The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 17
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 17.04

17.04 To audit and adjust accounts of officers and those indebted to the state.—The Chief Financial Officer, using generally accepted auditing procedures for testing or sampling, shall examine, audit, adjust, and settle the accounts of all the officers of this state, and any other person in anywise entrusted with, or who may have received any property, funds, or moneys of this state, or who may be in anywise indebted or accountable to this state for any property, funds, or moneys, and require such officer or persons to render full accounts thereof, and to yield up such property or funds according to law, or pay such moneys into the treasury of this state, or to such officer or agent of the state as may be appointed to receive the same, and on failure so to do, to cause to be instituted and prosecuted proceedings, criminal or civil, at law or in equity, against such persons, according to law. The Chief Financial Officer may conduct investigations within or outside of this state as it deems necessary to aid in the enforcement of this section. If during an investigation the Chief Financial Officer has reason to believe that any criminal statute of this state has or may have been violated, the Chief Financial Officer shall refer any records tending to show such violation to state or federal law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies and shall provide investigative assistance to those agencies as required.

History.—s. 4, ch. 8, 1845; RS 96; GS 100; RGS 113; CGL 143; ss. 12, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 2, ch. 95-312; s. 1, ch. 95-426; s. 18, ch. 2003-261; s. 1, ch. 2016-165.

F.S. 17.04 on Google Scholar

F.S. 17.04 on Casetext

Amendments to 17.04

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 17.04

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 17.04.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

ODONNELL, On v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS,, 251 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (S.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . Id. art. 17.04. . . . Pro. art 17.04. . . .

U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. T. D. BANK, N. A., 569 B.R. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . With respect to the order of distribution at the center of this dispute, section 17.04 of the Accounts . . . (Accounts Agreement § 17.04; Dec. 13, 2016 Joint Letter Ex. A.) . . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. MARINELLO, II,, 839 F.3d 209 (2d Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 17.04 (“To establish a Section 7212(a) omnibus clause violation, the government must prove beyond . . .

CARSON OPTICAL INC. v. EBAY INC., 202 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Chisum, Chisum On Patents § 17.04[4] (2016) (“The Section 271(b) prohibition on active inducement of . . .

BIRCHFIELD, v. NORTH DAKOTA. Jr. v. v., 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016)

. . . Erwin, Defense of Drunk Driving Cases §§ 17.03-17.04 (3d ed. 2015) (Erwin). . . .

BARATI, v. STATE, 198 So. 3d 69 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . (b) Subject to s. 17.04, nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the authority of the department . . .

WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION, v. APPLE, INC., 135 F. Supp. 3d 865 (W.D. Wis. 2015)

. . . for the 8.55% performance benefit found through Reinman’s testing, but is actually responsible for a 17.04% . . . To reach this 17.04% number, Conte applied a formula used by Apple when designing products to conclude . . .

IN RE US BENTONITE, INC. In In, 536 B.R. 948 (Bankr. D. Wyo. 2015)

. . . covering the period from October 16, 2013, through February 28, 2014, awarding $17,415.00 in fees and $17.04 . . .

PINDAK, v. J. DART, USA,, 125 F. Supp. 3d 720 (N.D. Ill. 2015)

. . . SOF ¶¶ 140-41; see also 2010 Contract at § 17.04 (requiring Securitas to “comply with all applicable . . .

FLOWSERVE U. S. INC. v. ITT CORP., 68 F. Supp. 3d 646 (N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §§ 17.01, 17.04 (Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed.2014). . . .

EXCEL WILLOWBROOK, L. L. C. MR VM FL LSDSS L. L. C. v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, MR VM v. N. A. v. N. A. ORTB v. N. A. v. N. A. v. N. A. FL LSDSS L. L. C. v. N. A. v. N. A., 758 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . .”); 2-17 Powell on Real Property § 17.04 (same); Schoshinski, American Law of Landlord and Tenant § . . . See 2-17 Powell on Real Property § 17.04[2][b] (2013). . . . . -El Paso 1920, no writ) (same). . 2-17 Powell on Real Property § 17.04[2][a], [b] (2013); see also, e.g . . . Id. at § 17.04[3]; Restatement (Second) of Property, Land. & Ten. § 16.1 (1977); see also, e.g., Twelve . . . Id. . 2-12 Powell on Real Property § 17.04[3] (2013) ("[T]he basic idea [is] that lease covenants will . . .

EXCEL WILLOWBROOK, L. L. C. ORTB MR VM FL LSDSS L. L. C. v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. MR VM v. N. A. v. N. A. ORTB v. N. A. v. N. A. v. N. A. FL LSDSS L. L. C. v. N. A. v. JP N. A., 740 F.3d 972 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . .”); 2-17 Powell on Real Property § 17.04 (same); Schoshinski, American Law of Landlord and Tenant § . . . See 2-17 Powell on Real Property § 17.04[2][b] (2013). . . . . -El Paso 1920, no writ) (same). .2-17 Powell on Real Property § 17.04[2][a], [b] (2013); see also, e.g . . . Id. at § 17.04[3]; Restatement (Second) of Property, Land. & Ten. § 16.1 (1977); see also, e.g., Twelve . . . Id. . 2-12 Powell on Real Property § 17.04[3] (2013) ("[T]he basic idea [is] that lease covenants will . . .

POWELL, v. W. TOMPKINS,, 926 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Mass. 2013)

. . . Friedland et al., Evidence Law and Practice § 17.04, at 724 (2d ed. 2004). . . .

STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INC. v. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., 697 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . Chi-sum, Chisum on Patents § 17.04[1] (2011). . . . and accused product could be used in either an infringing or a non-infringing way); Chisum, supra, § 17.04 . . .

KATZ, v. PERSHING, LLC,, 672 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2012)

. . . . §§ 17.03-17.04. . . .

FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. SAPPAH BROTHERS INC. LLC, E. L. J. L. v., 771 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D.N.C. 2011)

. . . 584-85 (M.D.Pa.1998)); William Schwartzkopf, Practical Guide to Construction Contract Surety Claims § 17.04 . . .

BIG O TIRES, LLC, a f k a O a v. FELIX BROS. INC. a, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (D. Colo. 2010)

. . . Docket No. 1-1 at 27-28, § 17.04. . . . Big 0 does not contend that the Agreement was terminated in a manner that implicates Section 17.04. . . .

TADCO CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF STATE OF NEW YORK,, 700 F. Supp. 2d 253 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . See id. at § 17.04. . . .

J. REED, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,, 569 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . Regs.Code tit. 456, § 17.04. . . .

DAVID OTERO, v. NATIONAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC., 627 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (D.N.M. 2009)

. . . Juarez included a deduction for the amount of the estimated premium ($17.04) that she thought Plaintiff . . . that Plaintiff was not eligible for coverage, she issued a refund check dated April 9, 2004, for the $17.04 . . .

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

. . . Chisum, Patents § 17.04[4][d], at 17-52 (1984) for the proposition that “design of infringing product . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. HALL,, 281 F. App'x 809 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . II, doc. 311, at 23 (This language is identical in all relevant respects to model instruction § 17.04 . . .

v., 32 Ct. Int'l Trade 222 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2008)

. . . portion of the CAFC’s opinion in the test case: To justify its proposed classification under headings 17.04 . . .

WARNER- LAMBERT COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 545 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2008)

. . . portion of the CAFC's opinion in the test case: To justify its proposed classification under headings 17.04 . . .

B. EDMONDS, v. H. GETTY,, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (W.D. Wash. 2007)

. . . For the grants in 2001, the average 20-day return is 17.04% or 306.76% annualized, as compared to a - . . .

METRO- GOLDWYN- MAYER STUDIOS, INC. v. GROKSTER, LTD. v. BV,, 518 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents, § 17.04[3]. . . .

In NVE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 551 F. Supp. 2d 871 (D. Minn. 2007)

. . . stock price fell from $28.36 per share on February 11, 2005, to $25.98 on February 14, 2005, and to $17.04 . . .

KLEENIT, INC. v. SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 486 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. Mass. 2007)

. . . Newman, 2 Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 17.04, at 1150 (13th ed.2006) (in establishing existence . . . See, e.g., 2 Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes, su- pro, § 17.04, at 1150 (“When the type of policy . . . See, e.g., 2 Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes, supra, § 17.04, at 1151 (and cases cited); see . . .

COATES, v. HALL,, 512 F. Supp. 2d 770 (W.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . Pursuant to District Rule 17.04(A), “interested persons .... may appear at the hearing [and] present . . . District Rule 17.04(A). . . . District Rule 17.04(C), 17.05(B). . . .

AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. L. P. v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC. L. P. v. USA, AMR v. AMR v. USA,, 411 F. Supp. 2d 490 (D.N.J. 2006)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents (2005) § 17.04 (“The Section 271(b) prohibition on active inducement of infringement . . .

WARNER- LAMBERT COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 425 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

. . . sugars ... and flavour-ing agents (including substances having medicinal properties ...) fall in heading 17.04 . . .

FINANCE ONE PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED, v. LEHMAN BROTHERS SPECIAL FINANCING, INC. Dr., 414 F.3d 325 (2d Cir. 2005)

. . . By memorandum opinion and order filed July 11, 2003, the court found the appropriate rates to be 17.04% . . .

WARNER- LAMBERT COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 407 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

. . . HQ 963764 Customs considered the appropriateness of classifying Certs® Powerful Mints under Headings 17.04 . . . To justify its proposed classification under Headings 17.04 or 21.06, Customs stated simply: “The Certs . . .

v., 28 Ct. Int'l Trade 939 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . medicinal properties, such as benzyl alcohol, menthol, eucalyptol, and tolu balsam). . . fall in heading 17.04 . . .

WARNER- LAMBERT COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . medicinal properties, such as benzyl alcohol, menthol, eucalyptol, and tolu balsam) ... fall in heading 17.04 . . .

In FULTON BELLOWS COMPONENTS, INC. f k a JRGACQ, 307 B.R. 896 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004)

. . . select an arbitrator who is mutually acceptable and he will act as Chairman of the Board of Arbitration. 17.04 . . .

C. SCHULTZ, Jr. B. v. L. STONER,, 308 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . conclusive, and binding on all persons.” (1994 Retirement Plan Text § 20.04(B); 1994 Thrift Plan Text § 17.04 . . . persons. (1994 Retirement Plan Text §§ 1.30 (emphasis added), 20.04(B); 1994 Thrift Plan Text §§ 1.29, 17.04 . . . responsibility for the Plans’ financial affairs. (1994 Retirement Plan Text § 20.04(A); 1994 Thrift Plan Text § 17.04 . . .

KALANTARI, a v. NITV, INC. a d b a TV a k a a k a a, 352 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.04[D][2], at 17-31 to 17-37 (2003). . . .

KUMAR, v. OVONIC BATTERY CO. INC., 351 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

. . . Chisum, Chi-sum on Patents § 17.04[4][a] (2002). . . .

C. O BRIEN, v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,, 319 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D. Mass. 2003)

. . . Code tit. 456, § 17.04. . . . Code tit. 456, § 17.04-17.06. . . .

WINN INCORPORATED, a v. EATON CORPORATION,, 272 F. Supp. 2d 968 (C.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . CHISUM, CHISUM ON PATENTS § 17.04(3), at 17-72 (2001). . . .

EMMPRESA CUBANA DEL TABACO, d. b. a. v. CULBRO CORPORATION Co., 213 F.R.D. 151 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Id. at 16-18 (citing McCarthy, supra, § 17.04; Chandon Champagne Corp. v. . . .

HOMEDICS, INC. a v. VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION a a CIGNA a CIGNA a, 315 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . CHISUM, CHISUM ON PATENTS § 17.04 (2002). . . . .

METLIFE CAPITAL CORPORATION, v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE CO., 224 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D.P.R. 2002)

. . . Ostrager & Newman, supra, § 17.04; Fed. . . . Ostrager & Newman, supra, § 17.04. . . .

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. NEWBRIDGE NETWORKS CORP., 168 F. Supp. 2d 181 (D. Del. 2001)

. . . See e.g. 5 Chisum on Patents, § 17.04[4][f| n.19-20.1 and accompanying text (Supp.2000). . . .

UNITED STATES v. TUCKER,, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (D. Utah 2001)

. . . Devitt, Blackmak, and O’Malley, FedeRal Jury and Practice Instructions: Criminal § 17.04, “Knowingly” . . .

VLT CORPORATION v. UNITRODE CORPORATION,, 130 F. Supp. 2d 178 (D. Mass. 2001)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 17.04[4][f], at 17-82 & n. 19 (2000) (collecting cases). . . .

RATLIFF v. SCHIBER TRUCK COMPANY, INC., 150 F.3d 949 (8th Cir. 1998)

. . . Appellants argue that Missouri law does indeed impose such a duty and refers to Missouri model instruction 17.04 . . .

A. VANN Jr. v. NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOC. RETIREMENT AND SECURITY PROGRAM,, 978 F. Supp. 1025 (M.D. Ala. 1997)

. . . Section 17.04 of the R & S Program Specifications. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BLAIR, Jr., 54 F.3d 639 (10th Cir. 1995)

. . . Devitt et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.04 (4th ed. 1992). . . .

CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, INC. v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Jr., 893 F. Supp. 419 (E.D. Pa. 1995)

. . . Brimmer, MBE participation in City contracting for fiscal years 1985 through 1989 was as follows: 1985, 17.04 . . .

UNITED STATES, v. TRACY,, 36 F.3d 187 (1st Cir. 1994)

. . . Devitt et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.04, at 626 (4th ed. 1992) (“The term ‘knowingly . . .

UNITED STATES v. OTIABA,, 862 F. Supp. 251 (D.N.D. 1994)

. . . Jury Prac. and Instr., §§ 17.04 and 17.05. . . .

L. A. GEAR, INC. v. E. S. ORIGINALS, INC., 859 F. Supp. 1294 (C.D. Cal. 1994)

. . . Law of Patent Infringement by Inducement,” 53 J.Pat.Off.Soc'y 86, 150-51 (1971)); see also Chisum § 17.04 . . .

T. S. v., 100 T.C. 180 (T.C. 1993)

. . . See generally Saltzman, IRS Practice and Procedure, pars. 17.01[4], 17.03, 17.04 (2d ed. 1991). . . . Saltzman, supra par. 17.04[1]. . . .

DYNAMIS, INC. A. v. LEEPOXY PLASTICS, INC. H., 831 F. Supp. 651 (N.D. Ind. 1993)

. . . Chisum, supra, §§ 17.04[2], [3] (and cases cited therein). . . .

PMI MORTGAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. A. CAVENDAR, 615 So. 2d 710 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . See generally 1 Kendall Coffey, Florida Foreclosures § 17.04 (1992). In Bank of Florida v. . . . Id. § 17.04, at 177. . . .

In MORSE TOOL, INC. J. FERRARI, v. BARCLAYS BUSINESS CREDIT, INC. f k a, 148 B.R. 97 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1992)

. . . 17.033 — PENSIONERS AND DEPENDENTS OYER AGE 65: Medex III and reimbursement for Medicare Part “■R ” 17.04 . . . Both parties find support for their positions in ¶ 17.04, the subparagraph on irre-vocability. . . . Subparagraph 17.04 uses the word employees and not retirees, but it is clear that in Article 17, retirees . . . Barclays interprets ¶ 17.04 as limiting the irrevocability of any retiree benefits conferred in ¶ 17.03 . . . Subparagraph 17.04 controls the revocability of certain subparagraphs, “subparagraphs 2 to 5, inclusive . . .

FLEXI- VAN LEASING, INC. v. PHAROS LINES, S. A., 808 F. Supp. 255 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . G220503 20-Mar-92 6,990.74 129 370.60 G23A053 02-Mar-92 682.50 147 41.23 G23A092 04-Mar-92 286.00 145 17.04 . . .

C. CRUDEN, a S. A. a v. BANK OF NEW YORK, a a a a a E. a a a a C. CRUDEN, a S. A. a v. IRVING TRUST COMPANY, a a E. a a, 957 F.2d 961 (2d Cir. 1992)

. . . Each such opinion shall include the statements provided for in Section 17.04, if and to the extent required . . . The “statements provided for in Section 17.04” are required by § 77nnn(e) of the Act, and hence appear . . .

In MANLEY BRYAN, v. MANLEY,, 135 B.R. 137 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1992)

. . . . 467, 45 S.Ct. 357, 69 L.Ed. 739 (1925), 1A Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1978) ¶¶ 17.02, 17.03, 17.04 . . .

In ADVENTIST LIVING CENTERS, INC., 137 B.R. 701 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1991)

. . . Transmittals 42.00 02/21/91 Lexis Research 31.00 02/22/91 Telecopier Transmittals 63.00 02/25/91 Postage 17.04 . . .

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. METROLOGIC INSTRUMENTS, INC. C., 771 F. Supp. 1390 (D.N.J. 1991)

. . . Chisum § 17.04[1] at 17-44.2; see also Moleculon Research Corp. v. . . . Chisum § 17.04[2] at 17-45. “Knowingly is not equated with a specific intent to infringe.” 3 P. . . . Chisum § 17.04[4] at 17-49 (cases cited). . . . Chisum, Patents § 17.04[3] starting at 17-46 (1991) ("D. Chisum”). . . . .

PATRELLO, v. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v. N. PATRELLO,, 757 F. Supp. 216 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . Williams claims he was traveling, it would take 17.04 seconds. I believe that if Mrs. . . .

ASSOCIATION OF RELATIVES AND FRIENDS OF AIDS PATIENTS A. F. A. P. S. v. REGULATIONS AND PERMITS ADMINISTRATION OR ADMINISTRACION REGLAMENTOS y PERMISOS A. R. P. E., 740 F. Supp. 95 (D.P.R. 1990)

. . . (Topic 4, Section 17.04.) . . .

JONES INTERCABLE, INC. TV E F v. CITY OF STEVENS POINT, WISCONSIN,, 729 F. Supp. 642 (W.D. Wis. 1990)

. . . .” § 17.04(3). . . .

DREXELBROOK CONTROLS, INC. v. MAGNETROL INTERNATIONAL, INC., 720 F. Supp. 397 (D. Del. 1989)

. . . Sections 271(b) and 271(c) are closely related. 4 Chisum § 17.04[3], at 17-46-48 (“complementary provisions . . .

ATC PETROLEUM, INC. v. C. SANDERS, KOCH FUELS, INC. v. C. SANDERS,, 860 F.2d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1988)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 17.01-17.04 (1958 & Supp. 1980)). . . .

HADIX, v. JOHNSON,, 694 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. Mich. 1988)

. . . reduced pro-rata in accordance with the rate set forth below: $13.18 per hour of attorney service $17.04 . . .

WATER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, v. CALCO, LTD. J. WATER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, v. J. GARTNER,, 850 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1988)

. . . Chisum, supra, § 17.04[4][d], at 17-52 (design of infringing product may constitute active inducement . . .

UNITED STATES v. VIGOA,, 656 F. Supp. 1499 (D.N.J. 1987)

. . . an ordinary witness”. 1 Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Section 17.02, 17.04 . . .

INTERNATIONAL FILM EXCHANGE, LTD. v. CORINTH FILMS, INC., 621 F. Supp. 631 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.04[D], at 17-17 (1985) (footnote omitted). . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. WELSH, O., 774 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. 1985)

. . . verdict should not be based upon his unsupported testimony unless believed beyond a reasonable doubt (§ 17.04 . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF CHICAGO,, 621 F. Supp. 1296 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . After allocation of funds mandated by statute and to the Law Related Education program, $17.04 million . . .

WILSEY, M. v. F. EDDINGFIELD, M. D. D. O. F. M. D., 780 F.2d 614 (7th Cir. 1985)

. . . the beneficiary or ward, as the case may be, that is determinative.” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.04 . . .

PORTER, W. v. FARMERS SUPPLY SERVICE, INC., 617 F. Supp. 1175 (D. Del. 1985)

. . . Chisum, 4 Patents § 17.04[3] (rev. perm. ed. 1985). . . . .

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL- CIO, LOCAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SPENCER FOODS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AFL- CIO,, 768 F.2d 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

. . . Kheel, supra, § 17.04[2], The crucial question in this analysis, as noted, is whether an examination . . .

E. LOCKSPEISER, v. WESTERN MARYLAND COMPANY CSX CSX, 768 F.2d 558 (4th Cir. 1985)

. . . and timber royalties, real property values as carried on the company’s books, and a book value of $17.04 . . .

PROCTER GAMBLE COMPANY, v. NABISCO BRANDS, INC. PROCTER GAMBLE COMPANY, v. KEEBLER COMPANY, PROCTER GAMBLE COMPANY, v. FRITO- LAY, INC., 604 F. Supp. 1485 (D. Del. 1985)

. . . 777, 783 (N.D.Ill.1967), rev’d on other grounds, 393 F.2d 192 (7th Cir.1968); 4 Chisum on Patents § 17.04 . . . Jackson Vibrators, Inc., 153 U.S.P.Q. at 784; 4 Chisum on Patents § 17.04[1] at 17.46; Miller, Some Views . . . Nordberg, 153 U.S.P.Q. at 784; Electronized Chemicals, 288 F.Supp. at 784; 4 Chisum on Patents § 17.04 . . .

R. PIERCE, Jr. v. APPLE VALLEY, INC., 597 F. Supp. 1480 (N.D. Ohio 1984)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.6 (2d ed. 1983), and 1982 Supplement, §§ 17.03 and 17.04. . . .

STERN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,, 737 F.2d 84 (D.C. Cir. 1984)

. . . undesirable consequences that the exemption is intended to avoid. 2 O’Reilly, Federal Information Disclosure 17.04 . . .

ROQUETTE FRERES v. UNITED STATES,, 583 F. Supp. 599 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1984)

. . . ITC Remand Record (Confidential), Documents 17.01 and 17.04. . . . .

v., 7 Ct. Int'l Trade 88 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1984)

. . . ITC Remand Record (Confidential), Documents 17.01 and 17.04. . . .

v., 6 Ct. Int'l Trade 293 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1983)

. . . Document 17: (1) Subparts 17.02, 17.04, “B” and “C” shall be made available in full. (2) Subparts 17.01 . . .

UNITED STATES v. KLEIN,, 701 F.2d 66 (8th Cir. 1983)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice & Instructions §§ 17.02 (Testimony of Informer-Interested Witness) and 17.04 . . .

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, INC. a E. v. A. CALIFANO, Jr. a COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, INC. a v. HARRIS, a, 698 F.2d 615 (3d Cir. 1983)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 17.01, 17.03-17.04 (2d Ed. 1 Supp. 1982); Note, Equitable Estoppel . . .

J. L. LaFERNEY, v. SCOTT SMITH OLDSMOBILE, INC., 410 So. 2d 534 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . See Fla.Admin.Code: Rules 2-11.06; 2-12.05; 2-13.02; 2-15.03; 2-16.04; 2-17.04; 2-19.03; 2-19.05. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. KELLY, Jr., 519 F. Supp. 1029 (D. Mass. 1981)

. . . See also 1 Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, §§ 17.04 and 17.05 (3rd ed. 1977 . . .

J. CORMIER, v. P. P. G. INDUSTRIES, INC., 519 F. Supp. 211 (W.D. La. 1981)

. . . PPG % BLACK - LAKE CHARLES AREA 1974 10% 6.6% 1975 10.59% 6.6% 1976 13.51% 6.6% 1977 14.95% 6% 1978 17.04% . . .

SAXE, BACON BOLAN, P. C. M. A. M. A. F. B. F. v. MARTINDALE- HUBBELL, INC., 521 F. Supp. 1046 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . . § 1556; 3A Moore’s, supra, ¶¶ 17.04, .07. . . . .

PEOPLE OF TERRITORY OF GUAM, v. C. DELA ROSA,, 644 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1980)

. . . court give the immunity instruction, see Devitt and Blackmar Federal Jury Practice and Instruction, § 17.04 . . .

UNITED STATES v. BERNARD, UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK, Jr., 625 F.2d 854 (9th Cir. 1980)

. . . The proposed instructions from Devitt and Blackmar, §§ 17.02 and 17.04, which counsel requested were . . . Devitt and Blackmar, § 17.04. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. G. WATSON,, 623 F.2d 1198 (7th Cir. 1980)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.04 (3d ed. 1977). . . . .

Z. COTY v. HARRIS,, 495 F. Supp. 452 (W.D. Va. 1980)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law of the Seventies, §§ 17.03 and 17.04 (Supp.1978). . . .

INVESTORS RESEARCH CORPORATION E. STOWERS, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, H. DRIEHAUS, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,, 628 F.2d 168 (D.C. Cir. 1980)

. . . See 2 K Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 17.01-17.04 (1958 & Supp. 1980); Note, Equitable Estoppel . . .

HANSEN, v. HARRIS,, 619 F.2d 942 (2d Cir. 1980)

. . . Davis, supra, §§ 17.03 and 17.04 (Supp.1978). . . .

UNITED STATES v. PONTICELLI,, 622 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1980)

. . . witness such weight as you feel it deserves. 1 Devitt & Blackmar’s Federal Jury Practice & Instructions § 17.04 . . .

MOORE v. SIMS, 442 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1979)

. . . Pursuant to § 17.04 of the Texas Code, the Juvenile Court Judge entered an emergency ex parte order which . . . managing conservator for the child.” § 17.05 (Supp. 1978-1979): “(a) An order issued under Section 17.04 . . .

BROWN v. JONES,, 473 F. Supp. 439 (N.D. Tex. 1979)

. . . Other sections of the statute, §§ 17.04, 17.-07-09, were not ruled on by the Sims court. . . . Duration of Order (a) An order issued under Section 17.04 of this code expires at the end of the 10-day . . . The child shall be delivered immediately to the court. § 17.04. . . .

NEDERLANDSE DRAADINDUSTRIE NDI B. V. v. GRAND PRE- STRESSED CORPORATION,, 466 F. Supp. 846 (E.D.N.Y. 1979)

. . . Wages 24.18 Electricity 11.29 Others 5.53 Loss 10.72 51.72 _51.72 (4) Stranding Wages 65.09 Electricity 17.04 . . .