The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 17
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 17.22

17.22 Notice to Department of Legal Affairs.—Whenever the Chief Financial Officer forwards any bond or account or claim for suit to any state attorney, he or she shall advise the Department of Legal Affairs of the fact, giving it the amount of the claim and other necessary particulars for its full information upon the subject.

History.—s. 2, ch. 2083, 1877; RS 114; GS 118; RGS 130; CGL 160; s. 5, ch. 71-377; s. 36, ch. 2003-261.

F.S. 17.22 on Google Scholar

F.S. 17.22 on Casetext

Amendments to 17.22

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 17.22

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 17.22.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

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

. . . Pro. arts. 17.20, 17.22); State v. Martin, 833 S.W.2d 129, 133 (Tex. Cr. . . .

A. CHRISTIAN, v. UNITED STATES,, 131 Fed. Cl. 134 (Fed. Cl. 2017)

. . . 300-3.1, 301-11.1, 301-11.3, 301-11.603, 301-11.604, 301-11.605, 301-12.1, 301-52.17, 301-52.19, 302-17.22 . . . See 41 C.F.R § 302-17.22(d) (“The WTA does not cover the following relocation expenses ... . . . Federal agencies to reimburse transferees” for Medicare and Social Security taxes,” 41 C.F.R, § 301— 17.22 . . . allow federal agencies to reimburse employees for Social Security and Medicare taxes. 41 C.F.R. § 302-17.22 . . .

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL v. JEWELL, In, 842 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . . §§ 17.11, 17.22. . . .

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

. . . . § 17.22(a)(l)(v); and (2) the “resume of the experience of those personfs] who will be caring for the . . . wildlife” covered by the permit, id. § 17.22(a)(l)(vi); see also id. § 17.22(a)(l)(vii) (requiring a . . . various pieces of information about “the wildlife sought to be covered by the permití,]” 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 . . . “[a] full statement of the reasons why the applicant is justified in obtaining the permit[,]” id. § 17.22 . . .

UNION NEIGHBORS UNITED, INC. v. JEWELL,, 831 F.3d 564 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 17.22 (endangered species), 17.32(b)(1)(ii) (threatened species). . . .

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

. . . . § 17.22. II. . . . The Service's permitting decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, see 50 C.F.R. § 17.22, and so they . . .

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE AND CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, v. JEWELL,, 815 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . . §§ 17.22(d)(2), 17.32(d)(2). . . .

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE AND CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, v. JEWELL,, 421 U.S. App. D.C. 213 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . . §§ 17.22(d)(2), 17.32(d)(2). . . .

ARANSAS PROJECT, v. SHAW, Al, 775 F.3d 641 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 17.22; Notice of Availability of Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental . . .

CONSERVATION FORCE, v. JEWELL, U. S., 66 F. Supp. 3d 46 (D.D.C. 2014)

. . . . § 17.22), but “[i]ndividuals seeking to import hunting trophies of an endangered species must apply . . .

ARANSAS PROJECT, v. SHAW,, 756 F.3d 801 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 17.22; Notice of Availability of Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental . . .

AMERIMEX RECYCLING, L. L. C. v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED,, 564 F. App'x 100 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . According to PPG, the Profit-to-COGS ratio was 17.22% for the fourteen months Amer-imex performed the . . .

CONSERVATION FORCE, INC. v. JEWELL,, 733 F.3d 1200 (D.C. Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 17.22. . . . violations of 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1), (2); 16 U.S.C. §§ 1533, 1537(b); and 50 C.F.R. §§ 13.11(c), 13.21, 17.22 . . .

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

. . . . § 17.22. . . . there was no alternative “other than the currently established regulations at 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.21(g) and 17.22 . . . “the Court did not mandate [the FWS] to apply the same permitting scheme established in 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 . . . identify an alternative other than the currently established regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(g) and 17.22 . . .

ARANSAS PROJECT, v. SHAW,, 930 F. Supp. 2d 716 (S.D. Tex. 2013)

. . . . § 17.22(b)(listing requirements for an Incidental Take Permit). . . .

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

. . . . § 17.22(a)(1). Plaintiffs applied for permits under the ESA. . . . importation of threatened species upon a finding of “enhancement of propagation or survival”); 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 . . . Compare 50 C.F.R. § 17.32(a)(1), with 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(a)(1). . . .

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

. . . . § 17.22. . . . considering a number of factors, the FWS “will decide whether or not a permit should be issued,” id. § 17.22 . . . threatened species or its habitat) and the ESA implementing regulations at 50 C.F.R. §§ 13.11(c), 13.21(b), 17.22 . . . usage of obligatory words such as “shall,” in 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531(c), 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. §§ 13.21(b), 17.22 . . . (a)(2), and “will,” in 50 C.F.R. §§ 13.11(c), 17.22(a)(2), the FWS’ permit processing and other duties . . .

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

. . . there was no alternative “other than the currently established regulations at 50 C.F.R. 17.21(g) and 17.22 . . . identify an alternative other than the currently established regulations at 50 C.F.R. 17.21(g) and 17.22 . . .

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

. . . . § 17.22. . . . FWS “shall consider” the factors in 50 CFR § 17.22 in making that determination, and “may” issue a permit . . . Carpenter then discussed each factor listed in 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(a)(2). . . . Hence, because the standards of 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(A) and 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 were not met, FWS denied . . . the voluntary donations, FWS was not entitled to ignore this effect under the terms of 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE NAACP NAACP NAACP v. NORTH HUDSON REGIONAL FIRE RESCUE, a M. D. C. a, 665 F.3d 464 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . percentage of African-Americans who are both interested in and qualified for firefighter positions (17.22% . . .

In SW HOTEL VENTURE, LLC,, 460 B.R. 4 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011)

. . . Cowans, Bankruptcy Law & Practice § 17.22, at 305 (7th ed. 1999) (noting that the “limits of § 506(b) . . .

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

. . . . § 17.22. . . . . § 17.22(a)(2). . . . Plaintiffs assert that they have completed all of the requirements for a permit application under 50 C.F.R. 17.22 . . .

UNITED STATES v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,, 626 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 2010)

. . . Pratt responded with an offer to reduce its warranty prices in exchange for a $17.22 million cap on its . . . part of the calls for improvement process, it capped its liability at 300% of the warranty price or $17.22 . . . that the value to the government of an unlimited warranty was no different from a warranty capped at $17.22 . . . That is hardly self-evident, and indeed nothing in the record supports the notion that $17.22 million . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE NAACP NAACP NAACP v. NORTH HUDSON REGIONAL FIRE RESCUE, a v. M., 742 F. Supp. 2d 501 (D.N.J. 2010)

. . . Siskin uses this ratio (0.62/3.6 = 17.22%) as a “link or benehmark between the racial/ethnic mix of the . . .

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

. . . . §§ 17.22(v)-(vii); 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(A). . . . Compare 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(a)(l)(v) with 2-19-09 p.m. at 83:13-18 (Paquette) (admitting API has FEI’s . . . schedules for the trains on which the elephants on the units are transported); compare 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 . . . 36-38, 45-54, 58-61, 67-88 (listings of FEI employees involved with elephants); compare 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 . . . paragraphs of the FWS regulation governing “enhancement of propagation or survival” permits: 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 . . .

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE, v. BEECH RIDGE ENERGY LLC,, 675 F. Supp. 2d 540 (D. Md. 2009)

. . . . § 17.22. . . . why these alternatives are not being pursued. 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv); see also 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 . . .

FRIENDS OF ANIMALS, v. SALAZAR, v., 626 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2009)

. . . . § 17.22 (“Upon receipt of a complete application, the Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity . . . See 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(a). . . . See 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(a)(1) (listing the requirements of an application for a permit for the enhancement . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ADVANCEMENT COLORED PEOPLE NAACP NAACP NAACP v. NORTH HUDSON REGIONAL FIRE RESCUE, a, 255 F.R.D. 374 (D.N.J. 2009)

. . . Siskin uses this ratio (0.62/3.6 = 17.22%) as a “link or benchmark between the racial/ethnic mix of the . . .

UNITED STATES v. ADEYEMO,, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . . § 17.22(a)(2), would likely reduce the threat of extinction facing the species. . . .

AM. FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL, v. H. HALL, U. S., 533 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . . § 1539(a)(1)(A); see also 50 C.F.R. 17.22(a). . . .

SPIRIT OF SAGE COUNCIL, v. KEMPTHORNE,, 511 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2007)

. . . . §§ 17.22, 17.32). . . . Reg. 32,706, 32,712-14 (Jun. 17, 1999), codified at 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b), 17.32(b)). 16 U.S.C. § 1539 . . . promulgation of the PRR, the Services can no longer revoke an ITP under these circumstances. 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 . . . See 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b), 17.32(b). . . .

In A. GENCARELLI, Sr. UPS CAPITAL BUSINESS CREDIT, v. A. Sr., 501 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007)

. . . Cowans, Bankruptcy Law & Practice § 17.22, at 305 (7th ed.1999) (noting that the “limits of § 506(b) . . .

In A. GENCARELLI, Sr. UPS CAPITAL BUSINESS CREDIT, v. A. Sr., 501 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007)

. . . Cowans, Bankruptcy Law & Practice § 17.22, at 305 (7th ed.1999) (noting that the “limits of § 506(b) . . .

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)

. . . . § 17.4), or under permits issued pursuant to sections 17.22 or 17.23, “it is unlawful for any person . . .

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

. . . Proc.Code §§ 17.20; 17.22. . . . set reasonable bail for both misdemeanor and felony arrestees pursuant to articles 17.05, 17.20, and 17.22 . . . And under article 17.22, a City of El Paso municipal police officer may set reasonable bail for defendants . . .

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

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

. . . and id. art. 17.21 (“sheriff ... is authorized to take a bail bond”) (emphasis added), and id. art. 17.22 . . .

HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, v. KEMPTHORNE,, 481 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 17.22(a)(2). . . .

MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES INC. MHC v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, 420 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2005)

. . . San Jose Municipal Code (SJMC) eh. 17.22. . . .

SPIRIT OF THE SAGE COUNCIL, v. A. NORTON, U. S., 411 F.3d 225 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

. . . . §§ 17.22(b)(8) & 17.32(b)(8). . . .

UNITED STATES v. GARCIA, La, 104 F. App'x 396 (5th Cir. 2004)

. . . the corroborated statements of co-conspirators that linked Garcia directly to the transportation of 17.22 . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, v. A. NORTON, U. S., 298 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2003)

. . . . § 1539(a)(1)(A); see also 50 C.F.R. 17.22(a). . . .

SPIRIT OF THE SAGE COUNCIL, v. NORTON, U. S., 294 F. Supp. 2d 67 (D.D.C. 2003)

. . . . §§ 17.22, 17.32, 222.2) and the “Permit Revocation Rule” (“PRR”), 64 Fed.Reg. 32,712, 32,714 (Jun. . . . 17, 1999), (codified at 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b), 17.32(b)). . . . the survival and recovery of the threatened or endangered species covered by the plan. 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22 . . . for a given species covered by a permit.” 63 Fed.Reg. 8859 (Feb. 23, 1998), codified at 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22 . . . . § 1539(a)(2)(B)(iv) and the inconsistency has not been remedied in a timely fashion,” 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 . . .

MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES, INC. MHC v. CITY OF SAN JOSE,, 358 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . provided the Court with a certified copy of the City of San Jose Mobilehome Rent Ordinance (Chapter 17.22 . . .

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

. . . . § 17.22. The permit criteria for threatened species are set forth at 50 C.F.R. § 17.32. 1. . . .

BUILDING INDUSTRY LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, v. NORTON, Of, 231 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . . § 17.22(b)(1). . . .

SIERRA CLUB v. A. NORTON,, 207 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (S.D. Ala. 2002)

. . . . § 17.22(b)(1) and 17.32(b)(1).' . . . Title 50, section 17.22(b)(2) of the Code of Federal Regulations, established by the FWS, addresses the . . .

In PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE MANAGEMENT, v., 285 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 17.22-6.14a(d)) could morph into a “for cause” termination (under N.J. Stat. . . . . § 17.22-6.14a(e)) prior to the effective date of termination and that the Bankruptcy Court erred when . . .

In PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE MANAGEMENT, v., 285 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2002)

SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. BERG,, 268 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 17.22. . . .

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER, a v. THE SIMPSON TIMBER COMPANY, 255 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . term, upon written finding of necessity, provided that any such amendment of a permit issued under § 17.22 . . . through (d) or § 17.32(b) through (d) of this subchapter shall be consistent with the requirements of § 17.22 . . .

CLOPTON, v. BUDGET RENT A CAR CORPORATION,, 197 F.R.D. 502 (N.D. Ala. 2000)

. . . refill the tank of a vehicle upon its return by assigning an artificially low rate of approximately 17.22 . . . appropriate” rate for the Mercury Tracer, Budget allegedly used the artifieially-low, fleet-wide rate of 17.22 . . .

EMI CATALOGUE PARTNERSHIP EMI v. HILL, HOLLIDAY, CONNORS, COSMOPULOS INC., 228 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2000)

. . . Publications Int'l Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366, 1379 (2d Cir.1993); 3 Altman, supra, § 17.22 at 17-95 to 17-97 . . .

LOGGERHEAD TURTLE v. COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, a, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (M.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . . §§ 17.22(b)(1) and 17.32(b)(1). This contention is without merit. . . .

SHAW, D. On v. TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. NEC NEC, 91 F. Supp. 2d 942 (E.D. Tex. 2000)

. . . NEWBERG AND ALBA CONTE, Newberg on Class Actions § 17.22 (3d ed.1992). . . .

FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. GRAPEVINE EXCAVATION INC. v. a, 197 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . Art. 17.22. Therefore, it is not exempt from a claim for attorney’s fees pursuant to Art. 2226. . . .

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

. . . . § 17.22(b)(1)). . . . taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival ... of the species ...” (50 C.F.R. 17.22 . . .

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

. . . . § 17.22(b)(l)(i)-(ii) (endangered wildlife); 50 C.F.R. § 17.32(b)(l)(iii)(A)-(B) (threatened wildlife . . . 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(B); 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 17.32(b)(2). . . . . § 17.22; 50 C.F.R. § 17.32. . . . (Citing 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(1)®.) . . . See 50 C.F.R. § 13.21(b)-(c) (incorporated by reference into 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(2), 17.32(b)(2)). . . .

HAMILTON v. CITY OF AUSTIN, U. S., 8 F. Supp. 2d 886 (W.D. Tex. 1998)

. . . . § 17.22(a)(2)(h). . . .

AMERICAN RIVERS s v. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ELF, 109 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 17.22(a). . . .

AMERICAN RIVERS s v. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ELF, 126 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 17.22(a). . . .

W. CLARK v. J. FITZGIBBONS,, 105 F.3d 1049 (5th Cir. 1997)

. . . Ins.Code Ann. art. 17.22, they are nonetheless governed by state law and subject to the oversight of . . .

In L., 303 U.S. App. D.C. 443 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

. . . office of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering] $ 23.59 3/19/92 Other: 030692 AMEX 0001 — Miscellaneous Cutler $ 17.22 . . .

In L., 8 F.3d 847 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

. . . records before the Court McFadden works in the DC office of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering] McFadden $ 17.22 . . .

In JULIEN COMPANY, F. MARLOW, v. FEDERAL COMPRESS WAREHOUSE COMPANY, INC., 157 B.R. 834 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1993)

. . . Enterprises, Allenberg Cotton Co. and Weil Brothers, paid their FCW invoices during 1989 on an average of 17.22 . . .

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

. . . . §§ 17.22-.23, but the FWS has made clear that they are more readily available for threatened species . . .

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

. . . . §§ 17.22-.23, but the FWS has made clear that they are more readily available for threatened species . . .

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS OF AMERICA, INC., 565 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1990)

. . . Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 107 S.Ct. 17.22, 1726, 95 L.Ed.2d 209 (1987) (footnote omitted). . . .

CARLOCK, Co. T. I. C. E. v. PILLSBURY COMPANY, Co. HDF HDI WSC DWYER, Co. v. PILLSBURY COMPANY, Co. HDF HDI WSC, 719 F. Supp. 791 (D. Minn. 1989)

. . . and Delivery Charges 1985 1986 From Woodbridge From Tulare San Francisco 17.78 17.03 Seattle 17.78 17.22 . . .

SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TOWN OF BALDWIN,, 685 F. Supp. 601 (W.D. La. 1987)

. . . FACTS Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting enforcement of § 17.22(b) of the . . . Adopted December 30, 1976, § 17.22(b) establishes a maximum speed limit of 35 miles per hour for all . . . that plaintiffs’ operation of its trains through the municipality at seventy miles per hour violated § 17.22 . . . No other municipality will be directly affected by a judgment declaring § 17.22(b) of the Baldwin Town . . . Accordingly, this court finds § 17.22(b) is preempted by the Act and regulations promulgated thereunder . . .

CRESENZI BIRD IMPORTERS, INC. s v. STATE OF NEW YORK,, 658 F. Supp. 1441 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . . § 17.22. . . .

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL AFL- CIO- CLC, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, LOCAL, 497 So. 2d 665 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . appropriateness decision was reached after considering all of the section 447.307(4) criteria and rule 38D-17.22 . . .

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, v. F. HESTER,, 627 F. Supp. 1419 (D.D.C. 1986)

. . . . § 17.22(b)(5) (regulations promulgated under ESA § 10, 16 U.S.C. § 1539); (4) failed to comply with . . .

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)

. . . Klein, 30 Tr. 2895, 2900-08; Summary of Differences in Invoices, FNBB Ex. 156) 17.22. . . .

In CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION AMERICAN POULTRY,, 669 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1982)

. . . claims filed by nongovernmental classes Class II Supermarkets 55.19% of balance Class III Food Preparers 17.22% . . .

SOUTH DAKOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 668 F.2d 333 (8th Cir. 1981)

. . . (Under the latter suggestion, Northern’s share factor would be 17.22 percent for the Hugoton-Anadarko . . .

In CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 560 F. Supp. 998 (N.D. Ga. 1980)

. . . classes in accordance with the following percentages: 55.19% will go to Class II, the supermarket class; 17.22% . . .

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

. . . take the grievance to the walking boss, or ship or dock foreman in immediate charge of the operation. 17.22 . . . to a representative designated by the Employer. 17.23 If the grievance is not settled in 17.21 and 17.22 . . .

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

. . . . § 17.22. 58. . . .

CLARKSON COMPANY LIMITED, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, v. CLARKSON COMPANY LIMITED,, 441 F. Supp. 792 (N.D. Cal. 1977)

. . . Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1561, at 735-736 (1971); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.22 . . .

L. MEDLEY v. SCHOOL BOARD OF CITY OF DANVILLE, VIRGINIA,, 350 F. Supp. 34 (W.D. Va. 1972)

. . . Taylor K-4 GLH Johnson 5-6 TOTAL 85 152 35.86 57 159 26.39 52 196 20.97 25 293 7.86 36 173 17.22 52 504 . . .

CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATES CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES, 350 F. Supp. 726 (N.D. Ill. 1972)

. . . As already explained (supra ¶ 17.22), the tax-avoidance potential of such corporations is nullified by . . .

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

. . . Court those intermediate sections read as follows: ‘17.23 If the grievance is not settled in 17.21 and 17.22 . . .

NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, St. v. UNITED STATES, 199 F. Supp. 955 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)

. . . Pont testified, however, that after receipt of the mileage allowance du Pont averaged a deficit of $17.22 . . .

U. S. EPPERSON UNDERWRITING COMPANY s v. W. L. JESSUP, Jr. d b a, 22 F.R.D. 336 (M.D. Ga. 1958)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Edition, Vol. 3, Sec. 17.22, page 1398. . . .

E. v., 40 Cust. Ct. 623 (Cust. Ct. 1958)

. . . per each discount each 6 Polarizing Microscopes CM $334 04 25% $250.53 Wooden Cabinets $ 22.96 25% $ 17.22 . . .

KINGS COUNTY LIGHTING CO. v. PRENDERGAST, 7 F.2d 192 (E.D.N.Y. 1925)

. . . . $275,380.00 Other income deductions .. 33,706.35 309,086.35 17.22 $ 22,790.47 1.27 Federal income fax . . . federal income tax and return on property.......$ 234,230.26 13.05 Income deductions....... 309,086.35 17.22 . . .

CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. OF NEW YORK v. PRENDERGAST, 6 F.2d 243 (S.D.N.Y. 1925)

. . . Net Income. per M. 1922 ......... 85.89 $4,716,593.84 13.98 1923 ......... 82.63 6,426,725.26 17.22 1923 . . .

MISSOURI v. NEBRASKA NEBRASKA v. MISSOURI, 197 U.S. 577 (U.S. 1904)

. . . . -26, and at 17.22 chaines set a stone 6x8x10 in. sqr. for SW. cor. of Lot 3 on Old River line in Sec . . .