Cases from cite.case.law:

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 192 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 2016)

. . . Crash Involving Damage to a Vehicle or Property then Causing Injury or Property Damage to Another); 28.14 . . . adopted in 2008 [976 So.2d 1081] and amended in 2011 [73 So.3d 136], and 2015 [166 So.3d 161], and 2016. 28.14 . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- INSTRUCTIONS A A, 190 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2016)

. . . Boating under the 327.35 28.14 influence_"_•_' _ Boating under the influ- 327,35(3)(a)(b)(c)2 28.17 ence . . .

In TAYFUR,, 599 F. App'x 44 (3d Cir. 2015)

. . . Summers, The Law of Oil and Gas § 28.14 (West 3d ed.2011). . . . See 2 Summers, The Law of Oil and Gas § 28.14 (“A contract for the sale or assignment of an oil and gas . . .

In TAYFUR,, 599 F. App'x 44 (3d Cir. 2015)

. . . Summers, The Law of Oil and Gas § 28.14 (West 3d ed.2011). . . . See 2 Summers, The Law of Oil and Gas § 28.14 (“A contract for the sale or assignment of an oil and gas . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES REPORT NO., 146 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 2014)

. . . 7.11— Penalty Proceedings — Capital Cases; 12.1 — Arson—First Degree; 12.2 — Arson — Second Degree; 28.14 . . . is subject to a license tax for operation” from the definition of the word “vessel” in instructions 28.14 . . . the comments, the Committee declined to modify its proposed amendments to instructions 12.1, 12.2, 28.14 . . . instructions 11.18, 12.9, 14.10, and 29.3, and amended instructions 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 7.11, 12.1, 12.2, 28.14 . . . This instruction was adopted in 2014. 28.14 BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE § 327.35(1), Fla. Stat. . . .

STATE v. DAVIS,, 110 So. 3d 27 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . (Crim.) 28.14. . . . These instructions are in accordance with Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 28.14. . . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 87 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 2012)

. . . ; 24.6 — Prohibition of Certain Acts in Connection with Obscene Materials; Promoting or Performing; 28.14 . . . Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2011. 28.14 BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE § . . . Boating under the 327.35(1) 28.14 Influence Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 Comment This instruction was adopted . . . Boating under the 327.35(1) 28.14 influence Attempt_777.04(1)5.1 Boating under the 327.35(3)(a)(b)(c) . . . Boating under the 327.35(3)(a)(b)(c)l 28.15 influence Causing Injury Boating under the 327.35(1) 28.14 . . .

In DURCZYNSKI, s, 405 B.R. 880 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009)

. . . figures presented to the Court, the Debtors claimed that, after necessary expenses, they only had $28.14 . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 6 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 2009)

. . . 28.1(a)— Driving Under the Influence Causing Property Damage or Injury; 28.5(a) — Racing on a Highway; 28.14 . . . New instructions 28.14, 28.15, 28.16, and 28.17, relating to boating under the influence, are not traffic . . . Comment This instruction was adopted in 2009. 28.14 BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE § 327.35(1), Fla. . . . Boating under the 327.35(1) 28.14 Influence_ Attempt_777.04(1) 5.1 Comment This instruction was adopted . . .

INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. INA v. PER AARSLEFF A S, R AB, Oy,, 534 F. Supp. 2d 808 (W.D. Tenn. 2008)

. . . Perillo, Corbin on Contracts § 28.14 (rev. ed. 2002)("Where a contract requires a party to provide information . . .

McBEE, v. DELICA CO., 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005)

. . . McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 28.14, at 28-19 (4th ed.2005); see also Wendt . . .

MUJICA, v. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP., 381 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (C.D. Cal. 2005)

. . . . § 28.14[1]. . . .

In WARFARIN SODIUM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 212 F.R.D. 231 (D. Del. 2002)

. . . includes $105.63 million in damages to Coumadin customers who would have switched to the generic, and $28.14 . . .

A. DUMONT A. v. UNITED STATES, 80 F. Supp. 2d 576 (D.S.C. 2000)

. . . Ex. 28.14, 43. On December 28, 1995, Dr. . . .

WILSON, v. W. JONES, Jr., 45 F. Supp. 2d 945 (S.D. Ala. 1999)

. . . single member districts as follows: District 1 77.14% District 2 61.02% District 3 72.85% District 4 28.14% . . .

SLAVIK, v. DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO. OF TEXAS EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN Dr. Co., 867 F. Supp. 472 (N.D. Tex. 1994)

. . . Palmer, Law of Restitution, § 28.14, at 434 & n. 13 and 432-33 (1978). . . .

BRISTOL ENERGY CORPORATION, d b a L. P. v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, BRISTOL ENERGY CORPORATION, d b a L. P. v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,, 13 F.3d 471 (1st Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 28.14, at 372 (5th ed. 1993). . . .

v., 84 T.C. 996 (T.C. 1985)

. . . Darvon 65 mg. 68.80 57.33 PU 366 100 Darvon with A.S.A. 7.11 5.92 PU 366 500 Darvon with A.S.A. 33.77 28.14 . . . Darvon-N 68.80 57.33 TA 1884 100 Darvon-N with A.S.A. 7.11 5.92 TA 1884 500 Darvon-N with A.S.A. 33.77 28.14 . . .

UNITED STATES v. R. STEINBERG, 553 F. Supp. 184 (D. Mass. 1982)

. . . that defendant had been entitled to monthly payments of only $34.22 while attending Boston State and $28.14 . . .

STATE v. RINEHART, 49 Fla. Supp. 64 (Pinellas Cty. Cir. Ct. 1978)

. . . It is further argued that Section 28.14, Florida Statutes (1977), excludes discovery materials from the . . .

Co. v., 70 T.C. 86 (T.C. 1978)

. . . Table 2. 12.88 10.81 35.84 30,000.00 (cash) 0 100,000.00 (stock) 28.14 9.04 4.66 2.46 not available 80T . . .

ANDERSON, CLAYTON CO. v. UNITED STATES, 387 F. Supp. 601 (S.D. Tex. 1974)

. . . .) § 28.14. . . .

E. STEWART H. v. UNITED STATES W. SLEEPER, Jr. v. UNITED STATES, 372 F. Supp. 407 (N.D. Tex. 1974)

. . . business in the first place as they are engaged in only one line of business to begin with. . 5 Mertens § 28.14 . . .

C. ALBERT SAUTER COMPANY, INC. v. RICHARD S. SAUTER COMPANY, INC., 368 F. Supp. 501 (E.D. Pa. 1973)

. . . cumulative errors in the first category which defendants claim require a new trial, they argue that the 28.14% . . . Slater, a certified public accountant, testified for plaintiff that 28.14% was the figure to use (N.T . . . Slater extensively on the theory underlying the 28.14% profit figure and was assisted by a certified . . . Here, the accountant who developed the 28.14% profit margin from the records of the plaintiff testified . . .

SOUTHWEST FOREST INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., 422 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1970)

. . . James, The Law of Torts §§ 28.1-28.14, 28.25 (1956); W. . . .

In PIZZOLATO,, 281 F. Supp. 109 (W.D. Ark. 1967)

. . . 11/3/64 11/3/64 28.43 24.57 4386.50 12/5/64 12/7/64 12/7/64 33.15 19.85 4366.65 1/5/65 1/5/65 1/5/65 28.14 . . .

S. PRICE K. v. UNITED STATES PRICE TRUST NO. S. K. v. UNITED STATES PRICE TRUST NO. S. K. v. UNITED STATES PRICE TRUST NO. S. K. v. UNITED STATES PRICE TRUST NO. S. K. v. UNITED STATES, 260 F. Supp. 18 (W.D. Okla. 1966)

. . . Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra; 5 Mertens, Chap. 28, Pg. 37, Sec. 28.14. 8. . . .

L. TALGE, v. UNITED STATES, 229 F. Supp. 836 (W.D. Mo. 1964)

. . . 75 S.Ct. 438, 99 L.Ed. 743; Lowndes & Kramer, Federal Estate and Gift Taxes (2d ed., 1962) Sections 28.14 . . . Lowndes & Kramer, Federal Estate and Gift Taxes, 2d ed., 1962, Sections 28.14 and 31.10, pages 639 to . . . The principle is stated and the authorities collected in Lowndes & Kramer, op. cit., Section 28.14, pp . . . The text reads in part: “ § 28.14 Gifts of Income from Incomplete Trusts “When the income from a trust . . . Rabkin & Johnson, supra, p. 5117; Lowndes & Kramer, supra, Section 28.14, pp. 439-40. . . .

BOSTWICK- BATTERSON COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 151 Ct. Cl. 560 (Ct. Cl. 1960)

. . . Thus, Keystone’s overhead costs were increased by $28.14. . . . Accordingly, plaintiff should have been allowed an additional $280.14 ($252.00 labor, $28.14 overhead . . . damaged in the aforementioned sum of $280.14, constituting the $252.00 for increased packing labor, plus $28.14 . . .

CARLSON, v. CHISHOLM- MOORE HOIST CORPORATION,, 281 F.2d 766 (2d Cir. 1960)

. . . See the useful discussion in 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, §§ 28.12 and 28.14. . . .

APPLETON ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED STATES HONGKONG SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES, 145 F. Supp. 229 (Ct. Cl. 1956)

. . . The invoice price was $218, and the cost of shipping the merchandise to Manila was $28.14. . . . Colgate-Palmolive-Peet claim, supra, the plaintiff is entitled to recover $218, the invoice price of the shoes, plus $28.14 . . .

APPLETON ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES HONGKONG SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 136 Ct. Cl. 514 (Ct. Cl. 1956)

. . . The invoice price was $218, and the cost of shipping the merchandise to Manila was $28.14. . . . Colgate-Palmolive-Peet claim, supra,, the plaintiff is entitled to recover $218, the invoice price of the shoes, plus $28.14 . . . The costs of shipment of the merchandise to Manila were prepaid to the carrier in the amount of $28.14 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 82 F. Supp. 753 (D.N.J. 1949)

. . . . — Ordinary 40.66 —Preferred . 20.72 Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co. 28.14 There was a small IGE representation . . .

In VICKSBURG BRIDGE TERMINAL CO., 29 F. Supp. 225 (S.D. Miss. 1938)

. . . Similar items of $28.14 of Winston, Strawn & Shaw, and $15.15 of Henry Jamerson, have been checked and . . . & Hester.......... 606.72 Watkins & Eager.................. 78.43 Winston, Strawn & Shaw.......... 28.14 . . .