The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 17
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 17.05

17.05 Subpoenas; sworn statements; enforcement proceedings.—

(1) The Chief Financial Officer may demand and require full answers on oath from any and every person, party or privy to any account, claim, or demand against or by the state, such as it may be the Chief Financial Officer’s official duty to examine into, and which answers the Chief Financial Officer may require to be in writing and to be sworn to before the Chief Financial Officer or the department or before any judicial officer or clerk of any court of the state so as to enable the Chief Financial Officer to determine the justice or legality of such account, claim, or demand.

(2) In exercising authority under this chapter, the Chief Financial Officer or his or her designee may:

(a) Issue subpoenas, administer oaths, and examine witnesses.

(b) Require or permit a person to file a statement in writing, under oath or otherwise as the Chief Financial Officer or his or her designee requires, as to all the facts and circumstances concerning the matter to be audited, examined, or investigated.

(3) Subpoenas shall be issued by the Chief Financial Officer or his or her designee under seal commanding such witnesses to appear before the Chief Financial Officer or his or her representative or the department at a specified time and place and to bring books, records, and documents as specified or to submit books, records, and documents for inspection. Such subpoenas may be served by an authorized representative of the Chief Financial Officer or the department.

(4) In the event of noncompliance with a subpoena issued pursuant to this section, the Chief Financial Officer or the department may petition the circuit court of the county in which the person subpoenaed resides or has his or her principal place of business for an order requiring the subpoenaed person to appear and testify and to produce books, records, and documents as specified in the subpoena. The court may grant legal, equitable, or injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, issuance of a writ of ne exeat or the restraint by injunction or appointment of a receiver of any transfer, pledge, assignment, or other disposition of such person’s assets or any concealment, alteration, destruction, or other disposition of subpoenaed books, records, or documents, as the court deems appropriate, until such person has fully complied with such subpoena and the Chief Financial Officer or the department has completed the audit, examination, or investigation. The Chief Financial Officer or the department is entitled to the summary procedure provided in s. 51.011, and the court shall advance the cause on its calendar. Costs incurred by the Chief Financial Officer or the department to obtain an order granting, in whole or in part, such petition for enforcement of a subpoena shall be charged against the subpoenaed person, and failure to comply with such order shall be a contempt of court.

History.—s. 5, ch. 8, 1845; RS 97; GS 101; RGS 114; CGL 144; s. 1, ch. 73-334; s. 56, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 99-155; s. 22, ch. 2003-261.

F.S. 17.05 on Google Scholar

F.S. 17.05 on Casetext

Amendments to 17.05

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 17.05

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 17.05.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

LEWIS CLARK REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, INC. v. CARSTENSEN CONTRACTING, INC. v. LLC,, 339 F. Supp. 3d 886 (D. S.D. 2018)

. . . Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 17.05. . . . Doc. 13 at 3; Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 17.05. . . .

BROWE, v. CTC CORPORATION, 331 F. Supp. 3d 263 (D. Vt. 2018)

. . . The remaining payroll of $175,630 would only be sufficient to pay 17.05 additional full-time employees . . .

FAHMY, v. JAY- Z, AKA FKA Mr EMI EMI LLC II, MTV A- LLC UMG, 891 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 2018)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.05 at 17-39 (1994) ("The applicable law is the copyright law of the . . .

FAHMY, v. JAY- Z, Mr EMI EMI LLC II, MTV A- LLC UMG, 908 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2018)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.05 at 17-39 (1994) ) ("The applicable law is the copyright law of the . . .

In BAYER, v., 521 B.R. 491 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2014)

. . . . §§ 5/1.01-5/17.05, is not as explicit as the Georgia Business Corporation Code in delineating the duties . . .

In HUNT,, 521 B.R. 479 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2014)

. . . 16.077%. . 3.00% = $323.87-r-$10,790 . 34.57% = $2,700-$7,809.44 . 82.95% = $2,100,000 h- $2,531,568 . 17.05% . . .

RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, v. BURWELL,, 763 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . equivalent residents for the purpose of calculating Rush’s non-patient care activities would increase by 17.05 . . .

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

. . . . §§ 17.01-17.05. . . .

SCOTT TIMBER COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 97 Fed. Cl. 685 (Fed. Cl. 2011)

. . . Wildey calculated that 17.05% of the veneer that would have been produced would be A grade veneer, and . . .

In HOMEBANC CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (N.D. Ga. 2010)

. . . of HomeBanc’s preferred stock dropped 18.4 percent from $20.90 on May 9, 2007 to a closing price of $17.05 . . .

In MAK PETROLEUM, INC. L. v. Re, 424 B.R. 912 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . Rule 17.05(3) provides: 17.05 Manner of Service Outside Ontario 17.05(1) In this rule, “contracting state . . . and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters signed at The Hague on November 15,1965. 17.05 . . . P. 17.05(3). . . . Rule 17.05, of course, relates to documents transmitted to other countries for service, and not documents . . . Further, since Rule 17.05 provides that process outside Canada must be effected in accordance with the . . .

HUSS v. GAYDEN, M. D. PC,, 571 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . Laws, ch. 486, § 17.05 (1987), as recognized in S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. DE CASTRO- FONT, 587 F. Supp. 2d 372 (D.P.R. 2008)

. . . O'Malley, et al., Federal Jury Practice & Instructions § 17.05 (6th ed.2008); see also United States . . .

J. BURKETT, v. CITY OF EL PASO, El, 513 F. Supp. 2d 800 (W.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . City of El Paso to set reasonable bail for both misdemeanor and felony arrestees pursuant to articles 17.05 . . .

BITTAKIS, v. CITY OF EL PASO, El El J., 480 F. Supp. 2d 895 (W.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . City of El Paso to set reasonable bail for both misdemeanor and felony arrestees pursuant to articles 17.05 . . .

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

. . . District Rule 17.04(C), 17.05(B). . . .

In DAVIS, v., 374 B.R. 366 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2007)

. . . Franklin’s fee request (17.05 total hours claimed — 6.75 hour reduction = 10.3 hours x $25.00)_-$257.50 . . .

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. SORRELL, 549 U.S. 158 (U.S. 2007)

. . . Pattern Jury Instr., Civ., Nos. 17.01, 17.05 (2d ed. 1993) (railroad negligence “proximately caused, . . .

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY v. BRASPETRO OIL SERVICES COMPANY, S. A., 369 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2004)

. . . Bond Surety (Under Contract of Suretyship), in Moelmann & Harris 123, 128-29; 5 Construction Law ¶ 17.05 . . .

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

. . . days after the hearing, but an extension of time, if required, may be agreed upon by both parties. 17.05 . . .

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

. . . Code tit. 456, § 17.05. Moreover, the letters to Mr. . . .

FILMS BY JOVE, INC. v. BEROV,, 250 F. Supp. 2d 156 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright [hereinafter “Nim-mer” ] § 17.05[B][4]. . . . See Nimmer § 17.05[B][4], Plaintiffs locate a somewhat more decisive authority in the Second Circuit’ . . .

T. ECKERT, v. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., 783 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Id. at § 17.05[1]. . . .

UNITED STATES v. DERINGTON,, 229 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 17.05. . . .

UNITED STATES v. EASTERN MEDICAL BILLING, INC. v. v., 230 F.3d 600 (3d Cir. 2000)

. . . In Hernandez, we reiterated this suggestion, and noted that the same language now appeared in § 17.05 . . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 17.05 (2d. ed. 1970); W. Mathes & E. . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. SIMONS,, 107 F. Supp. 2d 703 (E.D. Va. 2000)

. . . . § 17.05 (5th ed.); Black’s Law Dictionary 1434 (5th ed.1979). . . .

CARELL v. THE SHUBERT ORGANIZATION, INC. NV, 104 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82, 89 (2d Cir.1998); 4 Nimmer, supra, § 17.05. . . .

MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES, v. M. DALEY, A., 170 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1999)

. . . Massachusetts (15.49% or 362,029 pounds), Rhode Island (60.57% or 1,415,425 pounds), and New York (17.05% . . .

THE BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORPORATION,, 25 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . 17.05, at 17-37 (1997) (hereinafter Nimmer). Accord, e.g., Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Comm. . . .

ITAR- TASS RUSSIAN NEWS AGENCY USA, I AR Co. I. v. RUSSIAN KURIER, INC., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998)

. . . Nimmer on Copyright § 17.05 (1998) (“Nimmer”) (footnote omitted). . . .

F. WILSON, F. P. D. E. E. A. R. C. A. v. AMOCO CORPORATION, a a a, 33 F. Supp. 2d 981 (D. Wyo. 1998)

. . . D.Vi.1995) (citing Cooke, The Law of Hazardous Waste: Management, Cleanup, Liability and Litigation, § 17.05 . . .

HALEY, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., 169 F.R.D. 643 (C.D. Cal. 1996)

. . . Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 17.05 (3d ed.1992) (noting that modern courts are increasingly . . .

VALENTINO A. S. S. O v. CARTER- WALLACE, INC. a, 97 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1996)

. . . Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 17.05 (3d ed.1992) (noting modern trend has been to . . .

PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY, v. TOUR I, LTD., 942 F. Supp. 1513 (S.D. Tex. 1996)

. . . F.2d 252, 259 (5th Cir.1980), such uses are not relevant to a finding of abandonment. 2 McCarthy § 17.05 . . .

MURRAY, v. BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION BBC, 81 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 1996)

. . . of which the author is a citizen or in which the work was first published. 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 17.05 . . .

In TUTU WELLS CONTAMINATION LITIGATION. J. HARTHMAN, v. TEXACO INC., 909 F. Supp. 980 (D.V.I. 1995)

. . . Cooke, The .Law of Hazardous Waste: Management, Cleanup Liability and Litigation, § 17.05[4][6], p 17 . . . The Law of Hazardous Waste § 17.05[4][c], at 17-260. . . . The Law of Hazardous Waste § 17.05[4][c], at 17-261 n. 55; Miller, 858 F.2d at 1453-56; Cutchin v. . . .

CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY, LTD. a v. AZTECH SYSTEM PTE, LTD, a a, 61 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1995)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.05 at 17-39 (1994)). . . . and territoriality are choice of law principles, See Subafilms, 24 F.3d at 1097; 3 Nimmer, supra § 17.05 . . . See also 3 Nimmer, supra, § 17.05, at 17-39 (“The applicable law is the copyright law of the state in . . .

JACK I. BENDER SONS, v. TOM JAMES COMPANY,, 37 F.3d 640 (D.C. Cir. 1994)

. . . Rohan, Powell on Real Property § 17.05[1], at 17-77 to -78 (1994). . . .

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

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

UNITED STATES v. J. HILLIARD,, 31 F.3d 1509 (10th Cir. 1994)

. . . O’Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.05 (4th ed. 1992). . . . .

SUBAFILMS, LTD. v. MGM- PATHE COMMUNICATIONS CO. MGM UA Co. MGM UA SUBAFILMS, LTD. v. MGM- PATHE COMMUNICATIONS CO. MGM UA Co. MGM UA, 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994)

. . . Intercontinental Communications, Inc., 580 F.Supp. 47, 50 n. 6 (S.D.N.Y.1984); see also 3 Nimmer, supra, § 17.05 . . . See 3 Nimmer, supra, § 17.05, at 17-39 (noting that the “national treatment” principle has resulted in . . .

SEXCIUS, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 839 F. Supp. 919 (D.D.C. 1993)

. . . Weiss also carefully billed the 17.05 hours she spent doing paralegal work — drafting and updating a . . .

ESTRADA, M. Jr. v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 29 Fed. Cl. 78 (Fed. Cl. 1993)

. . . The special master pared 17.05 hours of attorney time from petitioner’s requested amount and 23.30 hours . . . Special Master Wright denied petitioner 17.05 hours of attorney time as unreasonable. . . .

HERRLEY v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. A. G., 957 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1992)

. . . See Miss.Laws 1987, ch. 486, § 17.05, eff. Jan. 1, 1988. . . . .

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

. . . 45 S.Ct. 357, 69 L.Ed. 739 (1925), 1A Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1978) ¶¶ 17.02, 17.03, 17.04, 17.05 . . . debts also non-provable and therefore non-dischargeable, 1A Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1978) ¶ 17.05 . . .

INHABITANTS OF CITY OF SACO, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 779 F. Supp. 186 (D. Me. 1991)

. . . Id. at ¶¶ 17.05 and 17.07. . . .

DOMINION INVESTMENTS, An v. T. YASECHKO,, 767 F. Supp. 1460 (N.D. Ind. 1991)

. . . more than fifteen (15) days provided that the extension does not cause the Commitment to expire____ 17.05 . . . Fourth, Section 17.05 states that if the transaction is not closed for specified reasons, “buyer may . . . Clearly, Section 17.05 implies that the buyer is required to give notice to the seller if the buyer elects . . .

EASTERWOOD, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 933 F.2d 1548 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . m.p.h. speed limit its trains can travel up to 60 m.p.h. or 88 feet per second which would result in 17.05 . . .

In C- T OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, f d b a s, 128 B.R. 628 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1991)

. . . Simplicity, and Economic Growth— Vol. 2 — General Explanation of the Treasury Department Proposals,” Chapter 17.05 . . .

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE v. DAVENPORT, 495 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1990)

. . . See Collier, supra, at ¶ 17.05, p. 1587 (pre-Code practice held that “[f lines for violation of law, . . .

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, v. J. DAVENPORT, 110 S. Ct. 2126 (U.S. 1990)

. . . See Collier, at ¶[ 17.05, p. 1587 (pre-Code practice held that “[fjines for violation of law, and forfeitures . . .

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

. . . .” § 17.05(9). . . .

HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK, a v. E- II HOLDINGS, INC. a, 722 F. Supp. 429 (N.D. Ill. 1989)

. . . E-II announced that E-II had agreed to be acquired by AMBR at an increased price per common share of $17.05 . . .

In ERICKSON, ERICKSON, v. DISTRICT COURT OF STATE OF COLORADO,, 104 B.R. 364 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1989)

. . . has become “well settled” that “fines and penalties are not affected by a discharge.” 1A Collier ¶ 17.05 . . .

BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION v. BLINDED AMERICAN VETERANS FOUNDATION,, 872 F.2d 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

. . . Callman, Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies § 17.05 at 21-22 (4th ed. 1983) [hereafter Callman . . .

In Re W. ANANKO E. W. ANANKO E. v. A. HARSANYI, 89 B.R. 399 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1988)

. . . The difference of $17.05 amounts to $24,000.00 (rounded) and may be explained by the fact that the appraisal . . .

HASKIN, v. CORPORACION INSULAR DE SEGUROS, ABC, 666 F. Supp. 349 (D.P.R. 1987)

. . . assignment and was not a complete stranger to the transaction.” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, Para. 17.05 . . .

MADRIGAL AUDIO LABORATORIES, INC. v. CELLO, LTD., 799 F.2d 814 (2d Cir. 1986)

. . . See also 3 Callmann, supra, § 17.05. . . . See also 3 Callmann, supra § 17.05. . . .

NORTH AMERICAN WATCH CORPORATION, a v. PRINCESS ERMINE JEWELS, a, 786 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir. 1986)

. . . See generally 3A Moore’s Federal Practice II 17.05[3] (1985) (discussing the problem of assignments improperly . . .

VALLEY TOWING SERVICE M V CITY GREENVILLE VALLEY LINE COMPANY, v. M V CITY OF GREENVILLE M V CITY OF GREENVILLE v. UNITED STATES, 629 F. Supp. 139 (E.D. Mo. 1985)

. . . Archway charged a daily rate of $23.00 per day for the fleeting of a barge, and earned a net profit of $17.05 . . .

STATE TEXAS, v. UNITED STATES v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., 761 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1985)

. . . interstate fare would be $31.00, or .1422 cents per bus mile in revenue, while the intrastate fare would be $17.05 . . .

HOBART CORPORATION, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,, 603 F. Supp. 1431 (S.D. Ohio 1984)

. . . See 1 O’Reilly supra, § 17.05 at 17-18 (1983). . . .

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

. . . denied, 444 U.S. 842, 100 S.Ct. 82, 62 L.Ed.2d 54 (1979); 2 O’Reilly, Federal Information Disclosure 17.05 . . .

LONDON FILM PRODUCTIONS LIMITED, v. INTERCONTINENTAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 580 F. Supp. 47 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)

. . . its assumption that the laws of several countries will be involved in the case. 3 Nimmer, supra at § 17.05 . . .

RAILROAD DYNAMICS, INC. v. A. STUCKI COMPANY,, 579 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. Pa. 1983)

. . . Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals § 17.05, at 17-27. . . .

LONG JOHN SILVER S, INC. v. ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING PRODUCTS CO. INC. Co. KORAD, INC. v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY,, 520 F. Supp. 753 (W.D. Pa. 1981)

. . . See cases at 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.05[3 — 1] n.7, (2d ed. 1979), and 75 ALR2d 717 § 3(a). . . . that predated the assignment and was not a complete stranger to the transaction.” 3A Moore’s, supra, ¶ 17.05 . . .

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 . . .

TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. A. LEWIS, 399 So. 2d 106 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . The comptroller has specific authority to hold' such hearings under Sections 17.03 and 17.05, Florida . . . Section 17.05 provides: The Comptroller of this state may demand and require full answers on oath from . . .

In R. J. FLICK a k a R. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. R. FLICK,, 5 B.R. 637 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1980)

. . . See 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.05 at 1587 n. 5 (14th ed. 1978). . . .

In CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 560 F. Supp. 963 (N.D. Ga. 1980)

. . . The balance was spent furthering the state’s special interests (17.05) or reviewing papers (11.0), which . . .

J. BETAR, v. DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA, LTD. a, 603 F.2d 30 (7th Cir. 1979)

. . . s The Federal Courts and the Federal System at 1100-01 (2d ed. 1973); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice H 17.05 . . .

T. F. H. v., 72 T.C. 623 (T.C. 1979)

. . . Acrow Janitorial . 47.50 American Building Maintenance . 258.00 X = Check Mark . 258.00 Diners Club . 17.05 . . .

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

. . . At the judge’s direction, see § 17.05 (b) (2) (Supp. 1978-1979), the Department filed a “Suit Affecting . . . care and protection of the child and may appoint a temporary managing conservator for the child.” § 17.05 . . . That Section 17.05 is unconstitutional on its face insofar as it fails to require the State to hold a . . .

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

. . . With respect to §§ 17.05 and 17.06, Sims found that they also violated constitutional guarantees because . . . Instead, §§ 17.05 and 17.06 place an unconstitutional burden on the parents to seek modification of the . . . The 10-day period provided for in § 17.05 was held to be constitutionally acceptable, but the Sims court . . . The Sims decision itself found § 17.01 to be valid, and parts of §§ 17.02 and 17.05 passed successfully . . . Notice The proceeding under Section 17.02 of this code may be held without notice. § 17.05. . . .

UNITED STATES v. PITTS,, 569 F.2d 343 (5th Cir. 1978)

. . . See 8 Moore’s Federal Practice H 17.05, at 17-15 (2d. ed. 1976). . . .

SIMS v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF STATE OF TEXAS WOODS v. JIMENEZ, 438 F. Supp. 1179 (S.D. Tex. 1977)

. . . Section 17.05 provides that such an order is of ten days in duration, and, upon the expiration of the . . . Later on April 5, at Judge Lowry’s direction pursuant to Section 17.05(b)(2), the Harris County Child . . . By the terms of Section 17.05(b)(2), the State may then institute a “Suit affecting the parent-child . . . It is Sections 17.05 and 17.06 that are fraught with constitutional defects. . . . Section 17.05. Duration of Order. . . .

D. ALBRITTON, v. GENERAL PORTLAND CEMENT CO., 344 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1977)

. . . Ch. 70-12, Laws of Florida. . 1A Collier on Bankruptcy § 17.05 (14th ed. rev. 1976). . . . .

CARGILL, INCORPORATED v. S S NASUGBU, Co., 404 F. Supp. 342 (M.D. La. 1975)

. . . .-47, arrived at by multiplying 26 days, 17.05 hours by $1,400.00 per day, or $58.33 per hour. . . .

In LAW RESEARCH SERVICE, INC. v. CROOK,, 524 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1975)

. . . Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U.S. 434, 452, 60 S.Ct. 1044, 84 L.Ed. 1293 (1940); 9 Collier, Bankruptcy 17.05 . . .

HINES, v. O D. ASKEW, 514 F.2d 673 (5th Cir. 1975)

. . . which alleged, inter alia, arbitrary, discriminatory, and retaliatory application of inmate directive 17.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. DAWSON,, 516 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1975)

. . . (1969)) and are inconsistent with the reforms in criminal pleading (cf. 8 Moore’s Federal Practice 17.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. McQUATTERS,, 370 F. Supp. 1286 (W.D. Tex. 1973)

. . . initiated on August 30, 1968, the former rule applies in this case. 1A Collier on Bankruptcy, Sec. 17.05 . . .

H. VASON v. UNITED STATES, 369 F. Supp. 1202 (N.D. Ga. 1973)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 17.01-17.05. . . .

GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS v. FELIX CARRION HERNANDEZ IRIS LOPEZ HERNANDEZ GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS v. FELIX CARRION HERNANDEZ IRIS LOPEZ HERNANDEZ, 9 V.I. 604 (3d Cir. 1973)

. . . See Devitt and Blackmar, “Federal Jury Practice and Instructions,” 1970, § 17.05. . . .

GOVERNMENT OF VIRGIN ISLANDS v. HERNANDEZ,, 476 F.2d 791 (3d Cir. 1973)

. . . See Devitt and Blackmar, “Federal Jury Practice and Instructions,” 1970, § 17.05. . . .

J. SYMS, Jr. v. CASTLETON INDUSTRIES, INC., 470 F.2d 1078 (5th Cir. 1972)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice |f 17.05 at 1319 (1967 ed.). . . . Kramer, 5 Cir., 392 F.2d 387, 389 (1968); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice Tf 17.05 [1] (1970 ed.). . . . .

J. F. PRITCHARD COMPANY, v. DOW CHEMICAL OF CANADA, LIMITED,, 331 F. Supp. 1215 (W.D. Mo. 1971)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 17.05 [3.-1], pp. 158-159 (1970 ed); Ferrara v. . . .

S. DICKSON, J. Jr. E. v. TATTNALL COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,, 316 F. Supp. 531 (S.D. Ga. 1970)

. . . See also the review of this subject in 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.05, pp. 157-207. . . .

M. BROWN, Jr. D. v. UNITED STATES, 312 F. Supp. 286 (E.D. Mich. 1970)

. . . Revenue, 319 U.S. 436, 63 S.Ct. 1132, 87 L.Ed. 1499 (1943); Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 17.05 . . .

DEAL, a L. v. CINCINNATI BOARD OF EDUCATION, 419 F.2d 1387 (6th Cir. 1969)

. . . In 1964-65, 17.05 percentage of the Walnut Hills Senior High School was Negro, and of Walnut Hills Junior . . .

v., 26 Ohio Misc. 192 (6th Cir. 1969)

. . . In 1964-65, 17.05 percentage of the Walnut Hills senior high school was Negro, and of Walnut Hills junior . . .

GENTLE d b a v. LAMB- WESTON, INC., 302 F. Supp. 161 (D. Me. 1969)

. . . uniformly critical of, and alarmed by, the increasing use of this device. 3A Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.05 . . . Moore, supra, j[ 17.05 [2] at 154 . . . . Moore, supra, If 17.05 [2] at 154 n. 5. . . .

KRAMER v. CARIBBEAN MILLS, INC., 394 U.S. 823 (U.S. 1969)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.05 [3.-1], nn. 7-9 (2d ed. 1968). . . .

DOUGHERTY, R. a v. OBERG,, 297 F. Supp. 635 (D. Minn. 1969)

. . . See, e. g. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice j[ 17.05 [3.-3], criticizing such rigidity as was spawned by Corabi . . .

McSPARRAN, R. a M. R. a v. R. WEIST, R. M. R. a, 402 F.2d 867 (3d Cir. 1968)

. . . See also 3A Moore, Federal Practice, § 17.05 [3-3] (2d ed. 1968). . See McNutt v. . . .

NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, v. INLAND PROPERTIES, INC. TANGLEWOOD APARTMENTS, INC. v. NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, 286 F. Supp. 173 (E.D. Ark. 1968)

. . . Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 26, pp. 155-156; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., fílf 17.05 . . .

CARIBBEAN MILLS, INC. v. S. KRAMER,, 392 F.2d 387 (5th Cir. 1968)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.05, at 1319 (1967 ed.). . . .

A. KIMBRELL v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 371 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1967)

. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 17.05. . . .

BLUEBERRY LAND COMPANY, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 361 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1966)

. . . See generally 2 Mertens §§ 17.05-.05a, 17.12; 3 Id. §§ 20.161-.163, 20.165; 7 Id. §§ 38.11-.13. . . . .

G. HEAPE E. H. v. L. SULLIVAN,, 233 F. Supp. 127 (E.D.S.C. 1964)

. . . , however, where such assignment is made to avoid federal jurisdiction. 3 Moore, Federal Practice § 17.05 . . .