The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . Seterus (due to arrearages on the rental property) should be $99.00, rather than the listed amount of $55.05 . . .
. . . indication of defendant’s intention to contest the claim’ ”), quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05 . . .
. . . Valley Coin Exch., 653 F.2d 270, 271 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 55.05 . . .
. . . Larson, 3 Employment Discrimination § 55.05 n. 3 (2d ed. 2009). . . . .
. . . City Code-Chapter 55.05 states that it is unlawful for a person to keep with the City except by written . . . Kruger filed a municipal infraction citation against Dahlsten for violation of Dakota City Ordinance 55.05 . . . concerning the nature of Sid, the Iowa court held that Dahlsten was in violation of Dakota City Ordinance 55.05 . . .
. . . indication of [Miya-gi’s] intention to contest the claim.” 6 Moore et al„ Moore’s Federal Practice H 55.05 . . .
. . . the impoundment of at-large and neglected dogs, see The Code of Ordinances for West Branch, Chapter 55.05 . . .
. . . million Materials $ 1.1 million Indirect Labor/Other $ 2.75 million Offsets ($ 1.2 million) TOTAL_$55.05 . . .
. . . indication of defendant’s intention to contest the claim’ ”) (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.05 . . .
. . . The day this S-l was filed, Merck’s stock price went up $0.03 — from $55.02 to $55.05. . . .
. . . for a downward departure sentence, but the court sentenced Beveridge pursuant to the guidelines to 55.05 . . . The criminal punishment scoresheet indicated that 55.05 months' imprisonment was the lowest permissible . . .
. . . should be denied because she has failed to specify a specific amount of damages in violation of Rule 55.05 . . . Rule 55.05 provides in relevant part: “If a recovery of money be demanded, the amount shall be stated . . .
. . . See, e.g., Mo.R.Civ.P. 55.05 (stating that “in actions for damages based upon an alleged tort, no dollar . . .
. . . hours @ $158.00 per hour = $1,745.90 (1997) 33.00 Paralegal hours @ $50.00 per hour = $1,650.00 (1997) 55.05 . . .
. . . . § 55.05. Minn.Stat. § 332.50 provides penalties for the issuance of a worthless check. . . .
. . . indication of defendant’s intention to contest the claim’ ”) (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal PRACTICE § 55.05 . . .
. . . Defendant argues that the prayer violated Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.05, which provides, in pertinent . . . Mo.S.Ct.R. 55.05 (emphasis added). . . . Accordingly, defendant argues, the Court should not consider the fact that plaintiff, in violation of Rule 55.05 . . .
. . . . ■ Boardwalk then domesticated the judgment in Florida pursuant to section 55.05, Florida Statutes. . . .
. . . See generally, e.g., 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[2] (2d ed. 1996) (“A default judgment does not . . .
. . . . ¶55.05[3]. Nevertheless, no defendant has made any sort of appearance in this case. . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶55.05[2] at 55-28 (2d ed. 1995). . . .
. . . Id., ¶ 55.05[1], at 55-27. . . . See id., ¶ 55.05[2] (detailing factors). . . .
. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 55.05[3], at pp. 55-28-31 (2d ed. 1994); 10 Wright, Miller . . .
. . . where attacked on direct appeal or by a motion to vacate the judgment.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 55.05 . . .
. . . where attacked on direct appeal or by a motion to vacate the judgment.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 55.05 . . .
. . . The Muniz court, citing 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 55.05[3] at 55-55 (1983), noted that the . . .
. . . a clear indication of the defendant’s intentions to contest the claim. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05 . . .
. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[6] (2d ed.1988). . . .
. . . Livermore Corp., 432 F.2d at 691; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[3], pp. 55-27; 10 Wright, Miller . . . , cert. denied, 425 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct. 1495, 47 L.Ed.2d 754 (1976). . 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶[ 55.05 . . . Utley, 259 F.2d 484, 485 (9th Cir.1958); see also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[3], p. 55-27. . . .
. . . See § 55.05, Florida Statutes. . . .
. . . Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2686 at 432-33; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice para. 55.05[3]. . . .
. . . Certainly if it is impermissible, both by statute, § 55.05, Fla.Stat. (1985), and judicially determined . . .
. . . required notice is generally regarded as a serious procedural irregularity,’ 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 55.05 . . .
. . . because it was based on a confession of judgment, thus not enforceable in Florida because of section 55.05 . . . confession of judgment is contrary to the public policy of the State of Florida, as expressed in section 55.05 . . .
. . . Calculate Value Au/cu. yd. gravel ($) 5054 0.64 17.95 .03 $0.0012 5055 1.06 23.74 none none 5056 1.97 55.05 . . .
. . . Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2686 at 432-33 (1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[3] at . . . generally regarded by the courts as a serious procedural irregularity,” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice fl 55.05 . . .
. . . Trauger, 423 So.2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), which held that section 55.05, Florida Statutes (1977), violates . . . and asserted as an affirmative defense that the Pennsylvania judgment was null and void under section 55.05 . . . The district court reversed, concluding in a thorough opinion that the legislature intended section 55.05 . . . Section 55.05, to the extent it would declare this foreign judgment void in Florida, is unconstitutional . . . Section 55.05 provides: All powers of attorney for confessing or suffering judgment to pass by default . . . While I agree with the majority that section 55.05, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional to the extent . . .
. . . Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir.1980); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶¶ 55.04, 55.05[2] (1983). . . .
. . . . ¶55.05[3] (1982 ed.). . . . considered in the light of surrounding circumstances and will, at times, be harmless. 6 Moore’s Fed.Prac. ¶ 55.05 . . .
. . . 2.25 Travel 16.0 66.75 Richard Weiss Class Action Proceedings 28.72 Case Planning 11.03 Travel 15.30 55.05 . . . Bailen 66.75 X 80.00 5.340.00 Richard Weiss 55.05 X 80.00 4.404.00 Stephen Buchalter 6.50 X 70.00 455.00 . . .
. . . trial court in favor of appellees/debtors, now Florida residents, based on the application of section 55.05 . . . judgment” was obtained without personal service upon them and was null and void pursuant to section 55.05 . . . There is no question about the legislature’s intent in the enactment of the present version of section 55.05 . . . The title of Chapter 59-321, Laws of Florida expressly recites in part: AN ACT amending Section 55.05 . . . Section 55.05 provides: All powers of attorney for confessing or suffering judgment to pass by default . . .
. . . . § 55.05 proscribes the use of a power of attorney to confess judgment made before an action is brought . . .
. . . The contacts must “indicate the defaulting party intends to defend the suit.” 6 Moore’s K 55.05[3]. . . .
. . . . § 55.05, Fla.Stat. (1979). . . .
. . . Taggart, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[1] at p. 55-51 (1979-80 ed.). . . .
. . . default judgment lies within the sound discretion of the trial court”. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 55.05 . . .
. . . Though regarded as a “serious procedural irregularity,” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice fi 55.05[3] (2d Ed . . .
. . . justifies reversing a trial court’s failure to set aside a default judgment. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05 . . . Crawford Door Sales Co., 49 F.R.D. 3 (D.S.C. 1970). 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[3] (1976). . . . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[3] 1976; 10 C. Wright & A. . . .
. . . See Florida Statute 55.05. . . .
. . . Jessie Edwards, Inc., 27 F.R.D. 491 (S.D.Tex.1961) (letter); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶55.05[3] (1976 . . .
. . . clearly demonstrate the defaulting party intends to defend the suit. 6 Moore’s Federal- Practice ¶ 55.05 . . .
. . . The defendants cite 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05 [3] and the cases cited in note 6 thereof to support . . .
. . . surrounding circumstances and will, at times, be considered harmless”. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 55.05 . . .
. . . of a trial court’s discretion in granting judgment by default in Moore’s Federal Practice Vol. 6, fl 55.05 . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 55.05, at 1812 (2d ed. 1966). . . .
. . . See § 55.05, Fla.Stat, F.S.A. . . .
. . . F.S.1967. section 55.05, F.S.A. . . .
. . . Friedman, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 894, is apparently the only Florida case construing Section 55.05 of . . . unenforceable in Florida and in so doing stated: “[t]he Florida Statute, quoted in footnote No. 1 [F.S. 55.05 . . . Florida Statutes, Sec. 55.05, F.S.A. . See n. 1, supra. . See n. 1, supra. . . .
. . . The Florida statute (§ 55.05, F.S.A.) conforms to that rule, by-controlling such contracts and declaring . . . person whatsoever within this state, before such action brought, shall be absolutely null and void.” § 55.05 . . .
. . . See Section 55.05, Florida Statutes, 1941. . . .