The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 15
SECRETARY OF STATE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 15.16

15.16 Reproduction of records; admissibility in evidence; electronic receipt and transmission of records; certification; acknowledgment.—

(1) The Department of State may cause to be made copies of any records maintained by it by miniature photographic microfilming or microphotographic processes or any other photographic, mechanical, or other process heretofore or hereafter devised, including electronic data processing.

(2) Photographs, nonerasable optical images, or microphotographs in the form of film, facsimiles, or prints of any records made in compliance with the provisions of this section shall have the same force and effect as the originals thereof and shall be treated as originals for the purpose of their admissibility in evidence. Duly certified or authenticated reproductions of such photographs, nonerasable optical images, or microphotographs shall be admitted in evidence equally with the original photographs, nonerasable optical images, or microphotographs.

(3)(a) The Department of State may cause to be received electronically any records that are required or authorized to be filed with it pursuant to chapter 48, chapter 55, chapter 117, chapter 118, chapter 495, chapter 605, chapter 606, chapter 607, chapter 610, chapter 617, chapter 620, chapter 621, chapter 679, chapter 713, or chapter 865, through facsimile or other electronic transfers, for the purpose of filing such records. The originals of all such electronically transmitted records must be executed in the manner provided in paragraph (5)(b). The receipt of such electronic transfer constitutes delivery to the department as required by law. The department may use electronic transmissions for purposes of notice in the administration of chapters 48, 55, 117, 118, 495, 605, 606, 607, 610, 617, 620, 621, 679, and 713 and s. 865.09. The Department of State may collect e-mail addresses for purposes of notice and communication in the performance of its duties and may require filers and registrants to furnish such e-mail addresses when presenting documents for filing.

(b) The department may implement a password-protected system for any record electronically received pursuant to paragraph (a) and may require filers to produce supplemental materials to use such system, including, but not limited to, an original signature of the filer and verification of credentials. The department may also implement a password-protected system that allows entities organized under the chapters specified in paragraph (a) to identify authorized account holders for the purpose of electronically filing records related to the entity. If the department implements such a system, it must send to each e-mail address on file with the Division of Corporations on January 1, 2024, a code to participate in a password-protected system. The department may require verification of the identity of an authorized account holder before the account holder is authorized to electronically file a record with the department.

(c)1. E-mail addresses collected by the Department of State pursuant to this subsection are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. This exemption applies to e-mail addresses held by the Department of State before, on, or after the effective date of the exemption.

2. Secure login credentials held by the Department of State for the purpose of allowing a person to electronically file records under this subsection are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. This exemption applies to secure login credentials held by the Department of State before, on, or after the effective date of the exemption. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “secure login credentials” means information held by the department for purposes of authenticating a user logging into a user account on a computer, a computer system, a computer network, or an electronic device; an online user account accessible over the Internet, whether through a mobile device, a website, or any other electronic means; or information used for authentication or password recovery.

3. This paragraph is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with s. 119.15 and shall stand repealed on October 2, 2028, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the department may certify or acknowledge and electronically transmit any record maintained by it. The certification must be evidenced by a certification code on each page transmitted which must include the filing number of the document, date of transmission, and page number of the total number of pages transmitted, and a sequential certification number assigned by the department which will identify the transmission and be available for verification of any transmitted acknowledgment or certified document.

(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of State shall determine for purposes of electronic filing of any document placed under its jurisdiction for filing or recordation:

(a) The appropriate format, which must be retrievable or reproducible in typewritten or printed form and must be legible.

(b) The manner of execution, which may include any symbol, manual, facsimile, conformed, or electronic signature adopted by a person with the present intent to authenticate a document.

(d) The amount of any fee surcharge or discount for the use of an electronic filing format.

(6) The Department of State may use government or private sector contractors in the promotion or provision of any electronic filing services.

(7) The Secretary of State may issue apostilles conforming to the requirements of the international treaty known as the Hague Convention of 1961 and may charge a fee for the issuance of apostilles not to exceed $10 per apostille. The Secretary of State has the sole authority in this state to establish, in accordance with the laws of the United States, the requirements and procedures for the issuance of apostilles.

(8) The Department of State may use government or private sector contractors in the promotion or provision of any electronic filing services and may discount the filing fee in an amount equal to the convenience charge for such electronic filings.

History.—s. 1, ch. 67-15; ss. 10, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 1, ch. 89-341; s. 1, ch. 93-281; s. 12, ch. 99-218; s. 72, ch. 99-251; s. 3, ch. 2001-195; s. 1, ch. 2001-200; s. 1, ch. 2009-72; s. 1, ch. 2009-129; s. 11, ch. 2012-116; s. 12, ch. 2015-148; s. 1, ch. 2022-190; s. 1, ch. 2023-52; s. 1, ch. 2023-53.

F.S. 15.16 on Google Scholar

F.S. 15.16 on Casetext

Amendments to 15.16

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 15.16

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 15.16.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

BOYDEN v. J. CONLIN, S. J. P., 341 F. Supp. 3d 979 (W.D. Wis. 2018)

. . . Defendant ETF is an executive branch department created by Wisconsin Statute § 15.16 and charged with . . .

BUFFALO STATE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,, 251 F. Supp. 3d 566 (W.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . be governed by Rule 15(a)(1) and may be made without leave of court”); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 15.16 . . .

CROSSFIT, INC. v. QUINNIE, LLC,, 232 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2017)

. . . terms (including without limitation, “Krossfít,” “Kfit,” “Xfit,” “Crossfitness,” etc.)....”([1] ¶ 19; [15.16 . . .

IN RE BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, H. L. LLC, v. C P C P, 560 B.R. 208 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 Coquillette, et al., MooRe’s Federal Practice § 15.16 . . .

ADT LLC, a v. ALARM PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY FLORIDA, LLC, a LLC, LLC, LLC,, 646 F. App'x 781 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 15.16 (2007) (“[Y]ou must consider all relevant evidence in determining [the likelihood . . .

LaBARBERA v. AUDAX CONSTRUCTION CORP., 971 F. Supp. 2d 273 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Eastman Kodak Co., 552 F.Supp. 589, 602 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.16[1], . . . should have some relation to the claim set forth in the original pleading. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.16 . . .

ROSENFELD, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,, 904 F. Supp. 2d 988 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . 36,645.00 David Greene 21.93 $550.00 12,061.50 Lowell Chow 64.25 $200.00 $ 12,850.00 Student Interns 15.16 . . .

EUREKA V LLC v. TOWN OF RIDGEFIELD, s, 289 F.R.D. 27 (D. Conn. 2012)

. . . Id. at 1133 (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.16[3], at 15-183 (2d Ed. 1989)). . . .

SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. RAZMILOVIC,, 822 F. Supp. 2d 234 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . ninety-eight (1,064,798) shares of Symbol to Symbol at the market price of fifteen dollars and sixteen cents ($15.16 . . . The fifteen dollar and sixteen cents ($15.16) price of Symbol stock on the closing date minus the five . . .

DOE, v. D. MANSON,, 773 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D. Me. 2011)

. . . These categories of expenditures are (i) donations to charities averaging $15.16 monthly, (ii) two sets . . . Donations to Charity The Creditor seeks an increase of $15.16 monthly in the Debtor’s payments to her . . . Debtor’s monthly payment to the Creditor, albeit in the sum of $7.42 rather than the requested sum of $15.16 . . .

STERLING MERCHANDISING, INC. v. NESTLE, S. A., 724 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D.P.R. 2010)

. . . Payco’s sales of ice cream to exclusive accounts decreased from $15.16 million in 2004 to $10.62 million . . .

DILLON, v. COBRA POWER CORP. L. L. C, No., 560 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 15.16[1] (3d ed.2008); Saalfrank v. . . .

ICE CORPORATION, v. HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION S. A. S., 245 F.R.D. 513 (D. Kan. 2007)

. . . See also 2-15 Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 15.16 (2007)(“Legal restrictions that may limit . . . Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 15.16(2007). . . . . See also 2-15 Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 15.16 (2007)("Legal restrictions that may limit . . . Moore's Federal Practice and Procedure § 15.16 (2007). . . . . Moore's Federal Practice and Procedure § 15.16(2007). . Id. . . . .

GILSTRAP v. RADIANZ LTD. C LLC, LLC,, 443 F. Supp. 2d 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . K at § 15.16. 1) Though plaintiffs contend that since they are not parties to the Share Purchase Agreement . . .

READE- ALVAREZ, v. ELTMAN, ELTMAN COOPER, P. C., 224 F.R.D. 534 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.16[1] (3d ed.2000). . . . .

In CYLINK SECURITIES LITIGATION, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . class action settlements in the Ninth Circuit in the Bajaj sample, mean and median settlements were 15.16 . . .

A. O KEEFE, v. MERCEDES- BENZ USA, LLC,, 214 F.R.D. 266 (E.D. Pa. 2003)

. . . 448, 451-52, 63 S.Ct. 1146, 87 L.Ed. 1509 (1943); 3 James William Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.16 . . . 52, 63 S.Ct. 1146, 87 L.Ed. 1509 (1943), cited in 3 James William Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 15.16 . . .

In ALDERETE D. D. v. OSI U. S., 289 B.R. 410 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2002)

. . . 10.00% Alderete (amount ($ 9,075.21) disbursed = $9,075.21) USDE Note 1 — Robert $ 1,210.62 $ 417.94 $ 15.16 . . .

In AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, JUNE, 231 F. Supp. 2d 852 (E.D. Ark. 2002)

. . . At 2350:13.75 and 2350:15.16 the aircraft’s automated Ground Proximity Warning System broadcast “sink . . . Furthermore, at 2350:13.75 and 2350:15.16 Flight 1420’s automated Ground Proximity Warning System broadcast . . .

In ATLANTICRANCHER, INC. v. F. D. J C, 279 B.R. 411 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2002)

. . . A, Preferred B and warrants (about 1% total interest undiluted)); TJJ Corporation (Preferred B & E, 15.16% . . .

SINGH v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., 200 F. Supp. 2d 193 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 15.16[1] (3d ed.2000); accord 6 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal . . .

S. p. A USA v., 26 Ct. Int'l Trade 148 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)

. . . raised AST’s margins, allegedly resulting in an unduly high subsidy margin of 17.25 percent versus 15.16 . . . In particular, Commerce assessed a subsidy rate of 17.25%, an upward assessment from 15.16%, which was . . .

M. ADKINS, v. LABOR READY, INC., 205 F.R.D. 460 (S.D.W. Va. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, 11 15.16[1] (3d ed.1997) and cases cited therein. . . .

MAUREY, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA J., 12 F. App'x 529 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 15.16. . . .

GARNET MINE, LLC, v. J. BRANDOLINI, III., 158 F. Supp. 2d 580 (E.D. Pa. 2001)

. . . (Pl.’s Ex. 1 at ¶ 15.16.) . . . Under the terms of ¶ 15.16 of the August 1999 Agreement, the parties contemplated that Brandolini would . . . (Pl.’s Ex. 1 at ¶ 15.16.) . . . record that in light of the detail accompanying the August 1999 Agreement (which by the terms of ¶ 15.16 . . .

V. Jo SIMPSON, v. J. BURROWS, C., 90 F. Supp. 1108 (D. Or. 2000)

. . . he has himself caused.’ ”) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 881 (1979)); see also Id. at § 15.16 . . .

PARK LAKE RESOURCES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE P. A. II,, 197 F.3d 448 (10th Cir. 1999)

. . . Pierce, Jr„ Administrative Law Treatise § 15.16 (3d ed.1994) (discussing Lujan and stating that challenges . . .

SPEX, INC. v. JOY OF SPEX, INC. d b a, 847 F. Supp. 567 (N.D. Ill. 1994)

. . . Id. at 1270, citing, McCarthy on Trademarks, § 15.16. . . .

SCOTTISH AIR INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. BRITISH CALEDONIAN GROUP, PLC. H. R., 152 F.R.D. 18 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.16[1] (2d ed. 1982)) (emphasis added); see also Albrecht v. . . .

CONCERNED AREA RESIDENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, v. SOUTHVIEW FARM, 834 F. Supp. 1410 (W.D.N.Y. 1993)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.16[3] (1992 ed.). . . .

WESCH, v. HUNT,, 785 F. Supp. 1491 (S.D. Ala. 1992)

. . . 100.00% 586 99.32% 4 0.68% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% OLD SAMANTHA SCHOOL SWINDLE 772 100.00% 653 84.59% 117 15.16% . . .

IT S v., 97 T.C. 496 (T.C. 1991)

. . . IPC savings deposits comprised 22.48 percent of all deposits, but by 1981, their share had fallen to 15.16 . . .

In Re RUDE, F. WALDSCHMIDT, v. PARK BANK,, 122 B.R. 533 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1990)

. . . $798,000 (Bank’s $168,000 unsecured claim plus all other unsecured claims totalling $630,000) equals 15.16% . . .

SCOTTISH AIR INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. BRITISH CALEDONIAN GROUP, PLC, H. R., 751 F. Supp. 1129 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)

In ARRED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CORP. ARRED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CORP. v. HERBERT CONSTRUCTION CORP. SHNAY CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. S H STREET ASSOCIATES, S H STREET ASSOCIATES, v. BEYER, BLINDER, BELLE, ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS,, 106 B.R. 353 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice ¶15.16[1] at 15-175-15-176. . . . Moore’s Federal Practice H 15.16[3] at 15-183. . . .

W. KEITH, v. A. VOLPE, WRIGHT, v. CITY OF HAWTHORNE,, 858 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1988)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.16[3] (1985); 6 C. Wright & A. . . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice H 15.16[3] (1985). . . .

WILKERSON, v. WYRICK,, 806 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1986)

. . . Williams, 529 S.W.2d 883, 886-87 (Mo.1975) and Missouri Approved Instructions 15.14 and 15.16 (explicitly . . . See MAI-Cr 2d 15.14 and 15.16 (1978). . . . MAI-Cr 2d 15.16 provided: 15.16 Murder: Second Degree, Felony-Murder ((As to Count_, if) (If) you do . . .

UNITED STATES v. ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, SITUATE IN MONROE COUNTY, STATE OF MISSOURI, R., 575 F. Supp. 756 (E.D. Mo. 1983)

. . . Martz, American Law of Mining § 15.16 at 165 (1960); Reeves, The Meaning of The Word “Minerals”, 54 ' . . .

CAZARES, v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. a H. Jr., 444 So. 2d 442 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.16[2]. . . .

L. BOALS, v. H. GRAY,, 577 F. Supp. 288 (N.D. Ohio 1983)

. . . hours of vacation time at a rate of $4.46 per hour, or $17.13, and the State would have contributed $15.16 . . . While in addition to plaintiffs wages, his employer would have had to contribute $15.16 to plaintiffs . . .

LOZANO, v. SMITH,, 718 F.2d 756 (5th Cir. 1983)

. . . claims arising out of” Article I, sections 9, 13, and 19 of the Texas Constitution, articles 1.09, 15.16 . . . [section] 13, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 15.16 [taking arrestee before a magistrate . . .

COCA- COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ELIZABETHTOWN, INC. v. COCA- COLA COMPANY, a, 98 F.R.D. 254 (D. Del. 1983)

. . . his former pleading, or of which he was ignorant when it was made .... ” 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 15.16 . . .

FOUR SEASONS SOLAR PRODUCTS CORPORATION, v. SUN SYSTEM PREFABRICATED SOLAR GREENHOUSES, INC., 101 F.R.D. 292 (E.D.N.Y. 1983)

. . . purpose of a supplemental pleading is to bring a controversy up to date. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.16 . . .

CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, v. CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA C., 694 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1982)

. . . playing of the card games allowed in the Tribal Ordinance is prohibited by Indio City Code §§ 15.15, 15.16 . . . members, employees, and non-members of the Cabazon Band, alleging violations, inter alia, of §§ 15.15, 15.16 . . .

ARGUS INCORPORATED, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,, 552 F. Supp. 589 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.16[1]. . . .

F. HARVEY v. N. PINCUS,, 549 F. Supp. 332 (E.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . . ¶¶ 15.4 to 15.16); that Pincus instigated this arrest pursuant to a stale bench warrant, (Id. ¶ 15.11 . . .

CHRYSLER CORPORATION, v. FEDDERS CORPORATION,, 540 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . original complaint and should not introduce a new controversy into the case.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.16 . . .

LOVE, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION F. III E. F. H. N. G. A. A. J. U. F., 529 F. Supp. 832 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.16[3] (1980). . . .

LAZY D GRAZING ASSOCIATION, a v. TERRY LAND AND LIVESTOCK COMPANY, a, 641 F.2d 844 (10th Cir. 1981)

. . . See Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, American Law of Mining § 15.16, at 167 (1979). . . .

ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, a v. ST. JOHNS COUNTY, a, 383 So. 2d 915 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . McCORD and MELVIN, Associate Judges, concur. . 2 Fla.Jur.2d, Adverse Possession, § 15.16. . . .

OWENS- ILLINOIS, INC. v. LAKE SHORE LAND COMPANY, INC., 610 F.2d 1185 (3d Cir. 1979)

. . . change the nature of the relief initially requested, as was done here. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.16 . . .

JUREK, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., 593 F.2d 672 (5th Cir. 1979)

. . . .-06, 15.16, and a card carried by the police tells them that “any unnecessary delay in taking an accused . . .

v., 71 T.C. 998 (T.C. 1979)

. . . Percent Average Category occupancy room rate Commissioner’s experts . 65.0 $21.00 All hotels . 74.1 15.16 . . .

GEE, Jr. D. Sr. v. CBS, INC., 471 F. Supp. 600 (E.D. Pa. 1979)

. . . See III American Law of Property § 15.16, at 834 (1954); Brown on Personal Property § 16, at 33 (2d ed . . .

L. EOVALDI, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO,, 596 F.2d 188 (7th Cir. 1979)

. . . billing statement dated March 8, 1971, showing a new balance of $303.14, a minimum payment due of $15.16 . . .

v. v., 71 T.C. 692 (T.C. 1979)

. . . outstanding Jack Paparo . 113,190 11.87 Trust created for the benefit of the family of Jack Paparo . 144,650 15.16 . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. SHEET METAL WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO., 463 F. Supp. 388 (D. Md. 1978)

. . . collective bargaining agreement, 416 F.2d at 124, 130; 280 F.Supp. 720-723; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.16 . . .

CANTON BRANCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, v. CITY OF CANTON, MISSISSIPPI, S. A. J. D. L. B. Sr. H. B. R. H. Jr. Dr. B. HINTON, G. S. N. v. BALDWIN, J. D. B. H. B. A. Jr., 472 F. Supp. 859 (S.D. Miss. 1978)

. . . housing factors for the city as a whole, the variances from the ideal population were found as high as +15.16% . . .

CAMEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 215 Ct. Cl. 460 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . 1,064,000.00 389,000.00 % Profit (of total sales) 11.2 % * 8.20% * 3.00% * % Profit (of Renegot. sales) ■ 15.16% . . . business) from 20.50%, 24.68%, and 28.01%, respectively, for the three review years, to 11.51%, 13.20% and 15.16% . . .

CAMEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 572 F.2d 280 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . 1,064,000.00 389,000.00 % Profit (of total sales) 11.2% * 8.20% * 3.00% * % Profit (of Renegot. sales) 15.16% . . . business) from 20.50%, 24.68%, and 28.01%, respectively, for the three review years, to 11.51%, 13.20% and 15.16% . . . 7,639,054.63 4,954,207.39 11.51% FY 1967 11,214,217.12 7,117,445.02 13.20% PY 1968 12,880,823.00 7,019,823.00 15.16% . . .

v., 68 T.C. 358 (T.C. 1977)

. . . their ownership of 23.88 percent of the stock of Berger Machine, an interest equal to an additional 15.16 . . .

HJELLE v. W. BROOKS,, 424 F. Supp. 595 (D. Alaska 1976)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice fl 15.16[3] (2d ed. 1975).) . . .

CZUBAROFF v. R. SCHLESINGER,, 385 F. Supp. 728 (E.D. Pa. 1974)

. . . On page 15.16 of reference (a), you state again that your “. . . beliefs were not fully crystallized . . .

C. MASON T. v. UNITED STATES, 365 F. Supp. 670 (N.D. Ill. 1973)

. . . United States, 319 F.Supp. 265, 268 (D.Kan.1970); 2 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 15.16 at . . .

TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. a w v. PENN TRANSPORTATION CORP., 359 F. Supp. 344 (D. Mass. 1973)

. . . If 15.16 [1] pp. 1081-82. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. SKILLMAN,, 442 F.2d 542 (8th Cir. 1971)

. . . Devitt, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 15.16 (1965). . . .

EDWARDS v. Dr. J. BETO,, 329 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Tex. 1970)

. . . Articles 15.16 and 15.18 (1966). Additionally, he asserts that Tex.Code Crim. Procedure Ann. . . .

BRYANT v. D. WHITCOMB, 419 F. Supp. 1290 (S.D. Ind. 1970)

. . . transportation to go to and from work 29.12% 36.57% 11.55% 184.30% Portion of unemployed in county 28.74% 47.85% 15.16% . . .

H. ROWE, Jr. H. Jr. H. Jr. G. v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY,, 421 F.2d 937 (4th Cir. 1970)

. . . prior to and subsequent to the 1963 amendment, is found in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.), j[ 15.16 . . .

L. SULLIVAN, v. UNITED STATES, 414 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1969)

. . . the form of Allen instruction set out in Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Mathes and Devitt, § 15.16 . . . of certain language near the end of the form of Allen instruction contained in Mathes and Dev-itt, § 15.16 . . . the full instruction would have been substantially the same as that set out in Mathes and Devitt, § 15.16 . . .

HODGES, v. UNITED STATES, 408 F.2d 543 (8th Cir. 1969)

. . . Devitt, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 15.16 (1965). . . .

J. v., 50 T.C. 63 (T.C. 1968)

. . . See 2 Mertens, Daw of Federal Income Taxation, (rev. ed. 1967), § 15.16. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HARRIS,, 391 F.2d 348 (6th Cir. 1968)

. . . of the Allen charge included in the 1965 Edition of Mathes and Devitt, Fed.Jury Prac. and Instr., § 15.16 . . .

IRWIN, Jr. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 390 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1968)

. . . See 2 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, (rev. ed. 1967), § 15.16. . . .

J. TOOMBS, G. L. v. W. FORTSON, Jr., 277 F. Supp. 821 (N.D. Ga. 1967)

. . . County (1, 2, & 3 averaged) —22.94 11 -10.90 14 +27.23 21 —15.05 Richmond County (22 & 23 averaged) +15.16 . . . The problem comes in justifying a present variance of +15.16 per cent as to the districts averaged. . . .

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF STATE OF NEW YORK, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, W. S. H. L. H. L. Jr. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF STATE OF NEW YORK, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, R. W. A. M. H. D. MPS LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, R. W. A. M. CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,, 373 F.2d 816 (D.C. Cir. 1967)

. . . Arithmetically the large volumes at 20 cents would have a strong effect on the weighted average of 15.16 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST COMPANY,, 240 F. Supp. 867 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)

. . . its relative share of offices in the whole local market has declined since the merger from 16.71% to 15.16% . . .

H. MARSHALL v. UNITED STATES, 241 F. Supp. 30 (S.D. Cal. 1964)

. . . analogous treatment is advocated in 2 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, (rev. ed. 1961) 38, § 15.16 . . .

UNITED STATES C. W. ATKINS, d b a v. B. H. REITEN d b a a, 313 F.2d 673 (9th Cir. 1963)

. . . See 3 Moore, Federal Practice § 15.16 at 859 and n. 10 (2d ed. 1948). . . .

MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a v. SUPERIOR INSULATING TAPE COMPANY, a, 284 F.2d 478 (8th Cir. 1960)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.16, pp. 858, 859. . . .

NATIONAL BANK OF EASTERN ARKANSAS v. BLANKENSHIP, 177 F. Supp. 667 (E.D. Ark. 1959)

. . . As of July 30, 1957, there was due thereon $402 principal and $15.16 interest. 2. . . .

THOMAS v. VINSON,, 153 F.2d 636 (D.C. Cir. 1946)

. . . translations, stenographic service, incidentals — November 25, 1927, to August 3, 1936, Frs. 25,805.30 at Frs. 15.16 . . . Drake and not included by him in his claims: Frs. 21,413.30 at Frs; 15.16 to the dollar.......... 1,412.00 . . .

v. W. S. v., 2 T.C. 949 (T.C. 1943)

. . . See also § 15.16 Paul’s Federal Estate and Gift Taxation. . . .

v. J. M. S. v., 46 B.T.A. 972 (B.T.A. 1942)

. . . B. 1940-2, pp. 295, 296; also paragraph 15.16, Paul’s Federal Estate and Gift Taxation. . . .

In GRAFF, 117 F. 343 (E.D.N.Y. 1902)

. . . bankrupts, with whom he had two accounts, both showing a cash balance in the claimant’s favor,—one for $15.16 . . .