Cases from cite.case.law:

BAKER, v. CITY OF CLUTE, 693 F. App'x 324 (5th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 22.07. . . .

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

. . . Your bond is incorrectly set;”; raising bail to $2,000 based on prior convictions); November 2, 2016, 22.07 . . . Hearing Officer: “Based on your priors, that's as lean as I can get.”); November 2, 2016, 22.07 at 18 . . .

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. ARRILLAGA- TORR NS, Jr., 212 F. Supp. 3d 312 (D.P.R. 2016)

. . . See, New Appleman Law of Liability Insurance, 2015, LexisNexis, § 22.07(3)(d), p. 26-44(so noting); Ostrager . . .

MERCADO, v. LYNCH, U. S., 823 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2016)

. . . May 2010, he pleaded nolo contendere to making terroristic threats in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.07 . . .

PINDAK, v. J. DART, USA,, 125 F. Supp. 3d 720 (N.D. Ill. 2015)

. . . best effort [sic] to commit to supply 25% certified Minority Business Enterprise.” (2013 Contract at § 22.07 . . .

In NELSON, v., 503 B.R. 466 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . Monterey Bay Aquarium; $48.47 at Designer Perfume; $36.25 at Maya Cinemas; $32.22 at TLF*Flower Magik; $22.07 . . .

KAUAI BEACH VILLAS- PHASE II, LLC, v. COUNTY OF KAUAI,, 955 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Haw. 2013)

. . . . § 46-4, the Zoning Enabling Act (“Count II”); and violation of Charter § 22.07.D. (“Count III”). . . . C (Charter) § 22.07.D.).] . . . that § 22.07 is inapplicable because it addresses amendments to ordinances. . . . Count III — Violation of County Charter § 22.07.D. . . . Section 22.07, titled “County Council Action on Petitions” states, in pertinent part: A. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HARDEMAN,, 449 F. App'x 408 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . service representative of the Social Security Administration (SSA) in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.07 . . . Penal Code Ann. § 22.07(a)(2) (West 2005). . . .

L. THOMAS, v. CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS,, 800 F. Supp. 2d 826 (S.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . probable cause to believe that Plaintiff had committed a “terroristic threat” in violation of Section 22.07 . . .

ROBERTS, v. NAPOLITANO, U. S., 792 F. Supp. 2d 67 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . Penal Code § 22.07, and the defendants state that this was the reason for denial of plaintiffs application . . .

In DE LA FUENTE, De La De La De La v. N. A., 430 B.R. 764 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . Wells Fargo had been violating the Agreed Judgment by over-charging the De La Fuentes each month by $22.07 . . . The problem, however, is that until Wells Fargo refunds to the De La Fuentes the $22.07 for each of the . . . According to Grissom, that is what Wells Fargo did with the monthly excess of $22.07 that the De La Fuentes . . . Given that the De La Fuentes paid $22.07 for ten months, and that the sum of these ten payments is $220.70 . . . According to Grissom, the additional amount of $22.07 that the De La Fuentes paid each month was placed . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. BOLEWARE,, 498 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2007)

. . . During a search of the vehicle, the officer recovered a stiletto knife and a plastic bag containing 22.07 . . .

SONNIER, v. QUARTERMAN,, 476 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or ter-roristic threat under Section 22.07 . . .

PONCE, Jr. E. P. a v. SOCORRO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 432 F. Supp. 2d 682 (W.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . a public school that contains the elements of the offense of ... a terroristic threat under Section 22.07 . . . Texas Penal Code § 22.07 defines a terroristic threat in the following manner: (a) A person commits an . . .

ORTIZ, v. LIVINGSTON,, 420 F. Supp. 2d 670 (W.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . , aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07 . . .

In ADELPHIA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., 322 B.R. 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Section 22.07 is identical in both Leases, stating: "Variance in Size of Leased Premises. . . .

BLACK POLITICAL TASK FORCE v. GALVIN,, 300 F. Supp. 2d 291 (D. Mass. 2004)

. . . begin with the uncontroversial fact that the black population makes up somewhere between 20.36% and 22.07% . . .

BARNES, a a v. MADISON M J P, 79 F. App'x 691 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . Rackley determined that the letter constituted a “terroristic threat” under § 22.07 of the Texas Penal . . . and Barnes was eventually arrested for making a terroristic threat in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.07 . . . Tex Penal Code Ann. § 22.07. . . . Penad Code Ann. § 22.07(b), which means that it is potentially punishable by imprisonment, see id. § . . . Penal Code Ann. § 22.07 (Vernon 2003). . . . .

LAURENCE WOLF CAPITAL MANAGEMENT TRUST, v. CITY OF FERNDALE,, 61 F. App'x 204 (6th Cir. 2003)

. . . Section 22.07 of the Ordinance authorizes the Board to grant use and nonuse variances “[wjhere there . . .

UNITED STATES v. SHELTON,, 325 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . Court has concluded that the Texas offenses of reckless conduct (§ 22.05) and terroristic threat (§ 22.07 . . . In pertinent part, § 22.07(a) provides that "A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any . . .

UNITED STATES v. WHITE,, 258 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2001)

. . . Defendant, ROBERT WHITE, was convicted of the offense of terroristic threat, in violation of Section 22.07 . . . The section 22.07(a)(2) information alleged that on September 27, 1993, White did “intentionally and . . . “Sec. 22.07. . . . Nor does section 22.07(a)(2) require the “attempted use of physical force.” . . . Nor does section 22.07(a)(2) have as an element “the threatened use of a deadly weapon.” . . .

SPITZER GREAT LAKES LTD. COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 173 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 1999)

. . . . §§ 22.30(a) and 22.07(c), however, to be timely an appeal from the initial decision had to be filed . . . See 40 C.F.R. § 22.07(c). . . . Even in cases in which no motion for an extension of time is made or in cases in which § 22.07(b) is . . . As an initial matter, we note that, apparently, Spitzer made no motion pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 22.07( . . . Section 22.07(c) extends that Lime by five days, however, if service is made by mail. . . . . . § 22.07(b). . . .

BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, v. MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT, MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT, v. BANKERS TRUST COMPANY,, 139 F.R.D. 302 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . cannot bring the action and thus force the stakeholder to interplead.” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.07 . . .

CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION OF NEW ENGLAND, INC. v. K. REILLY, 743 F. Supp. 933 (D. Mass. 1990)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, secs. 22.05-22.07 [1958] ). See Data Processing Service v. . . .

SIMS, v. L. DUGGER,, 519 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Rule 33-22.07(1), Fla.Admin.Code, further provides: (1) Witnesses. . . .

NASH, v. STATE OF TEXAS,, 632 F. Supp. 951 (E.D. Tex. 1986)

. . . . § 22.07 (Vernon 1974), Terroristic Threat, in order to understand the kind of specificity required . . .

GERT v. ELGIN NATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. a, 773 F.2d 154 (7th Cir. 1985)

. . . February 5,1975, South Bay Corporation (“South Bay”) made a tender offer to buy back its own stock at $22.07 . . .

HOWARD GAULT COMPANY, E. C. T. J. La H S v. TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID INC. J. S. T. TEXAS FARM WORKERS UNION, v. McPHERSON, B., 615 F. Supp. 916 (N.D. Tex. 1985)

. . . Annotated, Article 1146 was scattered into three sections of the 1974 Penal Code: § 22.01 (assault), § 22.07 . . . threatening words” clause of Article 1146 most clearly survives in the “terroristic threat” statute, § 22.07 . . . had the capability or intention to carry out a threat, or, by analogy to the case law construing § 22.07 . . .

PONTE, SUPERINTENDENT, MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION v. REAL, 471 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1985)

. . . Dept. of Corrections, Rules ¶ 33-22.07(5) (1984); Ga. . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 10.88 35.91 40.26 26.42 32.80 5.78 31.29 21.15 35.55 38.83 24.94 42.28 26.65 31.88 25.42 29.97 24.64 22.07 . . . 20.64 38.50 16.32 5.28 33.63 21.10 32.73 28.16 6.06 24.03 19.21 27.72 29.55 29.25 34.69 24.29 26.37 22.07 . . . 33.73 14.87 6.96 35.56 14.54 30.06 20.38 7.37 26.03 21.01 28.9 19.48 27.64 11.67 21.31 19.88 25.91 22.07 . . .

REDMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 10 Fla. Supp. 2d 162 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1985)

. . . . * * * 33-22.07 Disciplinary Hearings; Miscellaneous Provisions. (1) Witnesses. . . .

BANKERS TRUST COMPANY OF WESTERN NEW YORK, v. L. CRAWFORD, 559 F. Supp. 1359 (W.D.N.Y. 1983)

. . . . ¶ 22.07 (1982 ed.). In the instant case all of these prerequisites have been met. . . .

DOWDELL, L. L. v. CITY OF APOPKA, FLORIDA H. Jr., 521 F. Supp. 297 (M.D. Fla. 1981)

. . . --- 40.30 Graphics............ 270.40 Photographs........... 10.40 Film............................ 22.07 . . .

BELL HOWELL COMPANY, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AFL- CIO,, 598 F.2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1979)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.07 at 236-239 (1958). . 29 U.S.C. § 160(f) (1976). . . . .

BROWN, v. LINK BELT CORPORATION FMC, 565 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1977)

. . . Moore’s Manual of Federal Practice and Procedure, Vol. 5a § 22.07(2). . . . .

SNEAKER CIRCUS, INC. v. CARTER, S. J., 566 F.2d 396 (2d Cir. 1977)

. . . .-00-22.04, 22.07, 22.11-22.14, 22.19-22.21 (Supp.1970); Jaffe, Standing Again, 84 Harv.L.Rev. 633 (1971 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GARCIA- RODRIGUEZ t n, 558 F.2d 956 (9th Cir. 1977)

. . . Practice and Procedure, Vol. 5a, § 22.07(2). See also Tucker v. . . .

COLEMAN MOTOR CO. a v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, 525 F.2d 1338 (3d Cir. 1975)

. . . Other 1962 53.01 23.39 11.28 4.94 6.71 5.61 1963 51.42 22.07 13.96 6.47 6.84 5.71 1964 49.49 24.22 14.25 . . .

IOWA INDEPENDENT BANKERS, v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,, 511 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1975)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.07 (1958). III. THE MERITS A. . . .

SIERRA CLUB v. MORTON, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,, 405 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1972)

. . . Davis, Adminstrative Law Treatise §§22.05-22.07 (1958). See, e. g., Environmental Defense Fund v. . . .

Co. v., 63 Cust. Ct. 623 (Cust. Ct. 1969)

. . . The rate of exchange at that time was 22.07 Belgian francs to the dollar, but it was expected that, owing . . .

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

. . . 1950- 24.33 26.97 16.23 29.72 1951- 23.12 24.42 14.69 31.23 1952.. 22.89 22.82 14.13 33.75 1953- 22.46 22.07 . . .

MFA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. LUSBY, R. Jr. L. A. C. C., 295 F. Supp. 660 (W.D. Va. 1969)

. . . Kegan et al., 22 F.Supp. 326 (D.Md.1938); 3A Moore, Federal Practice, [[ 22.07 at 3042. . . .

Dr. E. FATTER, A. v. A. USRY, Dr. A. FATTER, J. v. A. USRY,, 269 F. Supp. 582 (E.D. La. 1967)

. . . See also the additional cases cited in 3 Mertens, Law of Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, § 22.07, note . . .

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S Co. v. R. H. NICHOLS, 363 F.2d 357 (8th Cir. 1966)

. . . See, also, 3 Moore, supra, par. 22.07 [1] at pages 3019-3020; Chaffee, The Federal Interpleader Act of . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. SULLIVAN, Jr. A. Co- c. t. a. G., 254 F. Supp. 254 (D.R.I. 1966)

. . . s income tax — year 1958 474.17 (5) Assessment of October 7, 1960 decedent’s income tax — year 1959 22.07 . . .

PAN AMERICAN FIRE CASUALTY COMPANY, v. F. REVERE, Sr. Ad F. Jr., 188 F. Supp. 474 (E.D. La. 1960)

. . . Lee, 9 Cir, 232 F. 2d 811, 814; 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.07(1), pp. 3019, 3020; Chafee, The . . . Maryland Casualty Co., supra, 69 F.2d 939. . 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.03, p. 3006; Para. 22.07 . . . See 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.07(1), p. 3020. . . . . Supp. 956, 958, reversed 8 Cir., 105 F.2d 578. . 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 22.07 (1), p. 3020; . . .

ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, M., 183 F. Supp. 478 (W.D. Pa. 1960)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., vol. 3, 22.07, pp. 3021-3022. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. BILLY LEAL, Jr. U. S., 7 C.M.A. 15 (C.M.A. 1956)

. . . of $11.00; and specification 4 pleads the theft of miscellaneous signal equipment of the value of $22.07 . . .

JAISER v. MILLIGAN, 120 F. Supp. 599 (D. Neb. 1954)

. . . . § 1335; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.), see. 22.07 et seq.; 6 Cyqlopedia of Federal Procedure . . .

MILLER v. UNITED STATES, 137 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1943)

. . . petition sought to acquire the fee simple title to 98 acres, coal and mining rights in an additional 22.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SUGAR INSTITUTE,, 15 F. Supp. 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1934)

. . . In 1927, American accounted for 25.06 per cent, of all sugar produced by defendants, National, for 22.07 . . .

v., 15 Ct. Cust. 443 (C.C.P.A. 1928)

. . . Sanchez of $48 and $70 per 1,000 kilos, respectively, these dollar prices being computed on the basis of 22.07 . . . The rate of exchange at that time was 22.07 Belgian francs to the dollar, but it was expected that, owing . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)