The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title III
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH; COMMISSIONS

Chapter 11
LEGISLATIVE ORGANIZATION, PROCEDURES, AND STAFFING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 11.62

11.62 Legislative review of proposed regulation of unregulated functions.—

(1) This section may be cited as the “Sunrise Act.”

(2) It is the intent of the Legislature:

(a) That no profession or occupation be subject to regulation by the state unless the regulation is necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare from significant and discernible harm or damage and that the police power of the state be exercised only to the extent necessary for that purpose; and

(b) That no profession or occupation be regulated by the state in a manner that unnecessarily restricts entry into the practice of the profession or occupation or adversely affects the availability of the professional or occupational services to the public.

(3) In determining whether to regulate a profession or occupation, the Legislature shall consider the following factors:

(a) Whether the unregulated practice of the profession or occupation will substantially harm or endanger the public health, safety, or welfare, and whether the potential for harm is recognizable and not remote;

(b) Whether the practice of the profession or occupation requires specialized skill or training, and whether that skill or training is readily measurable or quantifiable so that examination or training requirements would reasonably assure initial and continuing professional or occupational ability;

(c) Whether the regulation will have an unreasonable effect on job creation or job retention in the state or will place unreasonable restrictions on the ability of individuals who seek to practice or who are practicing a given profession or occupation to find employment;

(d) Whether the public is or can be effectively protected by other means; and

(e) Whether the overall cost-effectiveness and economic impact of the proposed regulation, including the indirect costs to consumers, will be favorable.

(4) The proponents of legislation that provides for the regulation of a profession or occupation not already expressly subject to state regulation shall provide, upon request, the following information in writing to the state agency that is proposed to have jurisdiction over the regulation and to the legislative committees to which the legislation is referred:

(a) The number of individuals or businesses that would be subject to the regulation;

(b) The name of each association that represents members of the profession or occupation, together with a copy of its codes of ethics or conduct;

(c) Documentation of the nature and extent of the harm to the public caused by the unregulated practice of the profession or occupation, including a description of any complaints that have been lodged against persons who have practiced the profession or occupation in this state during the preceding 3 years;

(d) A list of states that regulate the profession or occupation, and the dates of enactment of each law providing for such regulation and a copy of each law;

(e) A list and description of state and federal laws that have been enacted to protect the public with respect to the profession or occupation and a statement of the reasons why these laws have not proven adequate to protect the public;

(f) A description of the voluntary efforts made by members of the profession or occupation to protect the public and a statement of the reasons why these efforts are not adequate to protect the public;

(g) A copy of any federal legislation mandating regulation;

(h) An explanation of the reasons why other types of less restrictive regulation would not effectively protect the public;

(i) The cost, availability, and appropriateness of training and examination requirements;

(j) The cost of regulation, including the indirect cost to consumers, and the method proposed to finance the regulation;

(k) The cost imposed on applicants or practitioners or on employers of applicants or practitioners as a result of the regulation;

(l) The details of any previous efforts in this state to implement regulation of the profession or occupation; and

(m) Any other information the agency or the committee considers relevant to the analysis of the proposed legislation.

(5) The agency shall provide the Legislature with information concerning the effect of proposed legislation that provides for new regulation of a profession or occupation regarding:

(a) The departmental resources necessary to implement and enforce the proposed regulation;

(b) The technical sufficiency of the proposal for regulation, including its consistency with the regulation of other professions and occupations under existing law; and

(c) If applicable, any alternatives to the proposed regulation which may result in a less restrictive or more cost-effective regulatory scheme.

(6) When making a recommendation concerning proposed legislation providing for new regulation of a profession or occupation, a legislative committee shall determine:

(a) Whether the regulation is justified based on the criteria specified in subsection (3), the information submitted pursuant to request under subsection (4), and the information provided under subsection (5);

(b) The least restrictive and most cost-effective regulatory scheme that will adequately protect the public; and

(c) The technical sufficiency of the proposed legislation, including its consistency with the regulation of other professions and occupations under existing law.

History.—s. 6, ch. 91-429; s. 1, ch. 94-218; s. 133, ch. 99-251.

F.S. 11.62 on Google Scholar

F.S. 11.62 on Casetext

Amendments to 11.62

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 11.62

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 11.62.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. XEROX CORPORATION, M. A. R. K. H., 300 F. Supp. 3d 551 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . of these disclosures, APERS claims, Xerox's share price dropped from $13.14 on April 23, 2015, to $11.62 . . .

T. KNOX v. YINGLI GREEN ENERGY HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED Li,, 242 F. Supp. 3d 950 (C.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . (Id. 11.62.) . . .

CLOUD FARM ASSOCIATES LP, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. ZF AG,, 674 F. App'x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

. . . See, e.g., ’616 patent col.1 1.28, col.3 11.62— 67, col.4 11.4-6, col.12 11.49-52. . . .

NEW YORK v. NEXT MILLENNIUM REALTY, LLC,, 160 F. Supp. 3d 485 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . . § 11.62(a). . . . standards for drinking water, in ground water that was potable before the ... released ....” 43 C.F.R. § 11.62 . . . Specific definitions of injury are provided for each resource in § 11.62. . . .

BROWN v. NUCOR CORPORATION, 785 F.3d 895 (4th Cir. 2015)

. . . Seventy-one (11.62%) were black. . . .

In ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, 603 F. App'x 924 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. . . , including that they achieve “minimal heat output” for the amount of light provided, id. at col. 2 11.62 . . .

J. REDMOND, v. HASSAN,, 523 B.R. 729 (D. Kan. 2014)

. . . Interest continued accruing from September 12 to the date of judgment at the rate of $11.62 per day, . . .

CP KELCO OY CP US, v. UNITED STATES, G. P., 978 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014)

. . . Commerce then reassessed Kelco’s margins using an alternative methodology and assigned an 11.62% rate . . .

In BASED HEREDITARY CANCER TEST PATENT LITIGATION. v., 3 F. Supp. 3d 1213 (D. Utah 2014)

. . . heterologous biological means.” 702 F.Supp.2d at 217; '282 Patent col. 19 11.8-18; and '492 Patent col. 17 11.62 . . .

ELCOMMERCE. COM, INC. v. SAP AG SAP, 745 F.3d 490 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . to data and uploads new data to the data collection site ... upon finding a change,” id. at col.5, 11.62 . . .

CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC. v. BIOGEN IDEC,, 968 F. Supp. 2d 660 (D. Md. 2013)

. . . appropriate for the trial design by one skilled in the art may be acceptable.” '139 patent, col. 29, 11.62 . . .

LAZARE KAPLAN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. PHOTOSCRIBE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Of, 714 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

. . . imaging, to selectively generate a marking on the gemstone based on the instructions.” '351 patent col.26 11.62 . . . Patent No. 6,476,351, col.26 11.62-63; see Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. . . .

C. W. ZUMBIEL COMPANY, INC. v. J. KAPPOS,, 702 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Ellis col. 1 11.62-69. . . .

POZEN INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. Dr. s, 696 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . quantitative definition, specifically, “at least 90%, and preferably greater than 95%,” '183 patent col.2 11.62 . . .

K- TEC, INC. v. VITA- MIX CORPORATION,, 696 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Id. col.6 11.62-64. Similarly, K-TEC explained to the U.S. . . . , “in essence, the typical corner that would otherwise be formed” between the side walls, id. col.6 11.62 . . .

SANTARUS, INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . be protected from contact with acidic gastric juice by an enteric coating layer. '344 patent, col.l 11.62 . . . sucralfate as a treatment for complications related to stress-related mucosal damage.” 772 patent, col.7 11.62 . . .

OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD. v. SANDOZ, INC. BV, BV, USA,, 678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Id. col.70 11.62-63. . . .

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, v. UBS AMERICAS, INC., 858 F. Supp. 2d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . The Agency contends that the 11.62% difference between its own findings and the owner-occupancy numbers . . .

In CYCLOBENZAPRINE HYDROCHLORIDE EXTENDED- RELEASE CAPSULE PATENT LITIGATION. AG, v., 676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . specifies the claimed skeletal muscle relaxant as cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride. '793 patent col.10 11.62 . . .

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC. s, a v. MOC PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. a, 856 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (S.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . (citing '638 Patent col.2 11.62-64; '638 Patent eol.7-8)) ITW further supports its contention that QMI . . .

METTLER- TOLEDO, INC. v. B- TEK SCALES, LLC,, 671 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Id. col.4 11.62-66. . . .

FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, v. INC. LTD., 447 F. App'x 182 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id., col. 8, 11.62-67. . . .

TYPHOON TOUCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. DELL, INC. HTC, 659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . specification states that the patented device may include a “simulated keyboard,” '057 patent, col.2 11.62 . . .

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, v. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,, 839 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (D. Or. 2011)

. . . units for unidentified 2010-2018 actions for ocean-type salmon) with id. at D-l-20, Table 4 (assigning 11.62 . . .

In NTP, INC., 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col.3 11.62-66. . . . Id. col.20 11.62-63. . . .

IMAGECUBE LLC, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, MTS, 431 F. App'x 905 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . process begins with a dispersion (i.e., a mixture) “containing components A and B.” '875 Patent, eol.16 11.62 . . .

WELLMAN, INC. v. EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,, 642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . scanning calorimetry (“DSC”) machine. '317 patent eol.7 11.55-58, col.8 11.48-53; '863 patent col.7 11.62 . . . (T^) is determined on a non-crystalline [PET] resin.” '317 patent col.8 11.55-58; '863 patent col.8 11.62 . . .

HOLOGIC, INC. L. P. v. SENORX, INC., 639 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . providing predetermined asymmetric isodose profile [sic.] within the target tissue.” '142 patent col.2 11.62 . . .

INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. ITG ITG v. LIQUIDNET HOLDINGS, INC. v., 759 F. Supp. 2d 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . that "the present invention can lack one or more of the modules described herein,” Patent '834 col.6 11.62 . . .

POST, v. BRADSHAW,, 621 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2010)

. . . ABA Guidelines 11.62 cmt. . . .

W. WYERS v. MASTER LOCK COMPANY,, 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Heald patent col.3 11.62-col.4 1.3. . . .

CIRCLE Y CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. WRH REALTY SERVICES, INC. WRH LLLP,, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (N.D. Ga. 2010)

. . . Circle Y further requests that for each additional day after June 9, it receive an additional $11.62 . . .

HEARING COMPONENTS, INC. v. SHURE INC., 600 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . clearly enough or to perform fine physical actions well enough to replace the filters.” '920 patent col.l 11.62 . . . replaced,” and that a filter that must be mounted beyond the sound delivery tube opening, id. at col.l 11.62 . . .

PRESSURE PRODUCTS MEDICAL SUPPLIES, INC. v. GREATBATCH LTD., 599 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . may be employed and are contemplated as being within the scope of the invention.” '904 patent eol.5 11.62 . . .

In ARORA, 369 F. App'x 120 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Andersson col.4 11.62-64. . . .

SRAM CORPORATION SRAM, LLC v. AD- II ENGINEERING, INC., 367 F. App'x 150 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Id. col.l 11.62-66. . . .

In P. CHAPMAN J., 595 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . See, e.g., id. col.19 11.62-65. . . .

LYDALL THERMAL ACOUSTICAL, INC. LLC, v. FEDERAL- MOGUL CORPORATION, 344 F. App'x 607 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . .”); id. col.9 11.25-29 (same); id. col. 13 11.27-31 (same); id. col. 12 11.62-64 (“As the needle is . . . See ’260 patent col.6 11.55-59, col.9 II.25-29, col.12 11.62-64, col.13 II.7-13, col.13 11.27-31. . . .

LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, v., 566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . See id. col.14 11.62-67. . . .

ERBE ELEKTROMEDIZIN GMBH USA, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, LLC GMBH,, 566 F.3d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . See '745 Patent col.2 11.62-67 (“[s]ince the working channel itself serves for the delivery of gas”); . . .

LARSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF SOUTH DAKOTA, INC. v. ALUMINART PRODUCTS LIMITED, 559 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . See, e.g., '998 patent col.8 11.62-64 (“weather stripping located in each fabric track wherein first . . .

RICOH COMPANY, LTD. v. QUANTA COMPUTER INC. USA, NU, 550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Id. at eol.2 11.62-67. . . .

M. MINKS, v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., 546 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . to thereby selectively inhibit ignition responsive to the speed of said engine.” '080 patent col.5 11.62 . . .

COHESIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. WATERS CORPORATION,, 543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . See id. col.8 11.62-63 (“[The] particles are shaped and selected in a range of sizes and shapes.... ” . . .

CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. LLC, v. LEAR CORPORATION,, 516 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Id. col.9 11.62-67. . . .

MIKEN COMPOSITES, L. L. C. v. WILSON SPORTING GOODS COMPANY,, 515 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Id. col.2 11.62-66. . . . Id. col.2 11.62-68. . . .

LABORATOIRES PEROUSE, S. A. S. v. W. L. GORE ASSOCIATES, INC., 528 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . cylindrical gussets” that “interpenetrate” when the housing part is in its closed state. ('787 patent col.3 11.62 . . . specification to the second embodiment’s “projecting, cylindrical gussets” and by Figure 8. ('787 patent col.3 11.62 . . .

ELBEX VIDEO, LTD. v. SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,, 508 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . See, e.g., '085 patent, col.l 11.62-67; col.2 11.32-36; col.2 11.39 — 42. . . .

D. DiFELICE, v. U. S. AIRWAYS, INCORPORATED,, 497 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 2007)

. . . On September 10, 2001, the Group stock' price closed at $11.62 per share.' . . .

INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD. v. MERCK KGaA, Dr. A., 496 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . thirty amino acids, such that the peptide has cell detachment promoting activity. '287 Patent col. 10 11.62 . . .

AKEVA L. L. C. v. ADIDAS- SALOMON AG,, 208 F. App'x 861 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . See '471 patent, col. 4 11.62-col. 5 11.4 (“An embodiment of the heel structure ... includes ... a rear . . .

ELLISON COMPANY, INC. f k a v. TRANSPEC, INC., 445 F. Supp. 2d 566 (M.D.N.C. 2006)

. . . to the decoded logic circuit” does not invalidate the claim in subsection (d). (’052 Patent, col.4, 11.62 . . .

KENALL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, v. GENLYTE THOMAS GROUP LLC, 439 F. Supp. 2d 854 (N.D. Ill. 2006)

. . . J., Ex. 1, ’254 Patent at col.l, 11.62— 64.) . . .

D. DIFELICE, v. US AIRWAYS, INC., 436 F. Supp. 2d 756 (E.D. Va. 2006)

. . . The price for a single share of Group stock dropped nearly 65% from a September 10, 2001 price of $11.62 . . .

FURMINATOR, INC. v. ONTEL PRODUCTS CORP., 429 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (E.D. Mo. 2006)

. . . HH (’846 patent) (eol.3, 11.62-63); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14 (cannot look at claim terms in a vacuum . . .

SKYLINE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC. v. KEYHOLE, INC., 421 F. Supp. 2d 371 (D. Mass. 2006)

. . . height from which they view the terrain and, therefore, the level of detail which they include,” (col.8, 11.62 . . . (col.ll, 11.62-63) Alternatively, however, it is the “cache manager [that] determines the identity of . . .

KENALL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, v. GENLYTE THOMAS GROUP LLC, 413 F. Supp. 2d 936 (N.D. Ill. 2006)

. . . (R. 26, Kenall Markman, Ex. 1 (“ ’254 Patent”), Abstract; and col. 1, 11.62-64.) . . .

D. DIFELICE, v. US AIRWAYS, INC., 397 F. Supp. 2d 758 (E.D. Va. 2005)

. . . was reflected in the share price, which declined by nearly 65% from a September 10, 2001 price of $11.62 . . .

BLUEBONNET SAVINGS BANK FSB, M. v. UNITED STATES,, 67 Fed. Cl. 231 (Fed. Cl. 2005)

. . . Professor Calomiris reasoned that since the average yield on “B” rated debt was 11.62%, his estimated . . .

TAYLOR, v. DELATOORE, Lt. Dr., 281 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2002)

. . . indicated an April starting balance in excess of $6.62, it also showed a. negative closing balance of - $11.62 . . .

BIG O TIRES, INC. v. BIGFOOT INC., 167 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D. Colo. 2001)

. . . . §§ 11.62. Often the line between arbitrary and suggestive is difficult to distinguish. . . .

INNOVAD INC. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, LG U. S. A., 260 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

. . . claimed system, which can be separated and operated independently from the programming means (col. 5, 11.62 . . .

REEVES v. ROSE, d b a, 108 F. Supp. 2d 720 (E.D. Mich. 2000)

. . . See Schwemm, Housing Discrimination Law and Litigation (Clark Boardman) § 11.62, p. 11-111, n. 408.2. . . .

MAYTAG CORPORATION, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,, 88 F. Supp. 2d 894 (N.D. Ill. 2000)

. . . .. to form an extension of the front and back walls ...,” as described in the specification (col.5, 11.62 . . .

KING OF THE MOUNTAIN SPORTS, INC. a v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a LLC, a a a, 185 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 11.62. . . .

NYLEN, v. STATE, 707 So. 2d 409 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . judgment erroneously requires payment of $232.38 pursuant to section 775.083, plus a surcharge of $11.62 . . .

D. MELVIN, D. II, v. K. PATTERSON, 965 F. Supp. 1212 (S.D. Ind. 1997)

. . . See Indiana Pattern Jury Instructions § 11.62 (Michie 1994). . . .

In GREENWOOD AIR CRASH, 161 F.R.D. 387 (S.D. Ind. 1995)

. . . . § 34-1-1-2, and the Indiana Pattern Jury Instructions, § 11.62, which state that the measure of wrongful . . .

R. ANDERSON, v. HCA DEER PARK HOSPITAL,, 834 F. Supp. 183 (S.D. Tex. 1993)

. . . per week on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift with a combined shift differential and base rate of $11.62 . . .

DALE R. HORNING CO. INC. d b a Co. v. FALCONER GLASS INDUSTRIES, INC., 730 F. Supp. 962 (S.D. Ind. 1990)

. . . The Court finds the average of $11.62 per hour to be an appropriate figure for damages here. . . .

STATE OF OHIO, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Jr. Co. ASARCO NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Co. ASARCO STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Jr. ASARCO, Co. STATE OF COLORADO, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Jr. Co. ASARCO STATE OF NEW YORK, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Jr. Co. ASARCO, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Jr. Co. ASARCO PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, K. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Jr. Co. ASARCO CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Jr. ASARCO PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC GAS COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Jr. ASARCO NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Jr. STATE OF NEW YORK, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Jr., 880 F.2d 432 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 11.62(b)(ii), (iii) (establishing that standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f . . . is practical to perform and has been “adequately documented in scientific literature.” 43 C.F.R. § 11.62 . . . control area” — i.e., an unpolluted area that is otherwise similar to the polluted area. 43 C.F.R. § 11.62 . . . Id. § 11.62(f)(1). . . . See 43 C.F.R. § 11.62(f)(4). . . .

J. A. CROSON COMPANY, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, J. A. CROSON COMPANY, v. CITY OF RICHMOND,, 779 F.2d 181 (4th Cir. 1985)

. . . performance bonds, and payment bonds, for example, are authorized by Ya.Code §§ 11.57, 11.58, 11.61 and 11.62 . . .

PETERS, v. UNITED STATES,, 694 F.2d 687 (Fed. Cir. 1982)

. . . increased the rates for the Douglas fir by $11.18 to $49.18 per MBF and for the PAM material by $11.05 to $11.62 . . . The modification agreement, which sets the new higher rates of $49.18 per MBF for Douglas fir and $11.62 . . .

PETERS, v. UNITED STATES,, 694 F.2d 687 (Fed. Cir. 1982)

TENNESSEE- CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 582 F.2d 378 (6th Cir. 1978)

. . . Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders ¶] 11.62, p. 11-52 and H 11.65, p. . . .

CHAPMAN v. MEIER,, 407 F. Supp. 649 (D.N.D. 1975)

. . . In fact, however, District 11 still had a population of 10,728 and so was overrepresented by 11.62%, . . . 11,840 +2.46 298 7 12,956 -6.74 818 8 11.251 +7.31 887 9 11,549 +4.85 589 10 12,858 -5.93 720 11 10,728 +11.62 . . .

B. M. D. M. v. M. v., 63 T.C. 663 (T.C. 1975)

. . . (1972); Bittker & Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders (3d ed.), secs. 11.62 . . .

SCRANTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. LITTON INDUSTRIES LEASING CORPORATION, 494 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . But the next day Litton handed the competitor a slip of paper on which was written “$11.62.” . . . Finally, the “divulging” to plaintiffs’ competitor by Litton of the spurious bid of $11.62 was plainly . . .

SAMINCORP, v. S. S. RIVADELUNA,, 276 F. Supp. 251 (D. Del. 1967)

. . . Corporation made an offer, subject to several undesirable contingencies, which would in effect have netted $11.62 . . .

a v., 31 T.C. 971 (T.C. 1959)

. . . The area occupied by the Olympic Hotel Sublease constituted 11.62 per cent of the total land area covered . . .

v., 31 T.C. 623 (T.C. 1958)

. . . Constructed profits for each of the years were computed by multiplying constructed sales by a profit ratio of 11.62 . . . The profit ratio of 11.62 per cent used by petitioner in its reconstruction was computed from sales and . . . In view of such a persistent loss history, it is impossible to justify a profit ratio of 11.62 per cent . . .

AMERICAN- HAWAIIAN STEAMSHIP CO. v. UNITED STATES, 133 F. Supp. 369 (Ct. Cl. 1955)

AMERICAN- HAWAIIAN STEAMSHIP CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 132 Ct. Cl. 246 (Ct. Cl. 1955)

. . . with a deadweight capacity of about 8,000 tons and an average speed of 10 knots sold at a price of $11.62 . . . So that, prices rose in a year and a half after the outbreak of the war in Europe from $11.62 a deadweight . . . In August 1939, one Hog Island freighter was sold at a price of $11.62 per deadweight ton, but in January . . .

UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK GREAT ATLANTIC PACIFIC TEA CO., 67 F. Supp. 626 (E.D. Ill. 1946)

. . . Acco handled in 1938, 8.41% of the total national movement of fresh fruits and produce; in 1940 11.62% . . .

RYERSON v. MORRIS E. R. CO., 61 F. Supp. 1 (D.N.J. 1945)

. . . The premises in dispute (11.62 acres) were not mentioned in the bill filed to foreclose this mortgage . . . The parties further stipulate and agree that the locus in quo, a tract of 11.62 acres, was, so far as . . . described as “the surviving children and heirs-at-law of Philip Smith, deceased”, conveyed a tract of 11.62 . . . Sunderland by this same description conveyed this 11.62 acre tract to the Morris and Essex Railroad Company . . . The property involved consists of a rectangular tract containing 11.62 acres of land situate in the Town . . . Earle, as Guardian, to Philip Smith, conveying five parcels of land, one of which parcels is the 11.62 . . .

P. v. A., 132 Fla. 56 (Fla. 1938)

. . . The County Judge allowed recovery of only $11.62 and based his judgment on the defendant’s contention . . .

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 58 Ct. Cl. 33 (Ct. Cl. 1923)

. . . Of this amount $88.08 was on account of travel of guards with prisoners; $11.62 was on account of travel . . .

MATHIESON v. CRAVEN, 228 F. 345 (D. Del. 1915)

. . . .$11.34 Int. from May 18 to Oct 18...28 11.62 Costs .25 $11.37 “I have written to your sister at 2740 . . .