Cases from cite.case.law:

A. CIOLLI, v. CITY OF PALM BAY,, 59 So. 3d 295 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . written notice of the Code Enforcement Board hearing by hand-delivery or mail as provided in section 162.12 . . . Section 162.12 states in relevant part: (1) All notices required by this part shall be provided to the . . .

ORIENTAL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., 598 F. Supp. 2d 199 (D.P.R. 2008)

. . . Courtney, 186 U.S. 342, 22 S.Ct. 833, 46 L.Ed. 1193 (1902); 11 Couch on Insurance 3D (1998), §§ 162.11 and 162.12 . . .

In HAMAN,, 366 B.R. 307 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007)

. . . her son’s development of psychological disorders, the Debtor has made fifteen monthly payments of $162.12 . . .

SAN XAVIER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, v. CHARLES, a. k. a. d. b. a., 237 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 162.12(a) (2000). . . . Instead, the remedy for a violation of § 162.12(a) is found in 25 C.F.R. § 162.14, which provides in . . . In other words, § 162.14 protects a lessor whose lessee violates § 162.12 by subleasing the leasehold . . .

LITTLE v. D ALOIA d b a DWDW, 759 So. 2d 17 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . The Littles contend the City did not comply with the statutory procedures set out in section 162.12, . . . These procedures are as follows: 162.12. . . . The City argues that it complied with the notice requirements outlined in section 162.12(1) by mailing . . . question here is not whether the owners actually received notice, which is not demanded by section 162.12 . . . hearing to either correct address, it failed to comply with the due process requirements of section 162.12 . . .

CITY OF TAMPA, v. W. A. BROWN, On, 711 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . determined that code enforcement board orders contained “notices” which require comphance with section 162.12 . . . If a notice is “required,” section 162.12 governs its delivery: 162.12 Notices.— (1) All notices required . . . When a code violation is discovered, the violator must receive a notice of a hearing under section 162.12 . . . that a copy of the order be provided to the violator, it cannot be a “required notice” under section 162.12 . . .

GOODMAN, v. COUNTY COURT IN BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, 711 So. 2d 587 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . enforcement board, but section 162.18 specifically provides that: It is the legislative intent of ss. 162.01-162.12 . . . Nothing contained in ss. 162.01-162.12 shall prohibit a local governing body from enforcing its codes . . .

METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a v. A. HERNANDEZ,, 708 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Court evaluated this issue, concluding that such combining of Parts I and II was permitted: [S]eetion 162.12 . . .

MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBAL HOUSING CORPORATION, v. F. REESE, 978 F. Supp. 1258 (D. Minn. 1997)

. . . . § 162.12(c), it is settled law that the mere “connection with activities undertaken as part of functions . . .

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF JACOBSON, v. ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC., 685 So. 2d 19 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Section 162.12(1), Florida Statutes (1989), which authorizes the lien in this case, requires that the . . .

BROWN, L. J. L. B- v. UNITED STATES,, 86 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

. . . .§ 162.12; when an allottee makes a satisfactory showing of a violation of the lease or the leasing regulations . . .

BROWN, L. J. L. B- v. UNITED STATES,, 86 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

. . . . § 162.12; when an allottee makes a satisfactory showing of a violation of the lease or the leasing . . .

BROWN, v. UNITED STATES,, 32 Fed. Cl. 509 (Fed. Cl. 1994)

. . . Part 162, the Secretary must consider subleasing and assignment provisions, § 162.12, disapprove of leases . . .

WRIGHT, v. UNITED STATES,, 32 Fed. Cl. 54 (Fed. Cl. 1994)

. . . . §§ 162.5, 162.12. . . .

NRG COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 31 Fed. Cl. 659 (Fed. Cl. 1994)

. . . . § 162.12 (an assignment of any permit may be made only with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior . . .

RED MOUNTAIN MACHINERY COMPANY, v. GRACE INVESTMENT COMPANY, a, 29 F.3d 1408 (9th Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 162.12(a) & (e) (1993). . . . Section 162.12 provides, in relevant part: (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of . . . bound by the terms of the lease and will assume in writing all the obligations thereunder. 25 C.F.R. § 162.12 . . .

PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION GROUP, INC. a H. St. a A. v. CITY OF TAMPA, a, 627 So. 2d 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . the complaint, the plaintiffs contend that all of chapter 162 and specifically sections 162.09 and 162.12 . . .

SEGUNDO, v. CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, a KAPP, v. CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, CALIFORNIA,, 813 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1987)

. . . . §§ 162.8, 162.12. See also Central Machinery Co. v. . . .

M. DEEHL, v. WEISS,, 505 So. 2d 529 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . . — It is the legislative intent of ss. 162.01-162.12 to provide an additional or supplemental means . . . Nothing contained in ss. 162.01-162.12 shall prohibit a local governing body from enforcing its codes . . .

In E. VILLARS, C., 35 B.R. 868 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1983)

. . . The secured portion of the outstanding debts was thereby increased by the $21,-162.12 transfer, which . . . The process of liquidation was commenced at practically the same time as the transfer of the $21,-162.12 . . .

H. B. T. Jr. R. T. H. H. v., 80 T.C. 34 (T.C. 1983)

. . . Reclamation Other development Total 1961 September - December $690,853.43 1962 January $501,464.79 $162.12 . . .

MARSHALL, v. QUIK- TRIP CORPORATION, a R., 672 F.2d 801 (10th Cir. 1982)

. . . employees and the net amount of back wages for each were: Billie Monroe, $81.82 (I R. 52); Jim Anschutz, $162.12 . . .