The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . Blyth’s stock price “was again hit hard” on this news', closing at $17.54 that day and “erasing more . . .
. . . She was given a pay raise to $17.45 per hour on June 6, 2010; $17.54 per hour on June 27, 2010; and $18.07 . . .
. . . Clark’s Share of Project Costs,” provides that Clark’s Share of the Project Cost for Pulte’s work is 17.54% . . .
. . . . § 17.54 — requires prior authorization for treatment at a non-VA hospital pursuant to § 1703(a): The . . . the Department of Veterans Affairs ... within 72 hours after the hour of admission.... 38 C.F.R. § 17.54 . . . Relying on § 17.54, the Veterans Court held that Kavanaugh was not entitled to reimbursement under § . . . The Veterans Court’s interpretation of § 17.54 is plainly correct — the regulation expressly requires . . . Here, Kavanaugh has presented no basis for us to conclude that the terms of § 17.54 or the Veterans Court . . .
. . . . § 17.54 — requires prior authorization for treatment at a non-VA hospital pursuant to § 1703(a): The . . . the Department of Veterans Affairs ... within 72 hours after the hour of admission.... 38 C.F.R. § 17.54 . . . Relying on § 17.54, the Veterans Court held that Kavanaugh was not entitled to reimbursement under § . . . The Veterans Court’s interpretation of § 17.54 is plainly correct — the regulation expressly requires . . . Here, Kavanaugh has presented no basis for us to conclude that the terms of § 17.54 or the Veterans Court . . .
. . . From July 15, 1990 to date is approximately 17.54 years. . . . Hence, Grace should receive interest on the first year’s $16,233 for 17.54 years. . . . The annual interest ($1,460.97) multiplied by 17.54 years is $25,625.41. . . .
. . . Disparity Study found that nonminority firms constituted 4.4% of available construction prime contractors, 17.54% . . .
. . . $3,721.17, which added to the non-purchase-money gap insurance of $195.00, totals $3,916.17, representing 17.54% . . .
. . . N. 38 34' E. 17.54 chains to' Corner 16, a point at intersection of W.D. . . .
. . . . §§ 17.52, 17.54, subd. 1. . . . .
. . . . § 17.54(a). Br. at 19-20. . . . See Zimick, 11 Vet.App. at 51 (citing 38 C.F.R. § 17.54 (formerly 38 C.F.R. § 17.50d (1992))). . . . . § 17.54(a) provides, in pertinent part: The admission of a veteran to a non-[VA] hospital at [VA] expense . . . The appellant further argues that the § 17.54(a) requirement of “prior authorization” was met because . . . 72 hours after his admission to MMC, and thus the timing requirement for seeking authorization in § 17.54 . . .
. . . . § 17.54(a) (2000)); Malone v. . . . Gober, 10 Vet.App. 539, 544 (1997) (citing § 17.54 and noting that contracted-for hospital care “must . . . have been provided “within 72 hours after the hour of admission” to the private facility, 38 C.F.R. § 17.54 . . . of alleged timely (i.e., “within 72 hours after the hour of admission”) authorization pursuant to § 17.54 . . . precludes any possibility that the veteran could obtain relief pursuant to section 1703. 38 C.F.R. § 17.54 . . .
. . . . §§ 17.52-17.54 (1999) (VA regulations implementing section 1703). . . . to the appellant’s claim for reimbursement pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1703(a)(3) and 38 C.F.R. §§ 17.52-17.54 . . .
. . . . § 17.54. . . . The Board in this case found that there had been no prior authorization under 38 C.F.R. 17.54 and therefore . . . have his finger repaired may not be the specific type of authorization contemplated by 38 C.F.R. § 17.54 . . . Stephanian’s statement or, under 38 C.F.R. § 17.54, that a qualifying telephone call was made within . . .
. . . . § 17.54 (1996) (formerly 38 C.F.R. § 17.50d (1989)). . . . See also 38 C.F.R. § 17.54. Mr. . . . See 38 C.F.R. § 17.54. Dr. Kim, a VA doctor, did divert Mr. . . .
. . . offenses scored instead as additional offenses, his recommended sentence would increase from 15.24 to 17.54 . . .
. . . 17.80 19* 58.75 54.48 56.47 53.90 +07.28 21 50.83 48.04 54.30 50.86 -17.89 30* 59.30 55.51 58.34 54.61 -17.54 . . .
. . . The modified Little Plan results in a black population in Subdistrict 1 of 17.54%, in Subdistrict 2 of . . .
. . . States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Keenan, J.) approving the settlement for $17.54 . . . compromise finally agreed upon called for $2 million to be paid to Warner in the Delaware action and $17.54 . . .
. . . assessments are made on the basis of 100 per cent, of valuation while the range is from that figure to 17.54 . . . The rhetorical question emerges: How could it be said that an owner of property assessed at 17.54 per . . .
. . . Mid-Atlantic States . 80.2 19.02 Hotels with rates over $15 . 77.6 18.64 Hotels with over 200 rooms . 77.2 17.54 . . .
. . . Total payments received by Fondulac under the Medicaid program are currently at $17.54 per patient per . . .
. . . finding of fact made by the trial judge was that “the average food stamp recipient’s bonus is only $17.54 . . .
. . . stamp bonus is only $34.00 per month and that the average food stamp recipient’s bonus is only about $17.54 . . .
. . . O. ' 1.92 7.12 3.80 9.96 5.75 12.04 7.70 13.74 9.61 15.20 13.46 17.54 17.30 19.36 21.15 20.82 25.00 21.98 . . .
. . . 91,000 412,000 25,000 265,000 27,000 838,000 606,000 2,436,000 1,003,000 265,000 407,000 60.00 6.03 4.35 17.54 . . .
. . . The only recourse available if an arbitrator erred in assuming jurisdiction was found in section 17.54 . . .
. . . That sale was at $13.46 per 100 feet (Canadian funds) for the 1%" size and $17.54 per 100 feet (Canadian . . . Rather, the sale was effected at a price of $13.46 per 100 feet (Canadian funds) for the 1%" size and $17.54 . . .
. . . That sale was at $13.46 per 100 feet (Canadian funds) for the 1 f&" size and $17.54 per 100 feet (Canadian . . . Rather, the sale was effected at a price of $13.46 per 100 feet (Canadian funds) for the 1%" size and $17.54 . . .
. . . assessments are made on the basis of 100 per cent, of valuation while the range is from that figure to 17.54 . . . The rhetorical question emerges: How could it be said that an owner of property assessed at 17.54 per . . . would result there if the county tax assessors could fix the assessable values willy-nilly, say from 17.54 . . .
. . . assessments are made on the basis of 100 per cent, of valuation while the range is from that figure to 17.54 . . . The rhetorical question emerges: How could it be said that an owner of property assessed at 17.54 per . . . would result there if the county tax assessors could fix the assessable values willy-nilly, say from 17.54 . . .
. . . Enochs family (he originally owned 17.54%); and P. H. . . .
. . . clothes into work clothes at the beginning of the day, 2.84 minutes to wash their hands before lunch, and 17.54 . . .
. . . Paid freight on 500 kegs nails, $ 75.00 Interest on $ 75 till sales are due, 17.54 Wharfage, $ 5; drayage . . .
