The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . slightly, from the pri- or day’s close of $149.58 to $147.86, then soared the next day to close at $157.10 . . .
. . . it allows gas companies to circumvent the important notice and hearing requirements of §§ 157.6 and 157.10 . . . formal hearing where they have an opportunity to intervene and protest it. 18 C.F.R. §§ 157.6(d)(2), 157.10 . . . .3d 1090, 1097 (9th Cir.2008) (emphasis added) (citing 18 C.F.R. §§ 157.6(d)(2)(iv), 157.6(d)(3)(v), 157.10 . . .
. . . . § 157.10. . . .
. . . . § 157.10, and FERC conducts a public hearing on the application, id. § 157.11. . . .
. . . . § 157.10(a). . . .
. . . . § 157.10; United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. . . .
. . . . § 157.10, has a continuing injury sufficient to enliven the suit is less apparent. . . .
. . . losses in the amount of $400 for the lost currency, $600 for reconstruction of the legal documents, and $157.10 . . .
. . . losses in the amount of $400 for the lost currency, $600 for reconstruction of the legal documents, and $157.10 . . .
. . . . §§ 157.9, 157.10. State commissions may intervene as of right. 18 C.F.R. § 385.214. . . .
. . . Plaintiffs are thus entitled to $157.10 for travel expenses, f.Telephone In accord with the reasons set . . . Photocopying $4,577.40 Postage 146.24 Support Staff Overtime - 0 - Expert Witness Fees - 0 - Travel 157.10 . . .
. . . Hunt the sum of $157.10 per month for the care, support and maintenance of the children. . . . payments for the period' May 1968 through March 1974 and ordered him to pay a total of $11,154.10 ($157.10 . . .
. . . . § 157.10-65, supra note 2. . . . The relevant regulation promulgated in accordance with § 673 is 46 C.F.R. § 157.10-65 (1983), which provides . . .
. . . Dannenberg 157.10 14.50 125 175 19,637.50 2,537.50 Burton L. Knapp 7.30 125 912.50 Neil L. . . .
. . . See 18 CFR § 157.10 (January 1, 1969). . . .
. . . IO6V2 §§ 6-7); and corporations, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 32 §§ 157.9, 157.10, 157.47, 157.52, 157.55, and 157.55a . . .
. . . containing added ingredients such as nuts, fruits, etc., under the provision for confectionery (items 157.10 . . .
. . . containing added ingredients such as nuts, fruits, etc., under the provision for confectionery (items 157.10 . . .
. . . defendant claims, on the basis of the evidence, that the merchandise should be classified first under item 157.10 . . . first, that the imported merchandise if not confectioners’ coating, should be classified under item 157.10 . . . the merchandise is 33% chopped hazelnuts by weight, the merchandise should be classified under item 157.10 . . . producer’s commodity, and as such, would not seem to respond to the designation “candy” under item 157.10 . . . sustained, and defendant’s alternative claims for classification of the subject merchandise under item 157.10 . . .
. . . defendant claims, on the basis of the evidence, that the merchandise should be classified first under item 157.10 . . . first, that the imported merchandise if not confectioners’ coating, should be classified under item 157.10 . . . the merchandise is 33% chopped hazelnuts by weight, the merchandise should be classified under item 157.10 . . . producer’s commodity, and as such, would not seem to respond to the designation “candy” under item 157.10 . . . sustained, and defendant’s alternative claims for classification of the subject merchandise under item 157.10 . . .
. . . Thus evidence that either item 157.10 or 155.75 is satisfied is Hpso facto’ also evidence that item 182.91 . . . Plaintiff claimed that it was dutiable as “confectionery” under item 157.10 which specifically covered . . . Hence, the importation was held to be properly classifiable under item 157.10 as “confectionery.” . . . claim, the court stated: “Whether item 155.75 [covering sugar, etc.] is narrower in scope than item 157.10 . . .
. . . assessment is erroneous and that the importation is properly dutiable at 14 percent ad valorem under item 157.10 . . . of schedule 1, and subpart B of part 15 of schedule 1 for other provisions covering confectionery). 157.10 . . . Thus evidence that either item 157.10 or 155.75 is satisfied is “ipso facto” also evidence that item . . . powdered candy” which comes within the common meaning of “confectionery” as that term is used in item 157.10 . . . Whether item 155.75 is narrower in scope than item 157.10 need not be reached since the court finds that . . .
. . . The collector classified the importation as confectionery under item 157.10 and assessed it with duty . . . of schedule 1, and subpart B of part 15 of schedule 1 for other provisions covering confectionery) . 157.10 . . . containing added ingredients such as nuts, fruits, etc., under the provision for confectionery (items 157.10 . . .
. . . Plaintiff challenges this classification, claiming that the merchandise is properly classifiable under item 157.10 . . . As a further alternative, plaintiff claims that the candy pellets are classifiable under item 157.10 . . . types of shipping or transportation containers or holders designed for, or capable of, reuse. ******* 157.10 . . . background, plaintiff’s first argument is that the importations are classifiable as candy under item 157.10 . . .
. . . Choctaw Beach, Florida’; that the defendant pay or cause to be paid by allotment or otherwise the sum of $157.10 . . .
. . . Thus it is clear to me under the statute that the monthly $157.10 allotment checks were for accused’s . . . Photostatic copies of four United States Treasury checks, each in the amount of $157.10, dated, respectively . . .