The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . unrestricted, areas exceed the limits specified in Appendix B, Table II of 10 CFR 20, contrary to 10 CFR 20.105 . . . unrestricted areas exceed the limits specified in Appendix.B, Table II of 10 CFR 20, contrary -to 10 CFR 20.105 . . . unrestricted areas exceed the limits specified in Appendix B, Table II of 10 CFR 20, contrary to 10 CFR 20.105 . . . This Court held instead that 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.105, 106 established the relevant duty. . . . Two of our major considerations were that (1) §§ 20.105 and 20.106 indicated they should apply to effluent . . .
. . . Decl. ¶ 7) is irrelevant because neither § 20.105 nor §■ 20.106 contains such limits and Mr. . . . The dose rate imposed in § 20.105 was also exceeded in the Raychord facility in 1972, and the hourly . . . However, as explained above, § 20.105 does not apply in this case, Mr. . . . Since 1991, 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.105 and 20.106 no longer exist. . . . As explained below, § 20.105 is inapplicable in this case. . Pis.’ App. . . .
. . . . § 20.105, because plaintiff neither acted in bad faith nor brought frivolous claims. . . .
. . . ) appeals the district court’s denial of its request for sanctions, under Oregon Revised Statutes § 20.105 . . . The district court denied Fidelity’s request for § 20.105 sanctions on the ground that the Linds had . . . Prior to 1995, § 20.105 contained a “bad faith” requirement, but that requirement was removed by amendment . . . Section 20.105 now requires a prevailing party to show that the .losing party had “no objectively reasonable . . .
. . . . § 20.105, because plaintiff neither acted in bad faith nor brought frivolous claims. . . .
. . . . § 101-20.105-3, 52 Fed.Reg. 11263 at 11269 (April 8, 1987). 3339. . . .
. . . and in any outdoor areas under executive branch control in front of air intake ducts. 41 CFR § 101-20.105 . . .
. . . . § 20.105 and 20.106, which were in effect when the Three Mile Island accident occurred in 1979, not . . . In 1979, 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.105-.106 (1979) governed permissible levels of radiation and radioactivity in . . . Section 20.105 required that, except as authorized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) no licensee . . . receiving a dose in excess of’ two milli-rems in one hour, or 100 millirems in any week. 10 C.F.R. § 20.105 . . . Against Radiation, 56 Fed.Reg. 23360 (May 21, 1991) (codified at 10 C.F.R. § 20 (2002)). 10 C.F.R. § 20.105 . . .
. . . . §§ 20.11(a)(l)-(2), 10.13, 20.103, 20.105. The government proved that Mr. . . .
. . . . § 20.105, the Secretary of the Interior may issue permits for killing Canada geese and other migratory . . .
. . . Next, defendants seek an award of fees under ORS 20.105 which allows a prevailing defendant to recover . . .
. . . . §§ 20.105, 20.106 (1979). These regulations were in effect at the time of the TMI accident. . . .
. . . . § 20.105. . . . . § 20.105. 10 C.F.R. § 20.105 provides: 10 C.F.R. 20.105: Applications for licenses to possess, use . . . Defendants contend that § 20.105 was irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims because it concerns restrictions . . . Admittedly, Plaintiffs claimed no injuries from violation of § 20.105. . . . Plaintiffs presented no evidence of any connection between their injuries and a violation of § 20.105 . . .
. . . . § 20.105 and 20.106, and not ALARA, constitute the standard of care to be applied in these actions. . . . those allegations do not state a PLA claim and would be deemed a pendent state claim. . 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.105 . . .
. . . . §§ 20.105 and 20.106 — provided the standard of care, I find the reasoning underlying that opinion . . .
. . . Sections 20.105 and 20.106, on the other hand, set out the radiation dose limits for individuals in “ . . . The radiation dose limit in “unrestricted areas” is 0.5 rem per year. 10 C.F.R. § 20.105(a). . . .
. . . .] §§ 20.105 or 20.106, as measured at the boundary of the facility, not whether each plaintiff was exposed . . . plaintiffs were exposed to this radiation (although not necessarily at the levels prohibited by §§ 20.105 . . . were exposed to this radiation (although not necessarily at the levels prohibited by [10 C.F.R.] §§ 20.105 . . . The lowest level prohibited by sections 20.105 and 20.106 is 0.5 rems (500 mrem). . . . Section 20.105 mandates, among other things, that an NRC licensee’s application be approved where that . . .
. . . . §§ 20.105 and 20.106, and not ALARA, constitute the standard of care to be applied in these actions . . . Section 20.105 sets the “[p]ermissible levels of radiation in unrestricted areas,” i.e., outside the . . . The parties dispute whether the § 20.105 standard governing off-site exposure was violated during or . . . While § 20.105 defines the levels of radiation permitted in unrestricted areas, § 20.106 defines the . . . See 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.105, 20.106 (1979). . . .
. . . . §§ 20.105 sets forth the permissible dose levels of radiation in unrestricted areas; 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.106 . . . The section limiting radiation, 10 C.F.R. § 20.105, provides: (a) There may be included in any application . . . Second, the facility may observe the radiation limits established in § 20.105(b) (2 mrems per hour or . . . Part (b) of § 20.105 mandates that a nuclear facility cannot release “[r]adiation levels, which, if an . . . (a) The standard of care in the captioned action is that set forth in §§ 20.105 and 20.106. . . .
. . . Upchurch also requests sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and O.R.S. 20.105(1) contending that UST-Net’s . . . governed by the laws of the state where enforcement is sought. 3.Sanctions Under FedR.Civ.P. 11 and O.R.S. 20.105 . . .
. . . — prevailing party in antitrust case allowed “reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal”; ORS 20.105 . . .
. . . . §§ 101-20.105-3 (1991), shows the reasonableness of Mr. Levin’s belief. . . .
. . . . § 101-20.105-3 (1990) (regulations for controlling smoking in facilities owned by the General Services . . .
. . . . § 101-20.105-3(a)(2) (1990), and instructs agencies to honor their collective bargaining obligations . . . , 41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105-3(g), but allows an agency, in its discretion, to implement more stringent smoking . . . regulations, 41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105-3(a)(3). . . . Although an agency has discretion to “establish[ ] more stringent guidelines,” 41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105 . . . Ch. 71,” 41 C.F.R. § 1-20.105-3(g). . . .
. . . . § 101-20.105-3(a) (1989) (regulating smoking in Government Services Administration controlled buildings . . . Id. at § 101-20.105-3(a)(l). . . .
. . . . § 101-20.105-3 (1989) (“the Regulation”). . . . to limit the involuntary exposure of non-smokers to secondhand smoke to a minimum.” 41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105 . . . representatives and are to take fully into consideration the health issues involved. ... 41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105 . . . non-smoking sections which protect the non-smokers against involuntary exposure to smoke. 41 C.F.R. § 101 — 20.105 . . . their representatives and ... tak[ing] fully into consideration the health issues involved.” § 101-20.105 . . .
. . . . §§ 20.105-.106. . . .
. . . . § 101-20.105-3 (1987) (regulations for controlling smoking in GSA-controlled buildings and facilities . . .
. . . . § 101-20.105-1 et seq. (cooperation regarding safety programs). . . .
. . . . § 20.105(b). . . . First, it is alleged that RTI failed to make the surveys necessary to comply with 10 C.F.R. § 20.105. . . .
. . . . §§ 20.105(b), 20.106(a) (1974). . . .
. . . . §§ 20.24, 20.105(d). . . .
. . . . §§ 20.101-20.105. . . .
. . . O.P. 20.105 TRAVEL AND RELOCATION — Field Service Representatives. O.P. 20.100 TRAVEL — Local. . . .