The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 17
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 17.21

17.21 Not to allow any claim of state attorney against state until report made.—The Chief Financial Officer shall not audit or allow any claim which any state attorney may have against the state for services who shall fail to make any report which by law the state attorney is required to make to the Chief Financial Officer of claims of the state which it is his or her duty to collect.

History.—s. 3, ch. 1413, 1863; RS 113; GS 117; RGS 129; CGL 159; s. 63, ch. 95-147; s. 35, ch. 2003-261.

F.S. 17.21 on Google Scholar

F.S. 17.21 on Casetext

Amendments to 17.21

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 17.21

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 17.21.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

FRIENDS OF ANIMALS, v. ZINKE,, 373 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . . § 17.21(b), the Act empowers the Service to issue regulations pertaining to threatened species "deem . . .

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, v. ZINKE,, 369 F. Supp. 3d 164 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . . § 17.21(b), the Act empowers the Service to issue regulations pertaining to threatened species "deem . . .

SIERRA CLUB v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. T. LLC, v. U. S. LLC,, 899 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2018)

. . . . § 17.21(c) (endangered species); 50 C.F.R. § 17.31 (threatened species). . . .

HUMANE SOCIETY OF UNITED STATES, v. M. KIENZLE, III Sr., 333 F. Supp. 3d 1236 (D.N.M. 2018)

. . . . §§ 17.11, 17.21. . . .

M. REQUENA, v. ROBERTS, L. M. CCI, CSI, C. COI, G. CCI, C. CCII, W. RN, T. CCII, W. CCII, G. CCII, CCI, CSI, CCII, M. CSI, CSI, P. COI, M. MHP, CO, LPN, J. COII, D. J. S. C. LCP, BHP, D., 893 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2018)

. . . The relief was partial, however, because Requena sought $17.21, the price he paid for it in 2004. . . .

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL v. ZINKE, U. S., 878 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 17.21(b). . . .

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

. . . Pro. art. 17.20; cf. id. art. 17.21 ("BAIL IN FELONY. . . .

WILLIAMS, v. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL, 245 F. Supp. 3d 129 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . that he was being suspended without pay for 180 days because he violated “WMATA Policy/Instruetion: P/17.21 . . .

PEOPLE FOR ETHICAL TREATMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERS, v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE M. s S. M. M. D. C., 852 F.3d 990 (10th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 17.21, except when FWS issues a specific rule for a particular threatened species. . . . . § 17.21 (setting forth take and other prohibitions with respect to endangered species). . . . See 50 C.F.R. § 17.31(a); see also id. § 17.21(a), (c). . . .

NEW ENGLAND ANTI- VIVISECTION SOCIETY, v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,, 208 F. Supp. 3d 142 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . . § 17.21(b). . . . .

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, v. HOPPER, U. S., 827 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . . §§ 17.21, 402.14(a). . . .

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, v. HOPPER, U. S., 424 U.S. App. D.C. 11 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . . §§ 17.21, 402.14(a). . . .

FRIENDS OF ANIMALS, v. JEWELL, In, 824 F.3d 1033 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 17.21(h)). . . . See Reinstatement Rule, 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(h). . . .

FRIENDS OF ANIMALS, v. JEWELL, In, 423 U.S. App. D.C. 22 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 17.21(h)). . . . See Reinstatement Rule, 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(h). . . .

INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, IBEW No. IBEW No. v. SAIC, INC. W. P. C. H., 818 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2016)

. . . the day after it announced the termination of the CityTime contract, SAIC’s stock price fell from $17.21 . . .

MAYO, v. B. JARVIS, v., 177 F. Supp. 3d 91 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . . §§ 17.21(c), 17.31(a). . . .

FRIENDS OF ANIMALS, v. M. ASHE,, 174 F. Supp. 3d 20 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . . § 17.21(b). . . .

OTAY MESA PROPERTY, L. P. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,, 144 F. Supp. 3d 35 (D.D.C. 2015)

. . . . § 17.21(c). . . .

BIO- MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF AQUADILLA, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 119 Fed. Cl. 546 (Fed. Cl. 2014)

. . . . § 17.21”). . . . .

CONSERVATION FORCE, v. M. ASHE, U. S., 979 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . . §§ 17.21, 17.31 (2012). . . . . §§ 17.21, 17.31 (2012). . . . .

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, v. JEWELL, v., 960 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . . § 17.21(g). . . . at 52,320, the agency simultaneously promulgated a Captive-bred Exemption, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.21 . . . (h) violates section 10(c) of the [ESA] and the rescission of 17.21(h)[,]” and by committing to consider . . . The rescission of this rule responds to a Court ruling finding that 50 C.F.R. 17.21(h) violates section . . . Specifically, 50 C.F.R. § 17.21 was amended by adding paragraph (h), which read, in part, as follows: . . .

UNITED STATES v. MENDIOLA,, 529 F. App'x 828 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . . §§ 17.21(a), (d), 17.31(a). . . .

In WILMINGTON TRUST CORP. ERISA LITIGATION, 943 F. Supp. 2d 478 (D. Del. 2013)

. . . ._ Date_NAV 2/15/07_$17.21 9/26/07_$15.39 11/15/07 $13.80 12/26/07 $14,22 2/15/08_$12.88 3/17/08_$11.71 . . .

CONSERVATION FORCE, v. SALAZAR,, 915 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 17.21(b). . . .

CASCADIA WILDLANDS, v. KITZHABER, v. a a Co. v., 911 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (D. Or. 2012)

. . . . §§ 17.31(a), 17.21(a). III. . . .

CONSERVATION FORCE, v. SALAZAR,, 699 F.3d 538 (D.C. Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 17.21(b). . . .

CELTA AGENCIES, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012)

. . . The Order set a company-specific antidumping duty cash deposit rate of 17.21% for subject merchandise . . . from Latvia manufactured by Liepajas; the “all others” cash deposit rate was also set at 17.21%. . . . an assessment rate of 5.94% for imports from Latvia of re-bar manufactured by Liepajas and a rate of 17.21% . . . 2007, Customs liquidated Celta’s entry with antidumping duties assessed at the “all others” rate of 17.21% . . . the entry at issue on March 30, 2007 with [antidumping duties] assessed at the “All others” rate of 17.21% . . .

COATES, v. BRAZORIA COUNTY TEXAS,, 894 F. Supp. 2d 966 (S.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . . § 17.21(a)-App., to athletic stadium authorities, id. § 45.152(b), to the state bar, Tex. . . .

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, v. SALAZAR, U. S. v. v., 852 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . . § 17.21(g)(1). . . . At the same time, the FWS added a new regulation, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(h), authorizing certain . . . determined that there was no alternative “other than the currently established regulations at 50 C.F.R. 17.21 . . . was unable to identify an alternative other than the currently established regulations at 50 C.F.R. 17.21 . . . (h)(1); see also id. § 17.21(h)(3)-(8) (additional restrictions including prevention of hybridization . . .

CONSERVATION FORCE, v. SALAZAR,, 851 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . . § 17.21(b). Importation of threatened species, with some exceptions, is also prohibited. . . .

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, v. SALAZAR, U. S. v. v., 281 F.R.D. 32 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . . § 17.21(h), authorizing certain otherwise prohibited activities for U.S. captive-bred individuals of . . . against FWS in 2009, in which Judge Kennedy held that the Captive-bred Exemption, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.21 . . . EWA Action and by SCI and EWA in their motions for a preliminary injunction, would amend 50 C.F.R. § 17.21 . . .

CONSERVATION FORCE, v. SALAZAR,, 811 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . . §§ 17.21(b), 17.32. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SNAPP,, 423 F. App'x 706 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 17.21(f)(2) (explaining that the prohibition on offers for sale excludes advertisements accompanied . . .

CONSERVATION FORCE, v. SALAZAR,, 753 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2010)

. . . . §§ 17.21(b), 17.32. . . .

CONSERVATION FORCE, v. SALAZAR,, 715 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2010)

. . . . §§ 17.21(b), 17.32. . . .

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, v. FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., 677 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2009)

. . . . § 17.21(g); 44 Fed. Reg. 54002, 54007 (Sept. 17, 1979)). . . .

LITTLETON v. McNEELY, v. A., 562 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . See M.A.I. 17.21. . . . See M.A.I. 17.21 Committee Comment (recognizing, “[t]here must be evidence to support a finding of proximate . . .

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE, v. D. MARTIN,, 588 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D. Me. 2008)

. . . . § 17.21(d)(1) and 50 C.F.R. § 17.31(a) and the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(1).” Id. at 9. . . .

SIERRA CLUB, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE L. U. S. U. S. U. S., 593 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2008)

. . . . §§ 17.21; 17.31. . . .

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, v. KEMPTHORNE,, 535 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . . §§ 17.21, 17.31. . . .

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, v. RINGLING BROTHERS AND BARNUM BAILEY CIRCUS,, 502 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.D.C. 2007)

. . . Section 17.21 of Sub-part C, which governs endangered species such as Asian elephants, provides that . . . Paragraph (c) of section 17.21 provides that it is “unlawful to take endangered wildlife within the United . . . States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or upon the high seas.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(e . . . See 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(g); 44 Fed.Reg. 54001, 54007 (Sept. 17, 1979). . . . Defendant holds a CBW permit issued pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(g). . . .

CINTRON- RIVERA, v. BORDERS GROUP, INC., 555 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D.P.R. 2006)

. . . P.17(c) and Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.21[3][a] at 17-94 (3d ed.2006). . . .

Q. OLIBAS, d b a v. GOMEZ,, 481 F. Supp. 2d 721 (W.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . art. 17.20 (“sheriff ... may ... take of the defendant a bail bond”) (emphasis added), and id. art. 17.21 . . .

ROCK CREEK ALLIANCE, v. UNITED STATES FISH WILDLIFE SERVICE,, 390 F. Supp. 2d 993 (D. Mont. 2005)

. . . . §§ 17.44(w), 17.31(a), 17.21 (bull trout). . . .

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, v. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY,, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (W.D. Wash. 2004)

. . . . §§ 17.21(c), 17.31(a). . . .

GADDIS a a v. UNITED STATES, 381 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2004)

. . . MOORE ET AL„ MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 17.21[3][b] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) (emphasis added). . . .

J. WEEDE, v. WEEDE,, 858 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . property, the record discloses that the parties owned a 27.89-acre parcel valued at $33,500, and a 17.21 . . . court awarded the wife the mobile home, to which it assigned a value of $25,815, and 10.6 acres of the 17.21 . . . Regarding the 17.21-acre tract, the only evidence of its value was that of a court-ordered appraisal, . . .

FUND FOR ANIMALS, v. NORTON,, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003)

. . . . § 17.21(b); Id. § 17.31(a). . . . Specifically, 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(b) provides that "[i]t is unlawful to import or to export any endangered . . . wildlife." 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(b). . . . Section 17.31(a) makes this prohibition applicable to threatened species: "all of the provisions in 17.21 . . . (Note — In all other parts of its range the argali is classified as endangered and covered by § 17.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HUTSON,, 19 F. App'x 466 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 17.21(g). . . . See 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(g)(iii). Other evidence showed when the offense occurred. . . .

BOWEN, o b o v. RUBIN d b a a k a, 213 F. Supp. 2d 220 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.21 [3] [a] (stating “whenever an individual lacks capacity . . . decisions concerning the litigation on behalf of the minor or incompetent person .... ” Moore, supra, § 17.21 . . .

MULTIMAX, INC. v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,, 231 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 17.21 (2000). . . .

ALEMAN, A. v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY, B., 35 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Wis. 1999)

. . . . § 17.21(1). . . .

SIERRA CLUB, v. BABBITT,, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (S.D. Ala. 1998)

. . . Against the ESA statutory framework and the FWS’s regulations regarding Endangered Wildlife (50 C.F.R., § 17.21 . . .

LOGGERHEAD TURTLE v. COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, a, 148 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 17.21, the regulatory version of the ‘take’ prohibition], ... for the incidental taking of endangered . . .

UNITED STATES v. TOWN OF PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS,, 6 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D. Mass. 1998)

. . . . §§ 17.21(c), 17.31(a) (1997). . . .

E. SHULER, v. BABBITT, G. U. S. U. S., 49 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Mont. 1998)

. . . . §§ 17.21(c)(2); 17.40(b)(l)(i)(B). . . .

T. W. M. W. ENK, v. BROPHY,, 124 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1997)

. . . Co., 256 F.2d 35, 39 (5th Cir.1958); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, § 17.21[3][a], pp. 17-94 to 17 . . .

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, v. BABBITT,, 958 F. Supp. 670 (D.D.C. 1997)

. . . . §§ 17.21, 17.31. . . .

STRAHAN, v. COXE,, 939 F. Supp. 963 (D. Mass. 1996)

. . . . § 17.31(a) (with certain exceptions, “all of the provisions in § 17.21 [which includes prohibitions . . .

DOE v. NEVADA CROSSING, INC., 920 F. Supp. 164 (D. Utah 1996)

. . . . § 17.21 (1992). . Plaintiffs also refer to Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Laws § 171. . . .

UNITED STATES v. S. JIM, Jr., 888 F. Supp. 1058 (D. Or. 1995)

. . . . §§ 17.41, 17.32, 17.21. . . . possessmg eagles taken without a proper permit. 16 U.S.C. § 668(a); 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(D); 50 C.F.R. § 17.21 . . .

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD, INC., 23 F.3d 1508 (9th Cir. 1994)

. . . . §§ 17.21, 17.31. . . .

SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREAT OREGON, v. BABBITT,, 303 U.S. App. D.C. 42 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 17.21, the regulation implementing the section 1538(a)(1) prohibitions] shall apply to threatened . . . provided in subpart A of this part, or in a permit issued under this subpart, all of the provisions in § 17.21 . . .

SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREAT OREGON, v. BABBITT,, 1 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

UNITED STATES v. CLARK,, 986 F.2d 65 (4th Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 17.21(f). . . .

SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREAT OREGON, v. LUJAN, Jr. F. U. S., 806 F. Supp. 279 (D.D.C. 1992)

. . . provided in subpart A of this part, or in a permit issued under this subpart, all of the provisions in § 17.21 . . . restates the prohibitions outlined in 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)] shall apply to threatened wildlife, except § 17.21 . . .

SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, v. TONY AND SUSAN ALAMO FOUNDATION,, 783 F. Supp. 405 (W.D. Ark. 1991)

. . . jury is the trier of fact it is common to give a jury instruction similar to the one contained at § 17.21 . . .

In A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED,, 880 F.2d 709 (4th Cir. 1989)

. . . A Step Toward Equity and Efficiency, 47 Alb.L.Rev. 1180, 1183 (1983); 3 Newberg on Class Actions, § 17.21 . . .

J. ALEXANDER U. S. a v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, a, 713 F. Supp. 1296 (D. Minn. 1989)

. . . For each full 500-foot radius circle within the B4 District, 17.21 acres of land becomes unavailable . . .

COX CONSTRUCTION CO. Co. a v. UNITED STATES, 17 Cl. Ct. 29 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . Nov. 1986 16.24 15.59 16.48 16.57 17.21 17.62 First Half Second Half 1987 19.23 20.60 1988 23.51 26.02 . . .

CASTELLI, v. E. STEELE, M. D., 700 F. Supp. 449 (S.D. Ind. 1988)

. . . lex loci delicti will not be automatically applied by Ohio courts); Scoles, Hay, Conflict of Laws § 17.21 . . .

ELDREDGE, v. CARPENTERS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING COMMITTEE,, 833 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1987)

. . . no carryover of applicants from prior years, in seven of the years, women were indentured at between 17.21% . . .

STATE v. E. BILLIE,, 497 So. 2d 889 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . . §§ 17.21, 10.12 and 17.11 (1985). . . .

WADE v. DOLE, O. V, E. V. V, 631 F. Supp. 1100 (N.D. Ill. 1986)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice II 17.21 (2d ed. 1985). . . .

McK. FOSTER, O. E. v. UNITED STATES, 768 F.2d 1278 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . See Scoles & Hay, Conflict of Laws § 17.21, p. 588 (West 1982). . . .

In BRUNER, PARKER, v. BRUNER,, 43 B.R. 143 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1984)

. . . contractual and, therefore, dischargeable), see Collier on Bankruptcy, Vol. 1A, sections 17.20- and 17.21 . . .

In D. H. OVERMYER TELECASTING CO. INC. HADAR LEASING INTERNATIONAL CO. INC. v. D. H. OVERMYER TELECASTING CO. INC., 23 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1982)

. . . (Raible, 9 Tr. 847-48) 17.21.Duplicate Invoices. . . . (See Findings Nos. 13.1-13.5, 14.1-14.3, 15.1-15.2, 16.1-16.10, 17.1-17.21, 18.1-18.11, 19.1-19.10, 20 . . .

JEROLD PANAS PARTNERS, INC. v. PORTLAND SOCIETY OF ART,, 535 F. Supp. 650 (D. Me. 1982)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.21 at 17-226 (2d ed. 1977). . . .

P. GODDARD, v. BABBITT, J., 536 F. Supp. 538 (D. Ariz. 1982)

. . . This is an increase of 17.21% over the highest percentage of minority population in the existing congressional . . .

FARRIS, v. SAMBO S RESTAURANTS, INC., 498 F. Supp. 143 (N.D. Tex. 1980)

. . . state in a case based solely on diversity or alienage jurisdiction.” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.21 . . .

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. v. LAKE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY,, 521 F. Supp. 8 (N.D. Ind. 1980)

. . . This position is further espoused in 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.21 at 17-226 —17-227 (2d Ed. 1979 . . .

VIVA LTD. a v. UNITED STATES, 490 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Colo. 1980)

. . . Quality Courts United, 249 F.2d 790 (6th Cir.1957); 3A Moore, Federal Practice, § 17.21 at 774 (2d ed . . .

R. WILLIAMS v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, 617 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir. 1980)

. . . Grievances arising on the job shall be processed in accordance with the procedure hereof beginning with 17.21 . . . provisions herein shall be processed in accordance with the provisions hereof beginning with 17.23. 17.21 . . . foreman in immediate charge of the operation. 17.22 If the grievance is not settled as provided in 17.21 . . . Union and to a representative designated by the Employer. 17.23 If the grievance is not settled in 17.21 . . .

REMINGA, H. v. UNITED STATES, 448 F. Supp. 445 (W.D. Mich. 1978)

. . . . § 17.21; 47 C.F.R. § 17.35. . . .

B. v., 69 T.C. 149 (T.C. 1977)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, par. 17.21 (1977); J. . . .

R. N. KELLY COTTON MERCHANT, INC. v. YORK, 379 F. Supp. 1075 (M.D. Ga. 1973)

. . . Interstate Realty Co., 337 U.S. 535, 69 S.Ct. 1235, 93 L.Ed. 1524 (1949); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice jf 17.21 . . .

MARION LABORATORIES, INC. v. MICHIGAN PHARMACAL CORP., 338 F. Supp. 762 (E.D. Mich. 1972)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ft 17.21, p. 773 (2nd ed., 1970). . . .

JOSEPH MULLER CORPORATION ZURICH, v. SOCIETE ANONYME GERANCE D ARMEMENT,, 451 F.2d 727 (2d Cir. 1971)

. . . Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1561, at 733-34 (1971), 3A Moore, Federal Practice j[ 17.21 . . .

METROPOLITAN PAVING COMPANY, a a a v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,, 439 F.2d 300 (10th Cir. 1971)

. . . Quality Courts United, 249 F.2d 790 (6th Cir. 1957); 3A Moore, Federal Practice, § 17.21 at 774 (2d ed . . .

TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL- CIO, CLC, v. TEXTILE PAPER PRODUCTS, INC., 405 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1968)

. . . Effective 5/18/68 Operator No. 1 Machine 2.10 2.15 2.20 2.27 2.34 Operator No. 2 Machine 2.05 2.10 2.15 17.21 . . .

R. WILLIAMS v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, 384 F.2d 935 (9th Cir. 1967)

. . . Grievances arising on the job shall be processed in accordance with the procedure hereof beginning with 17.21 . . . of this Court those intermediate sections read as follows: ‘17.23 If the grievance is not settled in 17.21 . . .

In ANJOPA PAPER BOARD MANUFACTURING CO., 269 F. Supp. 241 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

. . . See 3 Moore, Federal Practice T 17.21 n. 8 (1965 ed.). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING COMPANY, 253 F. Supp. 129 (N.D. Cal. 1966)

. . . 2,367,384 2,421,997 1939 California Sales Barrels Percentage of share Bank of market Acme 428,177 1 17.21 . . .

C. HOLZSCHUH, v. W. CURTIS, 242 F. Supp. 513 (S.D. Iowa 1965)

. . . See Moore Federal Practice, Section 17.21. . . .

WESTERN NON- FERROUS METALS CORPORATION, a v. UNITED STATES, 192 F. Supp. 774 (N.D. Cal. 1961)

. . . correct number of pieces but actual weight fell short of the estimated totals by some 30,525 pounds or 17.21% . . .

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SHERMAN, 135 F.2d 68 (6th Cir. 1943)

. . . 1936; but the Board of Tax Appeals, upon redetermination, found that there was an over-payment of $17.21 . . .

ROSENBERG v. UNITED STATES, 31 F.2d 838 (9th Cir. 1929)

. . . With respect to the third count of the petition, it was stipulated: “That there was a shortage of 17.21 . . .