The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 17
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 17.42

17.42 Opioid Settlement Clearing Trust Fund.—

(1) The Opioid Settlement Clearing Trust Fund is created within the department.

(2) Funds to be credited to the Opioid Settlement Clearing Trust Fund shall consist of payments received by the state from settlements reached with distributors as part of In re Mallinckrodt PLC, Case No. 20-12522 (Bankr. D. Del. 2021) and any other similar settlements in opioid-related litigation or bankruptcy. Funds received from such settlements and deposited into the trust fund are exempt from the service charges imposed under s. 215.20.

(3) Funds deposited into the Opioid Settlement Clearing Trust Fund shall be subdivided as follows:

(a) Regional subfund.—The following amounts shall be deposited into the regional subfund each year:

1. From 2022 to 2027, inclusive, 47 percent.

2. From 2028 to 2030, inclusive, 41 percent.

3. From 2031 to 2033, inclusive, 40 percent.

4. From 2034 to 2036, inclusive, 39 percent.

5. From 2037 to any subsequent year, inclusive, 35 percent.

(b) State subfund.—The state subfund shall be funded with all remaining funds after funds allocated for the regional subfund are deposited.

(4) The department is authorized to draw warrants for amounts for which the Department of Legal Affairs notifies the Chief Financial Officer to draw warrants and withdraw such amounts from the regional subfund to pay amounts due pursuant to the terms of any allocation agreement or settlement to a county within the state that:

(a) Has a population of at least 300,000 according to the United States Census Bureau population estimates as of July 1, 2019, released March 2020, or the United States Decennial Census of 2020, released August and September 2021;

(b) Has an opioid task force of which the county is a member or operates in connection with its municipalities or others on a local or regional basis. As used in this paragraph, the term “task force” includes any department, committee, commission, or bureau established by the county to collect information related to substance abuse disorders in the county and provide that information to the county, along with recommendations on responding to the opioid epidemic, so long as the department, committee, commission, or bureau allows municipalities and others to participate in whatever process is undertaken;

(c) As of December 31, 2021, has an abatement plan that has been adopted or is being used to respond to the opioid epidemic;

(d) As of December 31, 2021, provides or contracts with others to provide substance abuse prevention, recovery, and treatment services to its citizens; and

(e) Enters or has entered into an interlocal written agreement with a majority of the municipalities located within the county’s boundaries. As used in this paragraph, the term “majority” means more than 50 percent of the population of the municipalities located within the boundaries of a county. For purposes of calculating a majority, individuals living in unincorporated portions of a county may not be counted.

(5) The department shall disburse funds from the state subfund, by nonoperating transfer, of the Opioid Settlement Clearing Trust Fund to the opioid settlement trust funds of the various agencies, as appropriate, as provided in the General Appropriations Act.

(6) Funds disbursed or transferred under this section shall be used by the state, its agencies, its contractors, and its subdivisions and their contractors to abate the opioid epidemic.

(7) Pursuant to s. 19(f)(3), Art. III of the State Constitution, the Opioid Settlement Clearing Trust Fund is exempt from the termination provisions of s. 19(f)(2), Art. III of the State Constitution.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2022-161.

F.S. 17.42 on Google Scholar

F.S. 17.42 on Casetext

Amendments to 17.42

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 17.42

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 17.42.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

W. THOMAS, v. WASTE PRO USA, INC., 360 F. Supp. 3d 1313 (M.D. Fla. 2019)

. . . by 97.42, determined his regular rate to be $ 10.26 per hour, and paid him $ 5.13 per hour for the 17.42 . . .

UNITED STATES v. W. TURTLE, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (M.D. Fla. 2019)

. . . . § 17.42(a)(2). Turtle does not attack the charging language in the Information. . . . Id. at 21,062.The codification of the Interior Department's rule change, 50 C.F.R. § 17.42(a), shows . . . reasonable and necessary conservation measures against members of the Seminole Tribe, and 50 C.F.R. § 17.42 . . .

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

. . . Id. art. 17.42, § 4(a). Magistrates may postpone, reduce, or waive the fee. Id. art. 17.03(g). . . .

DOYLE, v. UNITED STATES,, 129 Fed. Cl. 147 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . . §§ 17.11(h), 17.42(e); Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status . . .

A. NANCE, v. CROCKETT COUNTY, TENNESSEE,, 150 F. Supp. 3d 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2015)

. . . similar agreements on August 30, 2012, and September 1, 2014, reflecting hourly rates of $16.60 and $17.42 . . .

LLOYD, v. BIRKMAN, A., 127 F. Supp. 3d 725 (W.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . Dep. 17:20-18:11); 2010 primary election statistics showing 82.58% of ballots cast as Republican and 17.42% . . .

E. FAIRLEY, Sr. v. HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI,, 122 F. Supp. 3d 553 (S.D. Miss. 2015)

. . . Herrington, who received 165 votes (17.42% of votes cast) and independent Derrick Ware received 212 votes . . .

COSTELLO v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., 928 F. Supp. 2d 473 (D. Conn. 2013)

. . . and a 52 week per year work schedule, Costello earned between $15.38 per hour ($846.15 per week) and $17.42 . . .

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION TRUST, v. THORNTON CONCRETE PUMPING, INC. a v. LLC, a d b a, 806 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (D. Nev. 2011)

. . . Adams Elementary 8/7/09-8/18/09 64 $17.42 $1,114.88 $111.49 $ 67.14 $1,293.51 Pahrump 10/16/09-12/22 . . . /09 19 $17.42 $ 330.98 $ 33.10 $ 17.69 $ 381.77 Reno & Spencer 11/9/2009 9 $17.42 $ 156.78 $ 15.68 $ . . . $ 177.37 Adams Elementary 8/7/09-8/18/09 $17.42 64 $1,114.88 $111.49 $ 67.14 $1,293.51 Pahrump 10/16 . . . /09-12/22/09 $17.42 19 $ 330.98 $ 33.10 $ 17.69 $ 381.77 Reno & Spencer 11/9/2009 $17.42 9 $ 156.78 $ . . . /09 19 $17.42 $ 330.98 $ 33.10 $ 17.69 $ 381.77 Reno & Spencer 11/9/2009 9 $17.42 $ 156.78' $ 15.68 $ . . .

WILLIAMS, v. CAVAZOS, s, 646 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . CALJIC 17.42; see Shannon v. . . .

SMALLWOOD, v. NCSOFT CORPORATION, NC, 730 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Haw. 2010)

. . . Code Ann § 17.42 (Vernon 1995) (permitting a waiver “of the provisions of this subchapter” provided that . . .

PRISE v. ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC. L. H. P. H., 657 F. Supp. 2d 564 (W.D. Pa. 2009)

. . . His rate of pay was increased to $17.42 per hour on May 1, 2006. (Id.) . . .

BRAZIL v. DELL INC., 585 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . . & CormCode § 17.42(a) (“[a]ny waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this title is contrary to public . . .

In EXXON VALDEZ, L. W. C. Jr. v. Co. In L. W. C. Jr. v. Co., 490 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2007)

. . . compensatory damages, and the ratio of $5 billion punitive damages to $287 million in compensatory damages is 17.42 . . .

In EXXON VALDEZ, L. W. C. No. Jr. v. Co., 472 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2006)

. . . compensatory damages, and the ratio of $5 billion punitive damages to $287 million in compensatory damages is 17.42 . . .

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF COLUMBIA WILLAMETTE INC. s M. D. M. M. D. M. D. M. D. v. AMERICAN COALITION OF LIFE ACTIVISTS L., 422 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2005)

. . . We noted that a ratio of 17.42 to 1 (based on the jury’s verdict) or 12 to 1 (using the upper limits . . .

CHRYSLER REALTY CORPORATION, a a v. K. DAVIS, a a P. LLC, a D. K. A., 877 So. 2d 903 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . (“Frontier”), with respect to 17.42 acres of Trust property. . . . entered into a Long Term Ground Sublease Agreement (“Sublease”) with Chrysler subletting six of the 17.42 . . . terminated; (2) Frontier was not in default; and (3) Frontier had been and continued to pay rent on the 17.42 . . . terminated; (2) Frontier was not in default; and (3) Frontier had been and continued to pay rent on the 17.42 . . .

PATTERSON, v. L. RUNNELS,, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . (RT 675; CALJIC No. 17.42.) . . .

BARTLETT, v. W. A. DUNCAN,, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . (RT 227; CALJIC No. 17.42). . . .

MOON, v. KWON d b a d b a ABC LLC LLC Ah, 248 F. Supp. 2d 201 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . that assumption, the check instead reflects compensation for 48 “regular” hours at the hourly rate of $17.42 . . . hourly rate of $26.29 — which represents exactly one- and-one-half times the “regular” hourly rate of $17.42 . . . calculation reflects compensation for both “regular” and “vacation” hours at a uniform hourly rate of $17.42 . . . period reflect compensation for regular, sick, and vacation hours at a uniform rate of approximately $17.42 . . . per hour, (2) vacation and sick hours would be compensated at $17.42 per hour, and (3) overtime hours . . .

KLAVER CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. a v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION E. E., 211 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (D. Kan. 2002)

. . . adjusted this figure for inflation, and the DBE program’s average gross receipts cap now stands at $17.42 . . . Construction Company Inc., over the preceding three years and since at least 1995, have been in excess of $17.42 . . .

In EXXON VALDEZ, v. In v. R. J. P. S. G. J. C. L. J. W. B. J. E. A. L. T. v., 270 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . compensatory damages, and the ratio of $5 billion punitive damages to $287 million in compensatory damages is 17.42 . . .

OPE INTERNATIONAL LP, v. CHET MORRISON CONTRACTORS, INCORPORATED,, 258 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2001)

. . . . §§ 17.42 & 17.59 (Vernon Supp.1982). . . .

ELY, v. TERHUNE D. O. C. Mr. CSP- COR, 125 F. Supp. 2d 403 (C.D. Cal. 2000)

. . . Appeal correctly held: [The petitioner] contends that the court erred in giving the jury CALJIC No. 17.42 . . . CALJIC No. 17.42, as given to the jury, read: In your deliberations the jury is not to discuss or consider . . .

NATIONAL SHIPPING COMPANY OF SAUDI ARABIA, v. UNITED STATES, 95 F. Supp. 2d 482 (E.D. Va. 2000)

. . . Therefore, Plaintiff will not be awarded damages for loss of use of the vessel for the 17.42 days. . . .

G. HAYNSWORTH, v. THE CORPORATION, a k a s a k a s, a k a s, a k a s, a k a s, LESLIE, v. LLOYD S OF LONDON, s a k a s, a k a s, a k a s, a k a s,, 121 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 1997)

. . . DTPA § 17.42(a), Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.42(a) (Vernon Supp.1997). . . .

In W. SIMMONS, W. SIMMONS, v. JOHNSON, CURNEY FIELDS, P. C. J., 205 B.R. 834 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1997)

. . . . § 17.42, Historical & Statutory Notes on 1995 Legislation, at 36 (West.Supp.1997). . . .

G. HAYNSWORTH, v. LLOYD S OF LONDON,, 933 F. Supp. 1315 (S.D. Tex. 1996)

. . . . & Com.Code § 17.42 (“Any waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this subchapter is contrary to public . . .

YOUNGBLOOD GROUP v. LUFKIN FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 932 F. Supp. 859 (E.D. Tex. 1996)

. . . . § 17.42 (Vernon Supp.1996). . . .

KOYO SEIKO CO. LTD. U. S. A. v. UNITED STATES, NSK LTD. NSK v. UNITED STATES,, 893 F. Supp. 52 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1995)

. . . Koyo: 04-01-1974 to 07-31-1976 11.89% 08-01-1976 to 09-30-1977 4.78% NSK: 06-06-1974 to 06-30-1976 17.42% . . . 07- 01-1976 to 07-31-1977 17.42% 08- 01-1977 to 03-31-1978 18.63% Id. at 10. . . .

Co. U. S. A. v. Co. NSK NSK v. Co., 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 873 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1995)

. . . Koyo: 04-01-1974 to 07-31-1976. 11.89% 08-01-1976 to 09-30-1977. 4.78% NSK: 06-06-1974 to 06-30-1976. 17.42% . . . 07-01-1976 to 07-31-1977. 17.42% 08-01-1977 to 03-31-1978 . 18.63% Id. at 10. . . .

U. S. DURUM MILLING, INC. v. FRESCALA FOODS, INC., 785 F. Supp. 1369 (E.D. Mo. 1992)

. . . The Court computed this figure by subtracting $17.42 per 100 pounds, the fair market value of the flour . . .

v., 96 T.C. 559 (T.C. 1991)

. . . NST billed subscribers for the first month’s charge of $17.42 within a few days after the decoder was . . . Thereafter, NST billed each subscriber in advance for the $17.42 monthly service charge. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. L. GREGORY, U. S., 31 M.J. 236 (C.M.A. 1990)

. . . stipulation of fact established that the total service fee for the calls on the commercial telephone, $17.42 . . . The charge for these calls was nominal, $17.42. . . .

CARR, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASS N, BROOKS, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASS N,, 904 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir. 1990)

. . . Contract § 17.42. . . .

SEWELL PLASTICS, INC. v. COCA- COLA COMPANY USA Co. Co. N. C. Co. Co. Co. Co., 720 F. Supp. 1196 (W.D.N.C. 1989)

. . . Packaging NA NA SEC NA NA Amoco NA NA Incon/PSP NA NA Total NA NA 1984 Sewell 7.60 7.60 Owens-Illinois 17.42 . . . 17.42 SEC 0.00 0.00 Carolina Packaging 0.01 0.01 Amoco 0.01 0.01 PSP 0.00 0.00 Total 25.05* 25.05* Plaintiff . . .

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)

. . . Tulare San Francisco 17.78 17.03 Seattle 17.78 17.22 Portland 18.16 17.60 Boise 17.90 17.70 Denver 17.42 . . .

HIGH PLAINS NATURAL GAS COMPANY, v. WARREN PETROLEUM COMPANY, A DIVISION OF GULF OIL CORPORATION,, 875 F.2d 284 (10th Cir. 1989)

. . . Section 17.42. . . . the disclaimer of warranties in the contract was unenforceable under the “no waiver” provision of § 17.42 . . . that none of the various exceptions to the definition of a consumer contained in the DTPA apply. § 17.42 . . . subchapter is contrary to public policy and is unenforceable and void_” Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.42 . . .

RITZA, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN S AND WAREHOUSEMEN S UNION,, 837 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1988)

. . . . § 17.42, and may appeal the Joint Coast LRC’s decision to the Coast Arbitrator. Id. § 17.43. . . .

MBANK FORT WORTH, N. A. v. TRANS MERIDIAN, INC. TRANS MERIDIAN, INC. G. A. R. H. J. F. v. MBANK FORT WORTH, N. A., 820 F.2d 716 (5th Cir. 1987)

. . . Section 17.42 of the DTPA provides: Any waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this subchapter is . . . is unenforceable and void____ The Texas Supreme Court has never explicitly addressed the scope of § 17.42 . . . A seller should not be able to avoid § 17.42 by merely including a limitation-of-liability clause in . . .

SIERRA CLUB, v. PENFOLD, P. F. E. A., 664 F. Supp. 1299 (D. Alaska 1987)

. . . .; see also Declaration of Cacy Patton (AMA Exh. 17.42), at 2 (“5 NTU's [of added turbidity] is presently . . .

MBANK FORT WORTH, N. A. v. TRANS MERIDIAN, INC. G. A. L. H. J. F. v. MBANK FORT WORTH, N. A. C. T., 625 F. Supp. 1274 (N.D. Tex. 1985)

. . . Section 17.42 of the DTPA, as applicable to this case, provides that “[a]ny waiver by a consumer of the . . . The Court finds that neither of these eases requires a limited application of § 17.42. . . . On appeal, plaintiff argued that under § 17.42, this statement must be considered null and void. . . . The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that § 17.42 does not apply to this situation. . . . In dicta, the Court of Appeals went on to state that § 17.42 was intended only to prevent a release in . . .

H. COONLY v. ROTAN MOSLE, INC., 630 F. Supp. 404 (W.D. Tex. 1985)

. . . before that Court, and this one, is whether Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act preempts section 17.42 . . .

In LILYERD, 49 B.R. 109 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1985)

. . . Farmers Home Administration $155,560.00 $28.81 Kanabec State Bank $52,335.00 (Due in full, 9/1/84) $17.42 . . .

In M. BROCK,, 47 B.R. 167 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1985)

. . . and Cleaning 25.00 Newspapers, Periodicals, etc. 15.00 Medical, Dental, Drugs 28.00 Insurance: Auto 17.42 . . .

COMMERCE PARK AT DFW FREEPORT, v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,, 729 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 17.42. . . . It is the conflict between sections 2 and 3 on the one hand, and section 17.42 on the other, that forms . . .

D. MARLEY, v. DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT, INC. A. M., 566 F. Supp. 333 (N.D. Tex. 1983)

. . . Section 17.42 of the DTPA provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ny waiver by a consumer of the provisions . . . Tex.Bus. & Com.Code, § 17.42. . . . question before the Court, then, is whether section 2 of the federal Arbitration Act preempts section 17.42 . . . arbitration clause of the agreement in question would be enforced as to Marley’s DTPA claims; under section 17.42 . . .

W. L. HARDEE L. v. UNITED STATES,, 708 F.2d 661 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

. . . 534,113.96 (30.44%) 600,802 (32.68%) 546,740 (30.28%) Corporate Stocks 292,052.00 (16.64%) 320,198 (17.42% . . .

W. L. HARDEE L. v. UNITED STATES,, 708 F.2d 661 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

. . . 534,113.96 (30.44%) 600,802 (32.68%) 546,740 (30.28%) Corporate Stocks 292,052.00 (16.64%) 320,198 (17.42% . . .

E. THORNTON, v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, 521 F. Supp. 1050 (N.D. Miss. 1981)

. . . Thornton financed this insurance premium together with the finance charge of $17.42, or a total of $202.42 . . .

FOUKE COMPANY, a s a v. G. BROWN, Jr. J., 463 F. Supp. 1142 (E.D. Cal. 1979)

. . . . § 17.42. . . .

WYDEL ASSOCIATES, a d b a El v. THERMASOL, LTD., 452 F. Supp. 739 (W.D. Tex. 1978)

. . . . & Com.Code Ann., § 17.42. . . .

INVESTORS DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 216 Ct. Cl. 192 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . 1.48% 1955 375,357,697 28,678,540 7.64% 1956 420,792,701 48,331,397 11.49% 1957 456,045,074 79,440,465 17.42% . . .

V. CLEMENT, Jr. v. UNITED STATES V. CLEMENT, Jr. v. UNITED STATES, 472 F.2d 776 (1st Cir. 1973)

. . . They asserted that the Commissioner lawfully could collect for 1964 only $17.42, the amount allegedly . . . decide the question, taxpayers are right that the assessment and collection for 1964 of amounts over $17.42 . . . Deficiency Per R.A.R. dated January 20, 1965 $35,381.13 Tax on amount in Line ll.d., Page 1 of this Return 17.42 . . .

G. OLSON, v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, a, 301 F. Supp. 1356 (D. Minn. 1969)

. . . Rule 17.42. . . .

PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 187 Ct. Cl. 129 (Ct. Cl. 1969)

. . . 21.80 21.13 15.03 30.40 1956- 21.44 20.49 15.10 30.84 1957- 22.13 21.12 16.83 34.77 1958- 21.11 21.17 17.42 . . . 31.27 1959- 20.14 20.24 17.42 29.44 1960- 19.84 20.21 17.07 27.54 1961- 19.85 20.04 17.73 25.23 1962 . . .

NATIONAL HOMES CORPORATION, v. LESTER INDUSTRIES, INC. a L. Jr., 293 F. Supp. 1025 (W.D. Va. 1968)

. . . restricted stock option certificate for 4,634 shares of National’s class B common stock at a price of $17.42 . . .

O SHIELDS H. O v. E. McNAIR, O. A. O. P. III, J. MUNGO, v. E. McNAIR, O., 254 F. Supp. 708 (D.S.C. 1966)

. . . Lancaster County is similarly over-represented by 17.42%, Oconee by 15.63% and Calhoun and Orangeburg . . .

In WILDER, STERCHI BROTHERS STORES, INC. v. WILDER,, 225 F. Supp. 67 (M.D. Ga. 1963)

. . . Brothers March 6, 1962 for $723.85 to which was added $125.82 carrying charges, $21.72 sales tax, and $17.42 . . .

v., 33 Cust. Ct. 535 (Cust. Ct. 1954)

. . . 48" Overall 15 sets Each 2.66 x 7" — 2.48 x 7"_$20.24 per set 15 sets Each 2.60 x 7"- — -2.42 x 7"_ 17.42 . . . Without Engraving But With Beaded Bevel— 60 x 48" Overall 15 sets Each 2.60 x 7" — 2.42 x 7"_$17.42 per . . . set 15 sets Each 2.60 x 7" — -2.42 x 7"_ 17.42 per set On the basis of the present record, I find that . . .

W. H. C. P. H. Jr. v., 12 T.C. 178 (T.C. 1949)

. . . fixing the relative shares of John and William in the common property, John’s share would have been but 17.42 . . .

THE HOME, 65 F. Supp. 94 (W.D. Wash. 1946)

. . . .$ 60.63 Seattle Ship Supply...... 22.34 Fisheries Supply Co...... 357.83 Fred Rowe.............. 17.42 . . .

STRAND v. GARDEN VALLEY TELEPHONE CO., 51 F. Supp. 898 (D. Minn. 1943)

. . . In the case of Strand the defendant sent to her by mail a check in the amount of $17.42, which the plaintiff . . . sign the release and agreement, although she did retain in her possession the check in the amount of $17.42 . . .

LAWS v. UNITED STATES, 66 F.2d 870 (10th Cir. 1933)

. . . name of the Realty Company, was also a depositor of the bank’s, and his account was then overdrav'n $17.42 . . .

a v. H. E., 91 Fla. 1015 (Fla. 1926)

. . . Repairs on truck........ 17.42 •12r26 To Paid Earns premium on insurance ......................... 9.20 . . . Carrying charges on resale of truck.............. , 10.00 Repairs on truck ............................ 17.42 . . .