The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 7.40

7.40 Madison County.—The boundary lines of Madison County are as follows: Beginning at the point where the west boundary line of lot number one hundred forty-three of fifteenth district Georgia fractions intersects with the Georgia state line and run thence due south along the west boundary line of lots numbers one hundred forty-three and one hundred eighty to the southwest corner of lot one hundred eighty; thence easterly along the south line of lot number one hundred eighty to the east line of section twenty-seven, township three north, range seven east; thence due south to the southeast corner of section ten, township two north, range seven east; thence due west to the southwest corner of said section ten; thence due south to the southeast corner of section sixteen, township two north, range seven east; thence due west to the southwest corner of said section sixteen; thence due south to the southeast corner of section twenty, township two north, range seven east; thence due west to the southwest corner of section nineteen, township two north, range seven east; thence due south to the southeast corner of section twenty-five, township two north, range six east; thence due west to the southwest corner of section twenty-six, township two north, range six east; thence due south to the southwest corner of section thirty-five, township two north, range six east; thence due west to the thread of the Big Aucilla river; thence southerly along the thread of said river to the middle line of township two south, range five east, or the north boundary line of Taylor County; thence east, concurrent with the north boundary line of Taylor County, on said middle township line to the range line dividing ranges eight and nine east; thence south on said range line to the township line dividing townships two and three south; thence east on said township line to the range line dividing ranges nine and ten east, or the northwest corner of Lafayette County; thence east, concurrent with the north boundary line of Lafayette County, on said township line to the thread of the Suwannee River; thence north and easterly, concurrent with the west boundary line of Suwannee County, along the thread of said Suwannee River to where it joins the thread of the Withlacoochee River; thence northerly, concurrent with the west boundary line of Hamilton County, along the thread of the said Withlacoochee River to the boundary line between the States of Georgia and Florida; thence west along said boundary line to the place of beginning.

History.—s. 1, Dec. 26, 1827; s. 11, Nov. 23, 1828; s. 1, Feb. 5, 1844; s. 1, ch. 806, 1856; RS 24; GS 22; RGS 24; s. 1, ch. 9361, 1923; CGL 26.

F.S. 7.40 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.40 on Casetext

Amendments to 7.40

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 7.40

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 7.40.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

VONDERHAAR, v. AT T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, 372 F. Supp. 3d 497 (E.D. Ky. 2019)

. . . hours); March 4, 2015 (8 hours); March 10, 2015 (8 hours); March 19, 2015 (4.68 hours); April 9, 2015 (7.40 . . .

FIRST MIDWEST BANK, D. a v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a, 337 F. Supp. 3d 749 (N.D. Ill. 2018)

. . . Antonio Romanucci $750 2021.55 $1,516,162.50 Stephan Blandin $750 288.30 $216,225.00 Gina DeBoni $500 7.40 . . . Gina DeBoni Chicago attempts to nibble at the margins once more by objecting to 0.7 hours of DeBoni's 7.40 . . .

WASHINGTON COUNTY HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, INC. v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC., 328 F. Supp. 3d 824 (N.D. Ill. 2018)

. . . . § 7.40 (noting that "recall is an alternative to a Food and Drug Administration-initiated court action . . .

CLARK- WILLIAMS, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, 244 F. Supp. 3d 195 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . successful completion of background screening pursuant to WMATA’s Background Screen Policy/Instruction 7.40 . . . The effect of conditioning that Settlement Agreement on the application of WMATA’s Policy P/I 7.40/0 . . . Local 689 does not oppose WMATA’s Policy P/I 7.40/0 in its collective bargaining with WMATA pursuant . . . Local 689 violated such duties by its failure to oppose WMATA’s Policy P/I 7.40/0 generally and with . . . WMATA violated such duties by its application of WMATA’s Policy P/I 7.40/0 in the Settlement Agreement . . .

DIKKER, v. STAR TEAM LEASING, LLC,, 243 F. Supp. 3d 844 (W.D. Mich. 2017)

. . . During Dikker’s employment, the minimum wage in Michigan was either $7.40 an hour or $8.15 an hour. . . .

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)

. . . $110.29 2007 $83.39 No Evidence $83.39 2008 $0.00 No Evidence $0.00 2009 $22.19 No Evidence $22.19 2010 $7.40 . . . No Evidence $7.40 Total $415.16 $333.81 $748.97 [Pls. . . .

IN RE NICOLE GAS PRODUCTION, LTD., 542 B.R. 204 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2015)

. . . with Attorney Pfefferle; review of pertinent documents relating to subject matter of 30(b)(6)” and 7.40 . . .

A. D AREZZO, M. A. v. PROVIDENCE CENTER, INC. A. D L. K. v., 142 F. Supp. 3d 224 (D.R.I. 2015)

. . . (d) Commencing January 1, 2007, the minimum wage is seven dollars and forty cents ($7.40) per hour. . . .

SMILOVITS, v. FIRST SOLAR INCORPORATED,, 119 F. Supp. 3d 978 (D. Ariz. 2015)

. . . increased its earnings per share guidance for fiscal year 2010 from $6.80-$7.30 per share to $7.00-$7.40 . . .

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

. . . Laws ch. 156D, §§ 7.40-7.47] applies to a shareholder bringing such a claim against a corporation or . . .

CLARK- WILLIAMS, v. LOCAL AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION,, 37 F. Supp. 3d 361 (D.D.C. 2014)

. . . He claims that the Union did not “oppose WMATA’s Policy P/I 7.40/0 in its collective bargaining.” . . . He first alleges that Local 689 should have opposed WMATA’s inclusion of Policy P/I 7.40/0 in the collective-bargaining . . . It also asserted that Clark-Williams was not subject to discharge even under Policy 7.40/0 because existing . . . assault and receiving stolen property ... prevented him from meeting the standards set forth in Policy 7.40 . . .

NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. MAIN STREET INGREDIENTS, LLC, a, 745 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 7.40(a) ("Recall is an effective method of removing or correcting consumer products that are in violation . . .

BAROQUE TIMBER INDUSTRIES ZHONGSHAN COMPANY, LIMITED, v. UNITED STATES,, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013)

. . . Particularly, Plaintiffs contend that only 2.66% of Layo’s sales were found to be targeted and only 7.40% . . .

JONES, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., 912 F. Supp. 2d 889 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . . § 7.40. . . .

IMS HEALTH CORP. v. J. SCHNEIDER,, 901 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Me. 2012)

. . . Montgomery 9/6/2007: Travel to Augusta; conference with Attorney General; conferences with Attorney Julin: 7.40 . . .

JACKSON v. CITY OF CENTREVILLE, 899 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (N.D. Ala. 2012)

. . . Throughout his employment with the City, McLaughlin’s pay rate has increased from $5.15 per hour to $7.40 . . . minimum wage increase to $7.25 per hour; and on October 1, 2010, he received a cost of living raise to $7.40 . . .

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

. . . 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). 7.37 (t, 1H), 7.40 . . .

GROSS, v. STRYKER CORPORATION t a d b a a a, 858 F. Supp. 2d 466 (W.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . . § 7.40. . . . See 21 C.F.R. §§ 7.40, 7.46. . . .

J. HAYES, v. NEW YORK ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, M., 672 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2012)

. . . SCR Rules 7.40 (2011); La. St. Bar Ass'n Art. XVI § 7.2(c)(5) (2011); Me. . . .

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 642 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 4 (2011); Md.Code Regs. 26.11.34.02 (2011); 310 Mass.Code Regs. 7.40(2)(a)(7) (2011); N.J. . . .

R. GARCIA, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,, 414 F. App'x 855 (7th Cir. 2011)

. . . One customer bought a book of stamps for $7.40, but Garcia voided the sale into his register and entered . . . A third customer bought a book of stamps for $7.40, but again, Garcia voided the sale and entered it . . .

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

. . . For example, if the floating or market price for installed capacity was $7.40/kW-month, KeySpan would . . . pay Morgan Stanley $.17 x 1800 MW under the KeySpan Swap ($7.57/kW-month — $7.40/kW-month) while Astoria . . . would pay Morgan Stanley $.33 x 1800 MW under the Astoria Hedge ($7.40/ kW-month — $7.07/kW-month). . . .

A. ARRINGTON, v. MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,, 746 F. Supp. 2d 854 (E.D. Mich. 2010)

. . . In 2006, Michigan law was amended to increase the minimum hourly wage from $5.15 to $7.40 over a two-year . . .

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

. . . Plaintiff's Terms 12A, 13A, 17A, 18A; Defendants' Terms 7.35-7.37, 7.40 . . . .

GRANT, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE, 727 F. Supp. 2d 677 (M.D. Tenn. 2010)

. . . For the professional function, the percentages ranged from 6.00% to 7.40% for black employees, versus . . .

C. RULE, v. FORT DODGE ANIMAL HEALTH, INC., 607 F.3d 250 (1st Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 7.40 (2009). But the unfitness of ProHeart 6 lay in its potential for causing harm to the dog. . . .

HALEBIAN, v. J. BERV, M. A. T. R. B. G. R. III,, 590 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2009)

. . . Laws ch. 156D, §§ 7.40-7.47, three of which are pertinent here. . . .

LOCKWOOD, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., 597 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . . § 7.40. . . .

In MEDTRONIC, INC. SPRINT FIDELIS LEADS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 592 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Minn. 2009)

. . . . § 7.40(a). . . .

CLARK, v. ACTAVIS GROUP HF, LLC LLC, US, UDL, 567 F. Supp. 2d 711 (D.N.J. 2008)

. . . . § 7.40(a)). . . . (citing 21 C.F.R. §§ 7.40-7.59). . . . Liab., 488 F.Supp.2d at 433; see also 21 C.F.R. §§ 7.40, 7.42, 7.46, 7.49. . . . Opp’n 3 (citing 21 C.F.R. § 7.40(a)).) . . .

HOLK, v. SNAPPLE BEVERAGE CORPORATION,, 574 F. Supp. 2d 447 (D.N.J. 2008)

. . . . § 7.40. . . . See 21 U.S.C. § 332; 21 C.F.R. § 7.40. . . .

In SONUS NETWORKS, INC, a v. M. J. T. J. J. A. J. O N. R., 499 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2007)

. . . Laws Ann. ch 156D, § 7.40. . . .

Re In HUMAN TISSUE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 488 F. Supp. 2d 430 (D.N.J. 2007)

. . . . § 7.40(a). . . . See id. §§ 7.40-7.59. . . .

R. DOLAN, v. GUARANTEE TRUST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 485 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (S.D. Iowa 2007)

. . . The policy’s schedule page listed the interest rate on an automatic premium loan as 7.40%, payable in . . .

SHURKIN, On v. GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS INC. J. B. O Co. LLC,, 471 F. Supp. 2d 998 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

. . . On March 25, 2004, the price of GSV’s stock dropped from $7.40 per share to $7.17 per share, on an increased . . .

UNITED STATES v. ORANGE,, 447 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2006)

. . . qualified wheel was comprised as follows: Distinctive Black Indian Asian Hispanic Group_ Percentage of 7.40 . . .

SINOPEC SICHUAN VINYLON WORKS, v. UNITED STATES, E. I. De Co., 366 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)

. . . issued its final determination on August 11, 2003, in which it reported an affirmative dumping margin of 7.40 . . .

v. E. I. De Co., 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 391 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)

. . . issued its final determination on August 11, 2003, in which it reported an affirmative dumping margin of 7.40 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ORANGE,, 364 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (W.D. Okla. 2005)

. . . are: Distinctive Group Black Indian Asian Hispanic Percentage of voting age population (1990 Census) 7.40 . . . even a total exclusion of the largest minority group would result in an absolute disparity of only 7.40 . . .

In FIRST INTERREGIONAL EQUITY CORPORATION,, 290 B.R. 265 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2003)

. . . 2014 # 3 Port Authority NY/NJ $100,000.00 #4 NYC B/E $175,000.00 6.00% 10/15/2026 # 5 NYC $125,000.00 7.40% . . .

In ELK CREEK SALERS, LTD., 286 B.R. 387 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2002)

. . . to pay the two claims on a combined basis in monthly payments over 20 years with an interest rate of 7.40 . . . estate claim in the amount of $449,000.00 in semiannual payments over 20 years, with an interest rate of 7.40 . . . Union Planters is to receive a risk-free interest rate of 7.40 percent on two loans that are secured . . . All of those loans are to be paid over 20 years at 7.40 percent interest. . . . that amount, and proposes in the Plan to pay that amount over 20 years, with interest at the rate of 7.40 . . .

E. MINIAT, v. ED MINIAT, INC. Co., 315 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2002)

. . . Stat. 5/7.40. . . .

MONSANTO COMPANY v. J. CAMPUZANO, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . Part 7, sub-part C, § 7.40 et seq. entitled "Recalls (Including Product Corrections) — Guidelines on . . .

MONSANTO COMPANY v. CAMPUZANO, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . § 7.40 et seq. entitled "Recalls (Including Product Corrections) — Guidelines on Policy, Procedures . . .

AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,, 163 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 1998)

. . . Regs.Code tit. 310, § 7.40(12), which requires automakers to manufacture a certain number of zero-emission . . . Regs.Code tit. 310, § 7.40(12); N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6, § 218-3.1. . . . reflect only the ZEV requirements set forth in the MOAs between CARB and the auto manufacturers. 310 CMR 7.40 . . . program, but, instead, are included in the voluntary MOAs between CARB and the Automakers. 310 CMR 7.40 . . . There is no question that MDEP’s reporting requirements, see Mass.Code Regs. tit. 310, § 7.40(12)(g) . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. ROSS,, 732 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1998)

. . . Newburgh told Ross that the only consideration he would be offered was a check for $7.40 for a witness . . .

BANFI PRODUCTS CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 40 Fed. Cl. 107 (Fed. Cl. 1997)

. . . . § 7.40. . . . undertaken voluntarily, at any time by manufacturers and distributors or at the request of FDA. 21 C.F.R. § 7.40 . . .

BROOME, v. BIONDI, BIONDI, v. DEMOU, BIONDI, v. DEMOU,, 17 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . $120/hr = $ 1,980.00 (attendance at depositions billed at a lower scale) 1997 612.90 hours requested 7.40 . . .

AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, v. COMMISSIONER, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,, 998 F. Supp. 10 (D. Mass. 1997)

. . . See DEP, Background Document for Proposed Amendments to 310 CMR 7.40, The Massachusetts Low Emission . . . reflect only the ZEV requirements set forth in the MOAs between CARB and the auto manufacturers. 310 CMR 7.40 . . . program, but, instead, are included in the voluntary MOAs between CARB and the automakers. 310 CMR 7.40 . . . the amended Massachusetts LEV Standards published in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 310 CMR 7.40 . . . Four of the Third Amended Complaint as follows: That the Defendant’s regulations published at 310 CMR 7.40 . . .

BLISSETT, v. CASEY, A. R. N., 969 F. Supp. 118 (N.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . For example, on April 10, 1992, he billed a total of 7.40 hours for the following: “Review file; research . . .

UNITED STRUCTURES OF AMERICA, INC. v. G. R. G. ENGINEERING, S. E., 927 F. Supp. 556 (D.P.R. 1996)

. . . the alleged defects in the materials supplied to the Roosevelt Roads Project, through Exhibits 7.39, 7.40 . . . (Docket #80) Reliance on Exhibits 7.39, 7.40, and 7.42 is misplaced, as these documents relate to deficiencies . . . There is no indication that a copy was ever sent to U.S.A Exhibits 7.39, 7.40, and 7.42, submitted by . . . Paragraph 3 in each of Exhibits 7.40 and 7.42, demonstrates G.R.G.’s failure to supervise its own subcontractor . . .

FRANK v. HADESMAN AND FRANK, INC., 83 F.3d 158 (7th Cir. 1996)

. . . situations that have been treated as supporting direct actions; 2 Model Business Corporation Act Annotated § 7.40 . . .

FISHER BROS. SALES, INC. v. UNITED STATES BALMACEDA M. Y AGR LTDA LTDA LTDA LTDA LTDA LTDA LTDA LTDA LTDA El v. UNITED STATES CARBEN, INC. v. UNITED STATES COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S. A. v. UNITED STATES NEW MARKET INVESTMENT CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES GUZMAN Y DEL REAL, LIMITRADA, v. UNITED STATES Y, 46 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1995)

. . . . §§ 7.40-7.59. . . . . § 7.40(b). . . .

R. BOYKIN, v. BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,, 905 F. Supp. 1335 (M.D. Pa. 1995)

. . . D21, page 2) June, 1994 7.40 hours (Ex. D16 and Ex. D21, page 3) July/August, 1994 4.70 hours (Ex. . . .

AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, v. COMMISSIONER, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,, 31 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 1994)

. . . Regs.Code tit. 310, §§ 7.40-7.60. . . .

ANDERSON, Jr. v. DOUGLAS LOMASON CO. INC. Co., 26 F.3d 1277 (5th Cir. 1994)

. . . Pre-Grizzard Period [1/15/81-10/2/82] 11.60% 88.40% Grizzard Pre-Suit Period [10/2/82-7/4/85] 92.59% 7.40% . . .

In E. WILLIAMS E. In B. S. PAPER SPECIALISTS, INC. In AND OR CORPORATION, In C. O. CORPORATION,, 159 B.R. 936 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1993)

. . . The sale resulted in a net loss to the estate of $7.40, and this was even after there was no charge to . . .

v., 101 T.C. 1 (T.C. 1993)

. . . Respondent’s experts Petitioner’s experts Tax Year return Intera Evans ■ SSI Fairchild Texon 6.94 1977 7.40 . . . 1978 7.40 1979 7.40 1980 7.40 1981 7.40 1982 7.40 ,1983 7.40 1984 | ¡ 7.40 1985 cq CD In calculating . . .

In BICOASTAL CORPORATION, d b a f k a, 122 B.R. 140 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . description of services furnished by OWD includes numerous hours spent on reviewing claims, spending 7.40 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, In DAVIS, In v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, In, 748 F. Supp. 1416 (N.D. Cal. 1990)

. . . Hulett 1985 235 110 46.59 7.40 10,948.65 814.00 [ 547.43] [ 40.70] 10,401.22 773.30 20,802.44 1,546.60 . . .

DAINES, v. CITY OF MANKATO,, 754 F. Supp. 681 (D. Minn. 1990)

. . . . & Officials, Public Admin. 33.62% female 7.40 0 3.11 United States, Admin. & Officials, Public Admin . . .

WINNER, v. N. CATALDO,, 559 So. 2d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . . § 7.40, at 720. Accord Grizzard v. Petkas, 155 Ga.App. 741, 272 S.E.2d 583 (1980). . . .

H. M. W. H. L. A. C. S. G. G. B. v., 92 T.C. 39 (T.C. 1989)

. . . Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders, par. 7.40 (5th ed. 1987). . . .

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a a v. STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, v. STATE OF UTAH,, 716 F. Supp. 543 (D. Utah 1988)

. . . 0.7362 (287) 1960 32,835 35,536 0 56,329 12,042 7.25% 0.6864 8,266 1961 31,814 38,032 0 49,898 19,948 7.40% . . . 5,936) 1965 66,944 45,942 0 121,323 (8,437) 7.20% 0.4827 (4,073) 1966 86,256 50,806 0 207,929 (70,867) 7.40% . . .

PACKAGE SHOP, INC. t a s v. ANHEUSER- BUSCH, INC. Co. Co. t a Co. MS W Co. Co., 675 F. Supp. 894 (D.N.J. 1987)

. . . Bresnahan Dep. at 7.40:3-21. . . . .

J. MUSSOLINE, D. V. v. MORRIS,, 692 F. Supp. 1306 (S.D. Fla. 1987)

. . . Bolton) has a note that reads as follows: “NOTE: Water rose up to 7.40 feet as per client observation . . .

Al J. J. v., 88 T.C. 906 (T.C. 1987)

. . . December 31, 1977, balance sheet as $883.50 ($0.10 X 8,835) additional paid-in capital and $65,379 ($7.40 . . .

B. SINGER, v. SHANNON LUCHS COMPANY,, 670 F. Supp. 1024 (D.D.C. 1987)

. . . Mercurio 7.40 7.40 145 1.073.00 R. Luchs 0.90 0.90 70 63.00 Mar. 1982 C. . . .

In S. HINKLEY, H. Y. ROBINSON, Sr. v. S. HINKLEY,, 58 B.R. 339 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1986)

. . . McDonald, Texas Civil Practice § 7.40, at 268 (1970 Rev. Vol.) . . .

UNITED STATES, v. OTTATI GOSS, INC., 630 F. Supp. 1361 (D.N.H. 1985)

. . . United States and the State of New Hampshire, enjoin the defendants from violations of § 6.17 and § 7.40 . . . Kingston also seeks to enjoin the defendants under Section 6.17 and 7.40 of the town’s Zoning and Building . . . Kingston seeks to enjoin the defendants from violating §§ 6.17, Article VII, § 7.20 and Article VII § 7.40 . . . & Goss, Inc., Louis Ottati and Wellington Goss are liable under Article VI. § 6.17 and Article VII 7.40 . . . No evidence has been brought forth that these two defendants complied with § 6.17 or § 7.40. . . .

In FINE PAPER ANTITRUST LITIGATION. WALTER E. RIORDAN, P. A. LAWRENCE WALNER AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. PHILLIP C. GOLDSTICK ASSOCIATES, LTD. FREEMAN, ATKINS COLEMAN, LTD. SAVERI SAVERI, O BRIEN AND HALLISEY, P. C. MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG AMENT EIGER, P. C. SACHNOFF WEAVER RUBENSTEIN, LTD. SPECKS GOLDBERG, LTD. ROGERS, RUDE, CANDLIN, FAULKNER SJOSTROM, SLOAN AND ASSOCIATES, P. C. P. C., 751 F.2d 562 (3d Cir. 1984)

. . . J 395 Robert Davy 14.80 7.40 App. J 398 Specks & Goldberg, Ltd. Granvil I. . . .

PLANES P. A. v. PLANES,, 432 So. 2d 105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . toll charges: $2.75 [cost statement, p. 1]; and (4) three entries for parking and mileage: $10.60, $7.40 . . .

J. NEAL, R. J. F. J. A. Sr. C. C. B. v. CAREY CANADIAN MINES, LTD. Co. Co., 548 F. Supp. 357 (E.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . N.T. 7.40-7.41. Dr. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SUPERPHARM CORPORATION, a E., 530 F. Supp. 408 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . in the FDA regulations which provide for recalls, recalls cannot be ordered by the FDA, see 21 CFR § 7.40 . . . (a), as they are usually undertaken voluntarily, 21 CFR § 7.40(a), at the request of the FDA. 21 CFR . . . § 7.40(b). . . .

UNITED STATES v. PALMERI, P. Sr. No. UNITED STATES v. CAMPISANO, No. UNITED STATES v. CARIELLO, No. UNITED STATES v. SMITH, No. UNITED STATES v. CHESTNUT, No., 630 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1980)

. . . Id. at 4.180 to 4.182, 7.40 to 7.41. . . .

BUGHER v. SOUTHLAND FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, INC., 452 F. Supp. 870 (W.D. La. 1978)

. . . Malone 134 52.26 33.50 Wilbur Newsome (T) 143 57.72 37.00 7.40 Morris LaCombe 63 24.57 15.75 3.15 Larry . . . Malone (T) 156 60.84 39.00 7.80 Wilbur Newsome 157 61.23 39.25 7.85 Morris LaCombe 148 57.72 37.00 7.40 . . .

FURY IMPORTS, INC. v. SHAKESPEARE COMPANY,, 554 F.2d 1376 (5th Cir. 1977)

. . . average selling price for Model No. 1 was $5.08; No. 2, $5.52; No. 3, $5.99; No. 4, $6.06; and No. 5, $7.40 . . . each model, then, was as follows: No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 Selling price $5.08 $5.52 $5.99 $6.06 $7.40 . . .

ST. JOSEPH TELEPHONE TELEGRAPH CO., 45 Fla. Supp. 57 (Fla. P.S.C. 1977)

. . . of Alligator Point and Wakulla Springs for residential-one and business-one should be increased to $7.40 . . .

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN S ASSOCIATION, AFL- CIO, LOCAL v. SEA- LAND SERVICE, INC., 430 F. Supp. 282 (D.P.R. 1975)

. . . following basic regular wages per hour: 10-1-74 10-1-75 10-1-76 to to to 9-30-75 9-30-76 9-30-77 $6.80 $7.40 . . .

RODWAY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 514 F.2d 809 (D.C. Cir. 1975)

. . . Boys, 9-12 years ............................ 6.30 27.20 12-15 years ............................... 7.40 . . .

UNITED STATES v. PITTMAN, 372 F. Supp. 561 (W.D. Pa. 1974)

. . . Pittman and Rosemary Patricia Engleman, charged in a one-count indictment with unlawfully possessing 7.40 . . .

v., 60 T.C. 569 (T.C. 1973)

. . . The commission for rabbit linings was based on the difference between the price of $7.40 to $8 per dozen . . .

J. HAMPTON, d b a v. GRAFF VENDING COMPANY, 478 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1973)

. . . Graff’s corresponding figures were $7.40 and $9.70. . . . ($8.20 per case on No. 933 gum) if it were required to revert to its old price schedule from Leaf ($7.40 . . .

Co. v., 62 Cust. Ct. 837 (Cust. Ct. 1969)

. . . They are dated March Í0, 1965 and each includes 1000,7x35 Zeiss Style Binoculars at $7.40 f .o.b. . . . Purchase order No. 20269 was at $7.40 and there is no evidence to show when the merchandise covered thereby . . .

CLEVELAND v. UNION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD TRAHAN v. LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD VALLEY v. RAPIDES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 406 F.2d 1331 (5th Cir. 1969)

. . . 8.31 (See Footnote 3) (See Footnote 3) CLAIBORNE 1967 - 68 102 115 0 8 7.84 0 1968 - 69 108 112 0 8 7.40 . . .

UINTA LIVESTOCK CORPORATION, a v. UNITED STATES, 355 F.2d 761 (10th Cir. 1966)

. . . Lucille Rees Dean 40,087.38 13.12 39,389.69 12.89 - .23 Joyce Rees Dunlap 21,323.07 6.98 22,595.64 7.40 . . .

UNITED BISCUIT COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,, 350 F.2d 615 (7th Cir. 1965)

. . . Payable Additional Amount Payable at 6% Chains: A & P 26.28 6 1.58 — Kroger Store No. 628 123.27 6 7.40 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN MARION COUNTY, STATE OF IOWA,, 240 F. Supp. 692 (S.D. Iowa 1965)

. . . east line of said section nine, 24.50 chains southerly from the northeast corner thereof; thence west 7.40 . . .

v., 43 T.C. 824 (T.C. 1965)

. . . approximately $18-$21 per week or $3.60-$4.20 per day for working only lunches, and $33-$37 per week or $6.60-$7.40 . . .

ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA, 547 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1963)

. . . Nt& SEV4 12 19S 21W 7.40 NWV4; SEV4 NEV4 NWV4 Darrell Brooks.. . . .

Co. v., 49 Cust. Ct. 109 (Cust. Ct. 1962)

. . . These values were advanced by the appraisers to Canadian $7.40 per dozen for the No. 28 cribbage boards . . .

v. Co., 47 C.C.P.A. 110 (C.C.P.A. 1960)

. . . the duty should have been assessed, as found by the appraiser, on the basis of a foreign value of $7.40 . . . than chain and No. wholesalers department stores department stores 28 $5.55 per dozen $6.66 per dozen $7.40 . . . given we hold that the record establishes that the instant merchandise has a foreign value, namely $7.40 . . .

A. N. v., 44 Cust. Ct. 630 (Cust. Ct. 1960)

. . . R58/12095 Type “P” Junior 3. 96 2. 85 0. 05 0. 54 7.40 I conclude, as a matter of law: 1. . . .

v. Co., 43 Cust. Ct. 601 (Cust. Ct. 1959)

. . . .) $7.40 (Can.) No. 29 8.25 (Can.) 11.10 (Can.) 14.40 (Can.) . . . department stores To retailers, other than chain and department stores 28 $5.55 per dozen $6.66 per dozen $7.40 . . . —For resale to other retail stores_ $7.40 per doz. . . .

BANANA DISTRIBUTORS, v. UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, 162 F. Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)

. . . the 32 months from January 1951 through August 1953; (2) The defendants received an average price of $7.40 . . .

KILMER VILLAGE CORPORATION, KILMER VILLAGE PROJECT CORPORATION, KILMER VILLAGE PROJECT CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 139 Ct. Cl. 231 (Ct. Cl. 1957)

. . . $10.50 for decorating, $4.60 for repairs, $8.50 for replacements, $0.50 for legal and audit fees, and $7.40 . . .

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

. . . .— 7.40 7.64 7.44 8.48 3.09 1.— All figures including agent's commission and cash discount, if any. . . .

B. S. Co. v., 36 Cust. Ct. 509 (Cust. Ct. 1956)

. . . Schedule “B” Items Foreign value 21 DM 7.40 per doz., less 2%, plus cost of cases, as invoiced t( (i . . .

B. S. Co. v., 36 Cust. Ct. 512 (Cust. Ct. 1956)

. . . Schedule “B” Items Foreign value 21 DM 7.40 pe doz., less 2%, plus cost of cases, as invoiced 22 DM 7.70 . . .

Co. v., 31 Cust. Ct. 473 (Cust. Ct. 1953)

. . . Style #28 was invoiced and entered at $4.95 per dozen, appraised at $7.40 per dozen, net packed, and . . .