The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 15
SECRETARY OF STATE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 15.08

15.08 Not to issue commission until tax therefor is paid.—The Secretary of State is prohibited from affixing her or his signature and the seal of the state to the commission of any public officer until such officer has paid the amount of the tax, if any, required to be paid by said officer for the commission.

History.—s. 1, ch. 1936, 1873; RS 79; GS 80; RGS 95; CGL 117; s. 5, ch. 28086, 1953; s. 3, ch. 81-260; s. 42, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 15.08 on Google Scholar

F.S. 15.08 on Casetext

Amendments to 15.08

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 15.08

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 15.08.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

UNITED STATES v. NAWANNA,, 321 F. Supp. 3d 943 (N.D. Iowa 2018)

. . . cocaine offenders (33.86%); 166 of 1,526 crack cocaine offenders (10.88%); 396 of 2,626 heroin offenders (15.08% . . .

HAMILTON, P. v. PARTNERS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. s s s s NSMC J. MD D., 879 F.3d 407 (1st Cir. 2018)

. . . Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (citing 3 Moore, Federal Practice §§ 15.08 . . .

D AGOSTINO, v. INC. J., 845 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016)

. . . Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], . . .

MINDEN PICTURES, INC. v. JOHN WILEY SONS, INC., 795 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . Milgram, Milgram on Licensing § 15.08. . . .

R. TRUNZO v. CITI MORTGAGE,, 43 F. Supp. 3d 517 (W.D. Pa. 2014)

. . . Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir.1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], . . . (citing 3 Moore’s at ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81). In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. . . .

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN, INC. M. D. M. D. s d b a v. J. B. VAN HOLLEN, Jo D. O. A. M. D. K. M. D. M. D. B. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. W. M. D. M. D., 23 F. Supp. 3d 956 (W.D. Wis. 2014)

. . . . § 15.08 (“All members of examining boards shall be residents of this state and shall, unless otherwise . . .

IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. v. FPL, 512 B.R. 447 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . Shaked applied a discount rate of 15.08%, which he estimated to be Adelp-hia’s WACC. . . .

HERNANDEZ I. C. H. a v. COLEGIO Y NOVICIADO SANTA MARIA DEL CAMINO, INC. d b a E. S. L. a MAPFRE ABC, 296 F.R.D. 60 (D.P.R. 2013)

. . . Computer-vision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir.1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice P 15.08[4], . . .

CONTE, v. JAKKS PACIFIC, INC. a, 981 F. Supp. 2d 895 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed. 1974) (stating that the proper test to be applied . . .

KTK MINING OF VIRGINIA, LLC, v. CITY OF SELMA, ALABAMA,, 984 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Ala. 2013)

. . . McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, (3rd Ed. 1968)s 15.08. . . .

JONES, v. FMA ALLIANCE LTD., 978 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D. Mass. 2013)

. . . Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir.1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], . . . Glassman, 90 F.3d at 623 (citing 3 Moore's ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81). . Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 71. . . . .

TOMMY LEE HANDBAGS MANUFACTURING LTD. v. CORPORATION, Co. USA, LLC, USA,, 971 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[7] (2d ed. 1993)). . . . .

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, INC. v. INSTRON, INC. Co. MTS, 925 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D. Mass. 2013)

. . . (citing 3 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81 (2d ed.1993)). . . . .

SONOMA COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES, v. SONOMA COUNTY,, 708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir.1981) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.08(4) at 15-102). . . .

LACEY LLC, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, a I- X I- X I- V I- V, LLC, v. M. I- X I- X I- V I- V s a, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . on other grounds, 444 U.S. 959, 100 S.Ct. 442, 62 L.Ed.2d 371 (1979); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .

C. MURPHY v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP,, 813 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . Doe, 566 F.2d at 720 (quoting Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.08 at 897-900). . . .

RUDER, v. PEQUEA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 790 F. Supp. 2d 377 (E.D. Pa. 2011)

. . . Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir.1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], . . . (citing 3 Moore’s at ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81). . . .

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

. . . Defendants relates back to the filing of the original Complaint under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 15.08 . . .

ANDERSON, v. YOUNG TOUCHSTONE COMPANY,, 735 F. Supp. 2d 831 (W.D. Tenn. 2010)

. . . U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) citing 3 James William Moore, Federal Practice §§ 15.08 . . .

C. PITTMAN, Jr. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 695 F. Supp. 2d 866 (N.D. Ind. 2010)

. . . Pittman now earns approximately $15.08 an hour due to merit-based pay raises as a Tech II, but he filed . . .

CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. HORIZON LINES, INC., 686 F. Supp. 2d 404 (D. Del. 2009)

. . . When Horizon downgraded its earnings forecast on April 25, 2008, its shares again tumbled from a $15.08 . . .

ADRIAN, v. MESIROW FINANCIAL STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS, LLC,, 647 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D.P.R. 2009)

. . . Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir.1996) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], . . .

BIVINGS, v. L. WAKEFIELD, 316 F. App'x 177 (3d Cir. 2009)

. . . See generally, 3 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed.1948), ¶¶ 15.08, 15.10. . . .

In MORTGAGE LENDERS NETWORK, USA, INC. USA, v., 395 B.R. 871 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008)

. . . Bethlehem Steel Corp., 730 F.2d 929, 938 (3d Cir.1984) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08(2) . . . Rich Housing, Inc., 663 F.2d 419, 425 (3d Cir.1981) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08(2) (2d . . .

FISCHER, v. FORESTWOOD COMPANY, INC. a, 525 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . (internal quotation marks omitted); 1-15 Larson on Employment Discrimination § 15.08 (2007) (“The mere . . . supports the inference that he was not forced to resign); 1-15 Larson on Employment Discrimination § 15.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ROSAS- PULIDO,, 526 F.3d 829 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . P. 2.01 ("Except as provided in Rules 11.06 and 15.08, it shall be made upon oath before a judge or judicial . . .

ZIEGLER, v. AUKERMAN W. A., 512 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2008)

. . . the other party is not prejudiced.’ ” Moore, 790 F.2d at 560 (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08 . . .

CECALA, v. B. NEWMAN P. C., 532 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2007)

. . . remedies for the period following termination of employment.” 1-15 Larson on Employment Discrimination § 15.08 . . .

ABM INDUSTRIES, INC. AMPCO v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PA, 237 F.R.D. 225 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice H 15.08[4] (2d ed.1974) (test to be applied when determining the legal . . .

UNITED STATES v. OLIVAS,, 149 F. App'x 551 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . The presentence report (PSR) attributed 15.08 kilograms of methamphetamine to Olivas and recommended . . .

SWACK, v. CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON,, 230 F.R.D. 250 (D. Mass. 2005)

. . . the three occasions on which the drop was significant (ie., net changes of - 13.74%, -39.12%, and -15.08% . . .

In H. LUBECKI,, 332 B.R. 256 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Lubecki may exempt $15.08 of interest, as calculated by multiplying accrued interest of $15.83 by a fraction . . . as to this sum, an additional $76.28 is exempt as wages earned within sixty days of bankruptcy, and $15.08 . . .

FRATERNITY FUND LTD. v. BEACON HILL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC,, 376 F. Supp. 2d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . and March 2001, 16.32 percent in March 2002, 24.46 percent in April 2002, 12.45 percent in May 2002, 15.08 . . .

FRATERNITY FUND LTD. v. BEACON HILL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC,, 376 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . and those based on Bear Stearns prices more than doubled between June and July 2002, increasing from 15.08 . . . March 2001, 16.32 percent in March 2002, 24.46 percent in April 2002, 12.45 percent in May 2002, and 15.08 . . .

UNITED STATES v. N. OHIRI,, 133 F. App'x 555 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . See generally, 3 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed.1948), ¶ 15.08, ¶ 15.10. . . .

W. H. NOE, d b a d b a d b a v. HENDERSON, In, 373 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Ark. 2005)

. . . 2004, Taggart was informed by the Commission that his operations were in violation of Codes 15.05, 15.08 . . . Code 15.08(C) requires that the exterior boundaries of a game bird shooting resort be clearly defined . . .

In BEULAH CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST JESUS, INC., 316 B.R. 41 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . prior to confirmation of the plan and which are merely preparatory steps.” 6A Collier on Bankruptcy 1( 15.08 . . .

In HECHINGER INVESTMENT COMPANY OF DELAWARE, INC. s v. A. s, 335 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2003)

. . . See 6A Collier on Bankruptcy Para. 15.08 at 837-40 (14th ed.1977). . . . serve to execute or malte effective a plan confirmed under Chapter X.” 6A Collier on Bankruptcy Para. 15.08 . . .

In HECHINGER INVESTMENT COMPANY OF DELAWARE, INC. s v. A. s, 335 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2003)

. . . See 6A Collier on Bankruptcy Para. 15.08 at 837-40 (14th ed.1977). . . . serve to execute or make effective a plan confirmed under Chapter X.” 6A Collier on Bankruptcy Para. 15.08 . . .

CINAGLIA, v. LEVIN,, 258 F. Supp. 2d 390 (D.N.J. 2003)

. . . strong liberality ... in allowing amendments under Rule 15(a)’ ”) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .

In WASHINGTON STATE APPLE ADVERTISING COMMISSION, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (E.D. Wash. 2003)

. . . (i) Washington agriculture general provisions, chapter 15.04 RCW; (ii) Pests and diseases, chapter 15.08 . . .

NEW MEXICO, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D.N.M. 2003)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[7] (2d ed. 1988) (“An amended pleading that is complete in itself . . .

In WASHINGTON STATE APPLE ADVERTISING COMMISSION, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (E.D. Wash. 2003)

. . . (i) Washington agriculture general provisions, chapter 15.04 RCW; (ii) Pests and diseases, chapter 15.08 . . .

LEVY, v. STERLING HOLDING COMPANY, LLC., 314 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 2002)

. . . Common Stock increase[d] from 48.03% to 52.18% and National Semiconductor’s increased from 14.80% to 15.08% . . .

SAES GETTERS S. p. A. v. AERONEX, INC. a a v. SAES S. p. A., 219 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (S.D. Cal. 2002)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed.1974). . . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed.1974). . . .

In LINC CAPITAL, INC., 280 B.R. 640 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002)

. . . In re Jacoby-Bender, Inc., 758 F.2d 840, 842 (2nd Cir.1985) (quoting 6A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 15.08 . . .

TORRENCE, v. PELKEY,, 164 F. Supp. 2d 264 (D. Conn. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08, 15-8081 (2d Ed.1996); Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct . . .

In WRAY, K. v., 258 B.R. 777 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2001)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed.1974) (proper test to be applied when determining the . . .

P. LASSER, v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 130 F. Supp. 2d 616 (D.N.J. 2001)

. . . Childress, Federal Standards of Review § 15.08 at 15-45 (3d ed., 1999), review is necessarily confined . . .

In SMITH, 123 F. Supp. 2d 351 (N.D. Tex. 2000)

. . . Disciplinary Profl Conduct 15.08, reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. tit. 2, subtit. G. app. . . . Rule 15.08 simply plays no role in our decision. . . . Rule 15.08: No attorney licensed to practice law in Texas may be disciplined for Professional Misconduct . . .

D. FORCIER, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,, 123 F. Supp. 2d 520 (N.D. Cal. 2000)

. . . Webb, supra, 655 F.2d at 980 (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.08(4) at 15-102). . . .

DEWS, Co. v. TOWN OF SUNNYVALE, TEXAS,, 109 F. Supp. 2d 526 (N.D. Tex. 2000)

. . . The population in homes less than $150,000 consists of 41,429 blacks, or 15.08%, and 202,453 whites, . . .

SHERLEIGH ASSOCIATES, LLC v. WINDMERE- DURABLE HOLDINGS, INC. M. D. LLC,, 178 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (S.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . amended “would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .

SOGHOMONIAN v. UNITED STATES LLC, DOES, 82 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (E.D. Cal. 1999)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed.1974)). . . .

K. DUGGINS, v. R. v. STEAK N SHAKE, INC., 195 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 1999)

. . . the other party is not prejudiced.’ ” Moore, 790 F.2d 557, 560 (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08 . . .

In CRYSEN MONTENAY ENERGY COMPANY, v., 240 B.R. 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . (citing 3 Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[8] (2d ed.1987) and 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice . . .

G. OLESON, v. KMART CORPORATION,, 185 F.R.D. 631 (D. Kan. 1999)

. . . See generally, 3 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed.1948), 15.08, 15.10. . . .

M. RHODES, v. OMEGA RESEARCH, INC. R. L., 38 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (N.D. Fla. 1999)

. . . amended “would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-80 (3d ed.1998); Glassman v. . . .

EQUUS ASSOCIATES LTD. v. THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, Jr., 37 F. Supp. 2d 582 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at . . .

S. BLASKIEWICZ, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK,, 29 F. Supp. 2d 134 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed.1992) (footnotes omitted)). . . .

M. STEWART v. ASSOCIATES CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY,, 183 F.R.D. 189 (E.D. Pa. 1998)

. . . Savings as well as her other debts, the loan was classified as a consumer loan with an interest rate of 15.08% . . .

In COMMERCIAL TISSUE PRODUCTS, 183 F.R.D. 589 (N.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice & Procedure ¶ 15.08[7] at 15-128 (1982)). . . .

POPULAR BANK OF FLORIDA, a v. BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO, N. A., 9 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . With over $15.08 billion in assets, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico is the largest bank in Puerto Rico, . . .

STODGHILL, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INT L UNION, LOCAL AFL- CIO,, 13 F. Supp. 2d 960 (E.D. Mo. 1998)

. . . That Brother Stodghill while President of Local 50 violated Article' XV, Section 15.01 and Section 15.08 . . .

MANELA, v. GARANTIA BANKING LIMITED, 5 F. Supp. 2d 165 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . 786, 64 S.Ct. 781, 88 L.Ed. 1077 (1944) (duty to speak arises from superior knowledge); 4 BROMBERG § 15.08 . . .

M. STEWART v. ASSOCIATES CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY,, 1 F. Supp. 2d 469 (E.D. Pa. 1998)

. . . closed with Discount on November 30, 1994, was classified as a consumer loan with an interest rate of 15.08% . . .

SOKOLSKI, v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION N. A., 178 F.R.D. 393 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at . . .

J. WILLIAMS v. T. VAUGHN, Mr., 3 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D. Pa. 1998)

. . . is not subject to review on appeal except for abuse of discretion ...” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice P 15.08 . . . Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice P 15.08 . . .

PERSEPTIVE BIOSYSTEMS, INC. v. PHARMACIA BIOTECH, INC., 12 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. Mass. 1998)

. . . Upchurch, Intellectual Property Litigation Guide: Patents and Trade Secrets § 15.08[1] n. 20 (1995) ( . . .

HARRISON, v. NBD INC., 990 F. Supp. 179 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶15.08[4], at- . . .

In BRUCE, a k a TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, v. BRUCE, a k a, 214 B.R. 938 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . alia, the following on a biweekly basis: —Gross income: $1,822.68 —Deductions “A lot”: $600.00 UN W: $15.08 . . .

BERMAN, v. PARCO,, 986 F. Supp. 195 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . .”); 3 Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (“The most common reasons for denying leave to amend . . .

In C. JAQUES, 972 F. Supp. 1070 (E.D. Tex. 1997)

. . . Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 15.08. “ ‘Complainant’ means the person, firm, corporation, or other . . . Rule 15.08 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure does not bar this finding because this court, . . . Specific Findings of Violations of Eastern District’s Local Rules are Barred Respondent argues that Rule 15.08 . . .

In BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY SECURITIES LITIGATION. P., 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)

. . . Glassman, 90 F.3d at 623 (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶15.08[4], at 15-80 (2d ed.1993)). . . . (citing 3 Moore’s at ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81). . . .

E. FREDIN v. SHARP, R B s E., 176 F.R.D. 304 (D. Minn. 1997)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81 (“If a proposed amendment is objected to on the ground of . . .

KEENEY J. v. KEMPER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANIES,, 960 F. Supp. 617 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at . . .

CONTINENTAL ORTHOPEDIC APPLIANCES, INC. A- J. C. Co. A v. HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN OF GREATER NEW YORK,, 956 F. Supp. 367 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at . . .

In PENNSYLVANIA FOOTWEAR CORPORATION, PENNSYLVANIA FOOTWEAR CORPORATION, P. v. MIDLANTIC BANK, N. A., 204 B.R. 165 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1997)

. . . MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE, ¶ 15.08(4), at 15-64 to 15-81 (2d ed. 1996). . . .

ARAMONY, v. UNITED WAY OF AMERICA,, 949 F. Supp. 1080 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] at 15-65 (2d ed. 1996) (citing, inter alia, Zenith Radio Corp . . .

In RILEY, RILEY, v. UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,, 202 B.R. 169 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . See James William Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08, pp. 15-69 et seq. (2d Ed.1995). . . .

I. GLASSMAN, v. COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION,, 90 F.3d 617 (1st Cir. 1996)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-80 (2d ed.1993); see also Vargas v. . . . court applies the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 3 Moore’s, ¶ 15.08 . . .

SCHAFFER, v. TIMBERLAND CO., 924 F. Supp. 1298 (D.N.H. 1996)

. . . Moore et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[2] (2d. ed. 1995) (noting, inter alia, that amended complaints . . .

CME GROUP, LTD. v. GRANT,, 916 F. Supp. 148 (D. Conn. 1996)

. . . sufficient claim or defense, as the case may be, leave should be denied.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .

BURNS, M. D. v. IMAGINE FILMS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. MCA,, 165 F.R.D. 381 (W.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . See also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[2] at p. 15-49. . . .

MAIN STREET ASSOCIATES, v. F. MANKO, a k a J. G. Jr., 897 F. Supp. 1507 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . Practice, ¶15.08[5] (1992)). 2. . . .

BANCAMERICA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION ASARCO v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC., 900 F. Supp. 1427 (D. Kan. 1995)

. . . $1,634.00 75.06% ■ $43.50 $32.65 $1,666.65 4/93 5/11/93 $1,711.00 $1,553.50 $0.00 $480.00 $1,073.50 62.74% $15.08 . . .

NATIONAL ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND, v. HEARY BROTHERS LIGHTNING PROTECTION COMPANY, INC. v. LOCAL INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,, 931 F. Supp. 169 (W.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)); see generally Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .

Co. v., 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 946 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1995)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] at 15-76 n.12 (2nd ed. 1995 & Supp. 1994-95) (summarizing . . .

D. L. LEE SONS, INC. v. ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS, MID- SOUTH, INC., 916 F. Supp. 1571 (S.D. Ga. 1995)

. . . Clark and Smith, The Law of Product Warranties, ¶ 15.08 (1986 Supp.). Id. at 1267. . . .

CHAPMAN, v. YMCA OF GREATER BUFFALO,, 161 F.R.D. 21 (W.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed. 1994); Foman v. . . .

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

. . . See, e.g., 2 McCarthy §15.08; 1 McCarthy §§11.24-11.25 (“[S]trong” marks, with greater secondary meaning . . .

In HARRY LEVIN, INC. t a s N. SCHWARTZ, v. J. KURSMAN, N. SCHWARTZ, v. JETRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC., 175 B.R. 560 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1994)

. . . Moore, 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed. 1994). . . .

M. YOONESSI, M. D. v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK,, 862 F. Supp. 1005 (W.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . . -, 112 S.Ct. 1561, 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (1992 ed.). . . .

LUNDY v. ADAMAR OF NEW JERSEY, INC. t a v. Dr. CARLINO, Dr. a, 34 F.3d 1173 (3d Cir. 1994)

. . . . ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-69 to -75 ("The most common reasons for denying leave to amend are- that the amendment . . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-76 (2d ed.1994) ("It should be emphasized, however, . . .

In JULIEN COMPANY, F. MARLOW, v. ROLLINS COTTON COMPANY, A DIVISION OF LOR, INC. v. BANKERS TRUST COMPANY L S, 168 B.R. 647 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1994)

. . . Lloyd ¶ 15.01[A][1], at 15.08. . . .

MOSCOWITZ, v. BROWN, NYC NYC, NYC, 850 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] at 15-64 (2d ed. 1987)). . . .

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, U. S. v. UNITED STATES,, 31 Fed. Cl. 151 (Fed. Cl. 1994)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 15.08, 0.835, is instructive of this point where the Court of Appeals . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. HUDSON,, 152 F.R.D. 6 (D. Conn. 1993)

. . . shown a strong liberality ... in allowing amendments under Rule 15(a).” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 . . .

GOULD, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 29 Fed. Cl. 758 (Fed. Cl. 1993)

. . . Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice jf 15.08[7] (1993). . . .

F. SPALDING, v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 835 F. Supp. 23 (D. Mass. 1993)

. . . Freer Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (1993). . . .