The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 15
SECRETARY OF STATE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 15.03

15.03 State seal.—

(1) The great seal of the state shall be of the size of the American silver dollar, having in the center thereof a view of the sun’s rays over a highland in the distance, a sabal palmetto palm tree, a steamboat on water, and an Indian female scattering flowers in the foreground, encircled by the words “Great Seal of the State of Florida: In God We Trust.”

(2)(a) The Department of State shall be the custodian of the great seal of the state.

(b) The great seal of this state shall also be the seal of the Department of State, and the department may certify under said seal, copies of any statute, law, resolution, record, paper, letter or document, by law placed in its custody, keeping and care, and such certified copy shall have the same force and effect in evidence, as the original would have.

(3) Only the Department of State shall be authorized to affix the seal to any document for the purpose of attesting, certifying, or otherwise formalizing such document. Any facsimile or reproduction of the great seal shall be manufactured, used, displayed, or otherwise employed by anyone only upon the approval of the Department of State. The Department of State may grant a certificate of approval upon application to it by any person showing good cause for the use of the seal for a proper purpose. The Department of State may adopt reasonable rules for the manufacture or use of the great seal or any facsimile or reproduction thereof. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.—s. 4, ch. 1, 1845; RS 75; GS 76; RGS 90; CGL 112; s. 1, ch. 29841, 1955; s. 1, ch. 65-209; ss. 10, 35, ch. 69-106; (2)(a) former s. 21, Art. IV of the State Constitution of 1885, as amended; converted to statutory law by s. 10, Art. XII of the State Constitution as revised in 1968; s. 1, ch. 70-300; s. 11, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 80-59.

F.S. 15.03 on Google Scholar

F.S. 15.03 on Casetext

Amendments to 15.03

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 15.03

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

S15.03 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9035 - M: S

S15.03 3 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - STATE SEAL VIOLATION - M: S

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

PUEBLO OF JEMEZ, a v. UNITED STATES, 350 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (D.N.M. 2018)

. . . See Cohen's Handbook, supra note 8, § 15.03 at 997-99. . . . See Cohen's Handbook, supra note 8, § 15.03 at 997-999. . . .

OSORIO, v. MINNEAPOLIS HOTEL ACQUISITION GROUP, LLC a a LLC,, 335 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (D. Minn. 2018)

. . . StepStone argues that whether the amended complaint relates back should be decided under Rule 15.03 of . . .

HIAM, v. HOMEAWAY. COM, INC., 887 F.3d 542 (1st Cir. 2018)

. . . Code Regs. 15.02 & 15.03. . . . Regs. 15.03. . . .

HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC. v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,, 307 F. Supp. 3d 433 (E.D. Va. 2018)

. . . See Keasbey, 60 A.D.3d at 144, 871 N.Y.S.2d 48 ; see also 2 Dunham, supra, § 15.03 ("Because the policyholder . . . diagnosable or compensable in order to constitute 'bodily injury' triggering coverage[.]" 2 Dunham, supra, § 15.03 . . .

IN RE SMITH, v. LLC,, 575 B.R. 869 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2017)

. . . Kelley, Ginsberg & Martin on Bankruptcy § 15.03[G]; Shelton v. Citimortgage, Inc. . . .

HIAM v. HOMEAWAY. COM, INC., 267 F. Supp. 3d 338 (D. Mass. 2017)

. . . Second, this Court concludes that the Guarantee is not materially misleading under section 15.03(2). . . . Code Regs. 15.03(2). . . .

IN RE L. KITZEROW,, 573 B.R. 766 (Bank. W.D. Wis. 2017)

. . . Kelly, Ginsberg & Martin on Bankruptcy § 15.03[G]; see also Shelton v. Citi-mortgage, Inc. . . .

UPSTATE CITIZENS FOR EQUALITY, INC. T. v. UNITED STATES M. R. U. S. L. U. S. J., 839 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2016)

. . . (limiting state criminal jurisdiction over reservation land); see also Cohen, Handbook §§ 5.02[4], 15.03 . . .

UPSTATE CITIZENS FOR EQUALITY, INC. T. v. UNITED STATES M. R. U. S. L. U. S. J., 841 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2016)

. . . (limiting state criminal jurisdiction over reservation land); see also Cohen, Handbook §§ 5.02[4], 15.03 . . .

LINCOLN RD SB, LLC, v. DAXAN FL LLC,, 180 So. 3d 134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Another provision, section 15.03, authorizes the board of directors of the Association to designate one . . .

CITIZENS AGAINST CASINO GAMBLING IN ERIE COUNTY, Co- D. G. J. D. F. C. E. C. A. H. Sr. v. CHAUDHURI,, 802 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 465; Cohen’s Handbook § 15.03; see also City of Sherrill v. . . . See 25 U.S.C. §§ 465, 1774f(c); Cohen’s Handbook § 15.03, 15.07[1]. . . . See Cohen’s Handbook § 15.03. . . .

CITIZENS AGAINST CASINO GAMBLING IN ERIE COUNTY, Co- D. G. J. D. F. C. E. C. A. H. Sr. v. CHAUDHURI,, 802 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 465; Cohen’s Handbook § 15.03; see also City of Sherrill v. . . . See Cohen’s Handbook § 15.03. . . .

In FIELDING,, 522 B.R. 888 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Heitkamp (In re Foster), 670 F.2d 478, 486 (5th Cir. 1982). . 11 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 15.03[l][a] . . .

K. McKENNA, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA R. s s,, 593 F. App'x 119 (3d Cir. 2014)

. . . evidence, which McKenna did not meaningfully challenge, that Philadelphia Civil Service Regulation 15.03 . . . McKenna has not meaningfully challenged the defendants’ assertion that Regulation 15.03 bars his reinstatement . . . the defendants carried this burden: they presented undisputed evidence that Civil Service Regulation 15.03 . . . First, he argues that Regulation 15.03, “a lowly municipal regulation^] cannot trump a federal or state . . . Moreover, the defendants presented evidence, which McKenna has not rebutted, that Regulation 15.03 prohibited . . .

GILBERT, v. R. DONAHOE,, 751 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . Section 15.03(C), in turn, states: The failure of the aggrieved party or the Union to present the grievance . . . It reasoned that Section 15.02, when combined with Section 15.03(C), required that employees submit claims . . .

IN RE CERRATO v. BAC f k a L. P. N. A., 504 B.R. 23 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . Real Prop. 15.03; Baccari v. De Santi, 70 A.D.2d 198, 201, 431 N.Y.S.2d 829 (N.Y.App.Div.1979). . . .

ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, v. VILLAGE OF HOBART, WISCONSIN, v., 732 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2013)

. . . Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 15.03, p. 997 and n.l (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2012). . . .

ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, v. VILLAGE OF HOBART, WISCONSIN, v., 732 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2013)

. . . Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 15.03, p. 997 and n.1 (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2012). . . .

R. v. C. v., 141 T.C. 173 (T.C. 2013)

. . . Cavanagh, Litigation of Federal Civil Tax Controversies, para. 15.03[2], at 15-13 (2d ed. 2010), available . . .

In J. CECIL,, 488 B.R. 200 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . Martin, et al„ Ginsberg & Martin on Bankruptcy § 15.03[D] (2013); 9 Am.Jur. 2d Bankruptcy § 565. . . . .

In J. ASHER, v., 488 B.R. 58 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Real Prop. 15.03; Baccari v. De Santi, 70 A.D.2d 198, 201, 431 N.Y.S.2d 829 (2d Dep’t 1979). . . .

WEINBERG v. GRAND CIRCLE TRAVEL, LCC d b a, 891 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D. Mass. 2012)

. . . prohibits sellers of travel services from engaging in deceptive or misleading business practices, id. 15.03 . . .

In WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC., 461 B.R. 200 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011)

. . . (WMI NG 1 at § 15.2; WMI NG 2 at § 15.2; WMI NG 4 at § 15.03; WMI NG 6 at § 12.2(b); WMI NG 7 at § 6.1 . . . See also, WMI NG 2 at § 15.2; WMI NG 4 at § 15.03; WMI NG 6 at § 12.2(b).) . . .

HARRELL S, LLC, a LLC, a v. AGRIUM ADVANCED U. S. TECHNOLOGIES, INC. a, 795 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . : Section 15.03 Impasse Resolution. . . . (Doc. # 10-4 at 22, § 15.03). . . . Id. at § 15.03. . . . As such, Count VI falls within the ambit of Section 15.03’s arbitration and mediation procedure. E. . . . (Doc. # 10-4 at 22, § 15.03). . . . .

BRADFORD, v. BRACKEN COUNTY,, 767 F. Supp. 2d 740 (E.D. Ky. 2011)

. . . Plaintiffs cite CR 15.03 but look to federal case law interpreting federal Rule 15(c) for guidance because . . . “Kentucky has held that, the relevant part of CR 15.03 is identical to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . See Lawson 2010 WL 3909327, at *6 (because parties' briefs assumed CR 15.03, rather than federal Rule . . .

HARRIS, v. GARCIA,, 734 F. Supp. 2d 973 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . CALJIC 15.03 (emphasis added). . . . The use note accompanying CALJIC 15.03, the standard jury instruction for California's general forgery . . .

LEWALLEN, v. SCOTT COUNTY, TENNESSEE,, 724 F. Supp. 2d 893 (E.D. Tenn. 2010)

. . . Overtime Rate Overtime Unpaid No. of Days Estimate Compensation July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 $10.02 $15.03 . . .

MBO LABORATORIES, INC. v. BECTON, DICKINSON COMPANY,, 602 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 15.03[2][e][vi], at 15-107 to -108 (2004) (citing to no Federal Circuit opinions . . .

A. P. I. INC. A. P. I. v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, 706 F. Supp. 2d 926 (D. Minn. 2010)

. . . To the extent that Rule 15(c)(1)(A) applies, Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03 provides that an . . . P. 15.03. . . .

J. JOHNSON v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., 675 F. Supp. 2d 236 (D.N.H. 2009)

. . . . § 293-A:15.03(a)(5). . . .

CITY OF WESTFIELD, v. HARRIS ASSOCIATES PAINTING, INC., 567 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D. Mass. 2008)

. . . Laws ch. 156D, § 15.03 (formerly Mass. Gen. . . . Significantly, section 15.03 is incorporated by reference into section 39L as the basis for its filing . . . The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has. indicated that section 15.03 was enacted to ensure . . . However, given that section 39L simply incorporates section 15.03 by reference rather than establishing . . . The current version of section 39L corrects this error, referring to chapter 156D, sections 15.03 and . . .

DeLONG v. ARMS,, 251 F.R.D. 253 (E.D. Ky. 2008)

. . . Although the Delongs cite Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03 as the appropriate rule governing relation . . .

ZAYAS v. BACARDI CORPORATION,, 524 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2008)

. . . See 1 Bornstein, supra § 15.03; Schoonhoven, supra § 13, at 373. . . .

WILLIAMS, v. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM, INC., 526 F. Supp. 2d 830 (M.D. Tenn. 2007)

. . . related back” to the filing of the original Complaint pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03 . . . distress, related back to [Plaintiffs] timely claim of a Tennessee Human Rights Act violation under Rule 15.03 . . . P. 15.03, which provides as follows: Relation Back of Amendments.— Whenever the claim or defense asserted . . . P. 15.03, which applies to “amended pleadings” cannot possibly have any application to Plaintiffs filing . . . P. 15.03 is completely frivolous. . . .

T. SMITH, v. NATIONWIDE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 505 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2007)

. . . The relation back doctrine, codified at Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03, provides that an amended . . .

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

. . . Commonwealth without delivering to the Secretary of State for filing the certificate required by section 15.03 . . .

E. ON AG, E. ON Zw BKB AG, v. ACCIONA, S. A. S. A., 468 F. Supp. 2d 559 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . are held by U.S. investors, although it admits that Endesa's website reports that as of April 2005, 15.03% . . .

In BARKER a. k. a. J. v. MHC, 358 B.R. 399 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2007)

. . . Id., ¶ 15.03[1] at 15-22. . K.S.A. § 8-135d(a) (Supp.2004). . Id. . . .

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

. . . The five highest-paid baggers in Department 911 earned, per hour, $16.69, $15.03, $14.35, $13,70, and . . .

ROTHGERY, v. GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS,, 413 F. Supp. 2d 806 (W.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . Ann. arts. 15.03(a) 2, 15.04, 15.05. In this sense, it does not refer to a criminal pleading. . . .

CARHART, M. D. G. M. D. H. M. D. L. M. D. v. GONZALES, S. I., 413 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . (quoting 2 Kenneth Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.03, at 353 (1958)). . . .

COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY v. SWISS REINSURANCE AMERICA CORPORATION,, 413 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2005)

. . . ” (here, Commercial Union) bears under a specific policy or policies. 2 Ostrager & Newman, supra, § 15.03 . . .

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, v. AMERICAN RE- INSURANCE CO., 351 F. Supp. 2d 201 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Coverage Disputes § 15.03[a] (12th ed.2004). . . . .

YMERI v. ASHCROFT,, 387 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2004)

. . . See 2 Charles Gordon, et al., Immigration Laiv & Procedure §§ 15.02[3], 15.03 (2004). . . .

M. v., 123 T.C. 85 (T.C. 2004)

. . . See Saltzman, IRS Practice and Procedure, par. 15.03[4][b], at 15-82 n.200 (rev. 2d ed. 2002). . . .

BARNES, a a v. MADISON M J P, 79 F. App'x 691 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . Ann. arts. 2.09, 2.10, 6.02, 7.01, 15.03 (Vernon 1977 & Supp.2003). . . .

J. OROS, v. HULL ASSOCIATES,, 217 F.R.D. 401 (N.D. Ohio 2003)

. . . P., Rule 15.03. . There is a Circuit Court split on the scope of Rule 15(c)(1). . . .

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS LOAN ASSOCIATION E. Jr. J. J. III, E. Sr. W. B. v. UNITED STATES, 57 Fed. Cl. 598 (Fed. Cl. 2003)

. . . Under this theory, the damages claimed are $15.03 million for Mr. Doumani and Mrs. . . .

PRESTA OIL, INC. v. VAN WATERS ROGERS CORPORATION,, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Kan. 2003)

. . . See Clark and Clark, supra, at ¶ 15.03[2]. . . .

STRAUS, J. W. J. v. PRUDENTIAL EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN,, 253 F. Supp. 2d 438 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . . § 15.03. B. . . . On the contrary, the Plan explicitly states in § 15.03 that “[t]he Administrative Committee may decline . . . Plan Document § 15.03. . . .

In UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE COMPANY, v. F. WALTON, F., 315 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2003)

. . . See 1 Drexler, supra, § 15.03, at 15-6. . . . affairs with the appropriate level of skill (i.e., breach the “duty of care”). 1 Drexler, supra, § 15.03 . . .

In UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE COMPANY, v. F. WALTON, F,, 315 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2003)

. . . See 1 Drexler, supra, § 15.03, at 15-6. . . . affairs with the appropriate level of skill (i.e., breach the “duty of care”). 1 Drexler, supra, § 15.03 . . .

UNITED STATES J. AVERBACK, M. D. v. PASTOR MEDICAL ASSOCIATES P. C. M. M. D. M. M. D. Co., 224 F. Supp. 2d 342 (D. Mass. 2002)

. . . Wolf, Court Awarded Attorneys Fees ¶ 15.03 (1998 & Supp.2000). . . .

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,, 210 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Assurance Corp., 85 A.D.2d 880, 446 N.Y.S.2d 743, 745 (4th Dep’t 1981); OsTRAger & Newman § 15.03[b]. . . .

PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SAV- A- LOT OF WINCHESTER a- d b a a-, 291 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . Under Rule 15.03(2) of the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure the amendment could not relate back unless . . . Notwithstanding the plain language of Kentucky Civil Rule 15.03(2), the Kentucky circuit court repeatedly . . . Rule 15.03(2) of the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure still provides that an amendment changing the . . . Identical language is found in Rule 15.03 of the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. . . . the mail on the last day of the limitations period was held to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 15.03 . . .

PICARD, v. MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT BOARD OF PROVIDENCE, A. Jr. T., 275 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 2001)

. . . ; Providence City Council, 650 A.2d at 501; cf. 5 Eugene McQuillan, Law of Municipal Corporations § 15.03 . . .

SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, INC. Me R. v. LOISELLE,, 154 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D. Mass. 2001)

. . . Wolf, Court Awarded Attorney Fees ¶ 15.03 (1998 & Supp.2000). . . .

In STORM TECHNOLOGY, INC., 260 B.R. 152 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2001)

. . . See 2 Milgrim on Licensing §§ 15.00, 15.03, 15.04. . . . Id. at § 15.03. Logitech had no enforceable license in the patents as of the petition date. . . .

LZT FILLIUNG PARTNERSHIP, LLP, v. CODY BRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC., 117 F. Supp. 2d 745 (N.D. Ill. 2000)

. . . United States Development Corp., 625 F.Supp. 293, 297 (N.D.Ill.1985)(quoting 1 Nimmer, § 15.03[B][2][ . . .

COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SEVEN PROVINCES INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., 217 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 15.03[a], at 780-81. . . . .

T. QUALLEY, v. CLO- TEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. T. Sr., 212 F.3d 1123 (8th Cir. 2000)

. . . (quoting 2 Kenneth Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.03 at 353 (1958)). . . . Gould, 536 F.2d at 220 (quoting 2 Kenneth Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.03 (1958)). . . .

S. DAVIS, v. G. LEHANE,, 89 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Mass. 2000)

. . . O’Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions: Civil and Criminal § 15.03 (5th ed.2000). . . .

SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ARTS INCORPORATED, v. AVESTA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 87 F. Supp. 2d 258 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . Upchurch, Intellectual Property Litigation Guide § 15.03[3][c] (1999); see Lockioood v. . . .

IBJ SCHRODER BANK TRUST COMPANY, v. FAIRFIELD COMMUNITIES, INC. St. B. Co. Co., 178 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 1999)

. . . Maturity Date after application of the funds in the Accounts in accordance with Sections 15.02 and 15.03 . . . I & 15.03. . . .

NELSON, J. v. HAWKINS, 45 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (D. Mont. 1999)

. . . See, MPI 15.03. . See, MPI 25.20; 25.22. . See, MPI 25.01. . . .

In INDEPENDENT SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. To CSU, L. L. C. v. D. No. EEO, 23 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (D. Kan. 1998)

. . . CSU’s unlicensed 5090 revenue comprised 11.36% of CSU’s total revenue in FY 1995, 15.03% of CSU’s total . . .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAYMOND ISAAC, a k a ROCKY RAYMOND ISAAC,, 39 V.I. 470 (3d Cir. 1998)

. . . Specifically, Isaac moved to include in the jury charge sections 15.03 (immunized witness testimony) . . .

UNITED STATES v. ISAAC, a k a, 134 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 1998)

. . . Specifically, Isaac moved to include in the jury charge sections 15.03 (immunized witness testimony) . . .

WEISBUCH, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a C. B. D. D., 119 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 1997)

. . . Under Rule 15.03(A), some employees, in carefully designated classes, are entitled to hold onto the “ . . . rank” proviso of Rule 15.03(A) employees: 15.03 Change of classification. . . . Civil Service Rule 15.03 (emphasis added). Dr. . . . Weisbuch concedes that he was a Rule 15.03(B), not a 15.03(A), employee. Under Rule 15.03(B), Dr. . . . Unlike employees covered by Rule 15.03(A), he was not entitled to retain his “rank.” . . .

RAINEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, v. MEMPHIS AND SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,, 967 F. Supp. 998 (W.D. Tenn. 1997)

. . . P. 15.03 and were, therefore, barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. . . . P. 15.03 deprived it of a hearing on the merits of its federal claims and, therefore, violated due process . . . P. 15.03 and were, therefore, barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. . . . P. 15.03 and were, therefore, barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. . . . P. 15.03, only those claims that relate back to the original pleadings are saved from the effects of . . .

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY,, 924 F. Supp. 704 (E.D. Va. 1996)

. . . is properly considered to be a tenant at sufferance, for as the Use Agreement itself provides in § 15.03 . . .

J. GALLO, v. AMOCO CORPORATION,, 910 F. Supp. 396 (N.D. Ill. 1995)

. . . As P.Mem. 6 concedes, Plan § 15.03 vests the Plan Administrator (here Amoco) with such discretion: The . . .

L. SPINK, v. LOCKHEED CORPORATION M. A. N. K. H. L. R. W. P. N. D. L. R. H. W. E. A. G. W. T., 60 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1995)

. . . Plan § 15.03(B)(4). . . .

SONDEL v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., 56 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 1995)

. . . F.R.D. 143, 146 (S.D.Iowa 1981); see also 3 Herbert Newburg & Alba Conte, Newburg on Class Actions § 15.03 . . .

COMMITTEE FOR IDAHO S HIGH DESERT, v. A. YOST, s, 881 F. Supp. 1457 (D. Idaho 1995)

. . . 1015 (citation omitted); Surgicenters of America, 601 F.2d at 1018-19 (citation omitted); McCarthy, § 15.03 . . . McCarthy, § 15.03 at 15-20. . . .

W. FRANDSEN, v. WESTINGHOUSE CORPORATION,, 46 F.3d 975 (10th Cir. 1995)

. . . (discussing plaintiff's ability to bring suit); id. at § 15.03[3](e) (discussing indemnification and . . .

LaSOCIETE GENERALE IMMOBILIERE, a LSGI, a v. MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 44 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 1994)

. . . Section 15.03 of the Development Agreement provided that the City's right to terminate the contract was . . .

MAYWALT, J. DDS, v. PARKER PARSLEY PETROLEUM COMPANY, M. T. F. III, J. S. M. M. D. C. M. D. J. A., 155 F.R.D. 494 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 15.03, 15-9 (3d ed. 1992). . . . .

SUTKIEWICZ, SUTKIEWICZ, v. CARLSON,, 850 F. Supp. 579 (E.D. Mich. 1994)

. . . SJI2d 15.03 provides: There may be more than one proximate cause. . . .

PEOPLE WHO CARE, a E. a a a a v. ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT, 851 F. Supp. 905 (N.D. Ill. 1994)

. . . 49.39% African-American), Welsh (19% African-American), Summerdale (28% African-American), West View (15.03% . . .

JOHN HANCOCK PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. UNIVERSALE REINSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., 147 F.R.D. 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)

. . . . § 15.03[a] (citations omitted). . . . .

In R. AMOS, K. S., 953 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1991)

. . . Chisum Patents § 15.03[3] n. 15 (1991). . . .

CRANFILL, v. SCOTT FETZER COMPANY,, 773 F. Supp. 943 (E.D. Tex. 1991)

. . . second amended original complaint recites prohibited conduct set forth in former Section 15.02 and 15.03 . . . ... in order to preclude free competition between or among themselves or others____ Former Section 15.03 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ACRES OF LAND,, 931 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1991)

. . . See also United States v. 15.03 Acres of Land, etc., 253 F.2d 698 (2d Cir.1958) (when government secured . . .

UNITED STATES, v. M. CHURCH, U. S., 32 M.J. 70 (C.M.A. 1991)

. . . .-. 32(a) and 15.03(d), Vernon’s Code of Texas Annotated, Penal Code. . . .

V. MORALES, v. PAN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., 914 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1990)

. . . . § 411(d)(3) (West 1988) which would entitle them to benefits under Section 15.03 of the PALIC Plan. . . .

In DAVIDSON REHAB ASSOCIATES, a DAVIDSON REHAB ASSOCIATES, a v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, D. W., 103 B.R. 440 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . the sale cuts off any such right.” 7 B.É. at 108 (citing 2A Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property § 15.03 . . .

MOYSI, v. TRUSTCORP, INC. SIEGENTHALER, v. TRUSTCORP, INC. HAND, Jr. v. TRUSTCORP, INC., 725 F. Supp. 336 (N.D. Ohio 1989)

. . . Rule 15.03. Non-resident Defendant. . . . properly be deemed to be a principal place of business, the action shall be filed in accordance with Rule 15.03 . . . for damages to property, personal injuries or wrongful deaths shall be filed in accordance with Rule 15.03 . . .

THE HEMISPHERES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. LEVIN,, 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 1 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . does not discriminate against the owners of boats as a class, nor does it violate Article XV, Section 15.03 . . .

In ASBESTOS LITIGATION. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. No. In ASBESTOS LITIGATION. DANFIELD, v. JOHNS- MANVILLE SALES CORP. OWENS- ILLINOIS, INC. No. In ASBESTOS LITIGATION. W. GREGORY F. F. Ad W. F. a F. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, No., 829 F.2d 1233 (3d Cir. 1987)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.03, at 353 (1958) (quoted in Gould, 536 F.2d at 219). . . .

In ANNIS ANNIS v. FIRST STATE BANK OF JOPLIN A., 78 B.R. 962 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1987)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law section 15.03 ." . . .

POUNDS PHOTOGRAPHIC LABS, INC. v. NORITSU AMERICA CORP. In- A-, 818 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1987)

. . . . §§ 15.02 and 15.03 (Vernon 1968), as they existed before they were amended on August 29, 1983, to provide . . . Tex.Bus. & Comm.Code Ann. § 15.03(a)(1). . . .

K. JOHNSEN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 794 F.2d 1157 (6th Cir. 1986)

. . . Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders ¶ 15.03 (4th ed. 1979). . . .

THWAITES PLACE ASSOCIATES, v. SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,, 638 F. Supp. 301 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

. . . See also 2A Warren’s Weed — New York Real Property § 15.03 (1980). . . .

In W. WEILER L., 790 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986)

. . . Chisum, Patents, § 15.03[3] at 15-53 (1985); I. Kay-ton, Kayton on Patents, § 22-64 (1985). . . . Chisum, Patents, § 15.03[3] at 15-53 (1985). . . .

KNIGHT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 16 Fla. Supp. 2d 121 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1986)

. . . Section 15.03. . . . Section 15.03(2). . . . Section 15.03(3). Defendant had nothing to drink after 1:00 a.m. . . .

B. BRISTOW, v. DAILY PRESS, INC. B. BRISTOW, v. DAILY PRESS, INC., 770 F.2d 1251 (4th Cir. 1985)

. . . 30, Van Burén notified Bristow that his retirement benefits would be supplemented by an additional $15.03 . . .

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, v. McKAY,, 769 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1985)

. . . establish that the bill was not lawfully enacted.” 1 Sutherland on Statutory Construction, supra, § 15.03 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CENTRAL STATE BANK C., 621 F. Supp. 1276 (W.D. Mich. 1985)

. . . Traverse County, the banks in Grand Traverse County hold $13,068,368.00 in Benzie residents’ accounts (or 15.03% . . .

E. BROCK, v. FORBES,, 612 F. Supp. 1556 (D. Vt. 1985)

. . . Marlar 416.62 Brenda Jean Matthews 107.38 Beverly Maynard 677.33 Susan McCart 21.48 Judith McCullough 15.03 . . .