82 III 36.3 80% 7.26 x $125 = $ 908. 4. . . .

K. CLYMORE, v. FAR- MAR- CO. INC., 549 F. Supp. 438 (W.D. Mo. 1982)

. . . During 1977, $4.75 to $7.26 per hour. d. During 1978, $980.00 to $1,371.00 per month. e. . . . When the maximum wage specified for General Accountant in 1977 ($7.26) is multiplied by this percentage . . .

SUPREME ASSEMBLY, ORDER OF RAINBOW FOR GIRLS, v. J. H. RAY JEWELRY COMPANY,, 676 F.2d 1079 (5th Cir. 1982)

. . . as unique or a distinctive symbol of origin,” citing McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 7.26 . . .

v., 2 Ct. Int'l Trade 143 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1981)

. . . dollar Euro-bond offering by Michelin Canada in February of 1969 would have have been approximately 7.26 . . . dollar Eurobond offering by Transocean Gulf in February 1970 in the amount of $30 million at a rate of 7.26 . . . expenses, the total of which he expressed as approximately 30 base points or .30 percent added to the 7.26 . . .

CONSOLIDATED GAS SUPPLY CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, R, 653 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1981)

. . . following overall returns: RP78-52 Amount Ratio Cost Weighted Cost Long-Term Debt $ 710,082,000 43.2% 7.26% . . .

SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, a v. STATE Ci. V. I. C., 473 F. Supp. 996 (W.D. Wash. 1979)

. . . In Legislative District 43, the vote was approximately 54 percent against the Initiative. 7.26 Initiative . . .

WEEKS DREDGING CONTRACTING, INC. a N. v. AMERICAN DREDGING CO. a H. G. T. H. Jr. C. P. C. Jr., 451 F. Supp. 468 (E.D. Pa. 1978)

. . . Greaser testified that American enjoyed a net earning for the year of 1977 of $7.26 per share, and this . . .

B. WILSON, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 560 F.2d 687 (5th Cir. 1977)

. . . decimal point in the calculation of Ira’s and Monetta’s share for 1964, in that year appellant claimed $7.26 . . .

ILLINOIS WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, v. L. TRAINOR, a, 438 F. Supp. 269 (N.D. Ill. 1977)

. . . , Child 6-12, Family of 2 26.89 Clothing, Adult, Family of 2 7.50 Clothing, Child 6-12, Family of 2 7.26 . . .

MOVIEMATIC INDUSTRIES CORP. a v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY a, 349 So. 2d 667 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . See Anderson, R.M., American Law of Zoning § 7.26 (2d ed 1968). . . .

ABBOTTS DAIRIES DIVISION OF FAIRMONT FOODS COMPANY, v. BERGLAND, s, 438 F. Supp. 629 (E.D. Pa. 1977)

. . . Announced Order Price Proposed Price Bracketed Price Difference Change in Value Sept. ’69 22,723,613 $7.26 . . .

TASTY BAKING COMPANY, v. COST OF LIVING COUNCIL, 529 F.2d 1005 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . reflect divestiture of that division alone would result in an adjusted base period profit margin of 7.26% . . . profit margin beyond that previously granted for establishing a 1972 profit margin limitation from 7.26% . . . with the April 2, 1973 decision and order should increase the company’s profit margin from 6.64% to 7.26% . . . Responding to the administrative determination that it was enough that the profit margin of 7.26% was . . . It complains that the Council did not even attempt to explain why it concluded that 7.26% was a fair . . .

TASTY BAKING COMPANY v. COST OF LIVING COUNCIL, 395 F. Supp. 1367 (E.D. Pa. 1975)

. . . profit margin limitation, increased Tasty’s Phase II base period profit margin from 6.64 percent to 7.26 . . .

MORGAN v. W. HENNIGAN, 379 F. Supp. 410 (D. Mass. 1974)

. . . following results: % Black Students Average Years in Boston Schools 90-100% 5.67 80- 90% 5.02 70- 80% 7.26 . . .

COX, D. v. DRAVO CORPORATION,, 372 F. Supp. 1003 (W.D. Pa. 1974)

. . . 73 30.78 201.72 1971 Physiotherapy (McKeesport Hospital) 6 treatments 60.00 Travel 6 trips at $1.21 7.26 . . .

ROBERTO, t a v. UNITED STATES, 357 F. Supp. 862 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)

. . . $47,295.85 $6.19 7.57 9.28 1961 — 4th $2.00 2.50 3.00 $21,708.47 10,854 8,683 7,236 $63,925.17 $5.80 7.26 . . .

F. X. Co. v., 58 Cust. Ct. 615 (Cust. Ct. 1967)

. . . appraised value of C$9.57 per unit consists of C$2.31 per unit, which plaintiff does not contest, plus C$7.26 . . .

OIL SHALE CORPORATION v. L. UDALL, B. UMPLEBY Co. v. L. UDALL, T. NAPIER, A. L. B. St. H. Jr. R. W. S. v. L. UDALL, BROWN, v. L. UDALL,, 261 F. Supp. 954 (D. Colo. 1966)

. . . Federal Government cannot question the failure to perform assessment work.” 2 American Law of Mining, § 7.26 . . .

W. v., 37 T.C. 57 (T.C. 1961)

. . . in tlie amount of $7,713.78, a life insurance policy in tbe face amount of $5,475 (and dividend of $7.26 . . .

Co. v., 37 Cust. Ct. 18 (Cust. Ct. 1956)

. . . pence % inch x 72 yds. 3.63 pence 4.23 pence J4 inch x 72 yds. 4.84 pence 6.64 pence Yi inch x 72 yds. 7.26 . . .

Co. v., 36 Cust. Ct. 555 (Cust. Ct. 1956)

. . . .— 80 " Cellulose.. 19.70 120 “ “ 22.65 Colours plus.. 7.72 Embossing plus. 2.50 $6.98 7.26 7.60 8.20 . . .

PENN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 199 F.2d 210 (8th Cir. 1952)

. . . At that time the petitioner was 73 years old, and her life expectancy was 7.26 years. . . .