The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXX
SOCIAL WELFARE

Chapter 419
COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOMES

View Entire Chapter

CHAPTER 419

COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOMES

419.001 Site selection of community residential homes.

419.001 Site selection of community residential homes.—

(1) For the purposes of this section, the term:

(a) “Community residential home” means a dwelling unit licensed to serve residents who are clients of the Department of Elderly Affairs, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, the Department of Juvenile Justice, or the Department of Children and Families or licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration which provides a living environment for 7 to 14 unrelated residents who operate as the functional equivalent of a family, including such supervision and care by supportive staff as may be necessary to meet the physical, emotional, and social needs of the residents.

(b) “Licensing entity” or “licensing entities” means the Department of Elderly Affairs, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Department of Children and Families, or the Agency for Health Care Administration, all of which are authorized to license a community residential home to serve residents.

(c) “Local government” means a county as set forth in chapter 7 or a municipality incorporated under the provisions of chapter 165.

(d) “Planned residential community” means a local government-approved, planned unit development that is under unified control, is planned and developed as a whole, has a minimum gross lot area of 8 acres, and has amenities that are designed to serve residents with a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063 but that shall also provide housing options for other individuals. The community shall provide choices with regard to housing arrangements, support providers, and activities. The residents’ freedom of movement within and outside the community may not be restricted. For the purposes of this paragraph, local government approval must be based on criteria that include, but are not limited to, compliance with appropriate land use, zoning, and building codes. A planned residential community may contain two or more community residential homes that are contiguous to one another. A planned residential community may not be located within a 10-mile radius of any other planned residential community.

(e) “Resident” means any of the following: a frail elder as defined in s. 429.65; a person who has a disability as defined in s. 760.22(3)(a); a person who has a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063; a nondangerous person who has a mental illness as defined in s. 394.455; or a child who is found to be dependent as defined in s. 39.01 or s. 984.03, or a child in need of services as defined in s. 984.03 or s. 985.03.

(f) “Sponsoring agency” means an agency or unit of government, a profit or nonprofit agency, or any other person or organization which intends to establish or operate a community residential home.

(2) Homes of six or fewer residents which otherwise meet the definition of a community residential home shall be deemed a single-family unit and a noncommercial, residential use for the purpose of local laws and ordinances. Homes of six or fewer residents which otherwise meet the definition of a community residential home shall be allowed in single-family or multifamily zoning without approval by the local government, provided that such homes are not located within a radius of 1,000 feet of another existing such home with six or fewer residents or within a radius of 1,200 feet of another existing community residential home. Such homes with six or fewer residents are not required to comply with the notification provisions of this section; provided that, before licensure, the sponsoring agency provides the local government with the most recently published data compiled from the licensing entities that identifies all community residential homes within the jurisdictional limits of the local government in which the proposed site is to be located in order to show that there is not a home of six or fewer residents which otherwise meets the definition of a community residential home within a radius of 1,000 feet and not a community residential home within a radius of 1,200 feet of the proposed home. At the time of home occupancy, the sponsoring agency must notify the local government that the home is licensed by the licensing entity. For purposes of local land use and zoning determinations, this subsection does not affect the legal nonconforming use status of any community residential home lawfully permitted and operating as of July 1, 2016.

(3)(a) When a site for a community residential home has been selected by a sponsoring agency in an area zoned for multifamily, the agency shall notify the chief executive officer of the local government in writing and include in such notice the specific address of the site, the residential licensing category, the number of residents, and the community support requirements of the program. Such notice shall also contain a statement from the licensing entity indicating the licensing status of the proposed community residential home and specifying how the home meets applicable licensing criteria for the safe care and supervision of the clients in the home. The sponsoring agency shall also provide to the local government the most recently published data compiled from the licensing entities that identifies all community residential homes within the jurisdictional limits of the local government in which the proposed site is to be located. The local government shall review the notification of the sponsoring agency in accordance with the zoning ordinance of the jurisdiction.

(b) Pursuant to such review, the local government may:

1. Determine that the siting of the community residential home is in accordance with local zoning and approve the siting. If the siting is approved, the sponsoring agency may establish the home at the site selected.

2. Fail to respond within 60 days. If the local government fails to respond within such time, the sponsoring agency may establish the home at the site selected.

3. Deny the siting of the home.

(c) The local government shall not deny the siting of a community residential home unless the local government establishes that the siting of the home at the site selected:

1. Does not otherwise conform to existing zoning regulations applicable to other multifamily uses in the area.

2. Does not meet applicable licensing criteria established and determined by the licensing entity, including requirements that the home be located to assure the safe care and supervision of all clients in the home.

3. Would result in such a concentration of community residential homes in the area in proximity to the site selected, or would result in a combination of such homes with other residences in the community, such that the nature and character of the area would be substantially altered. A home that is located within a radius of 1,200 feet of another existing community residential home in a multifamily zone shall be an overconcentration of such homes that substantially alters the nature and character of the area. A home that is located within a radius of 500 feet of an area of single-family zoning substantially alters the nature and character of the area.

(4) Community residential homes, including homes of six or fewer residents which would otherwise meet the definition of a community residential home, which are located within a planned residential community are not subject to the proximity requirements of this section and may be contiguous to each other. A planned residential community must comply with the applicable local government’s land development code and other local ordinances. A local government may not impose proximity limitations between homes within a planned residential community if such limitations are based solely on the types of residents anticipated to be living in the community.

(5) All distance requirements in this section shall be measured from the nearest point of the existing home or area of single-family zoning to the nearest point of the proposed home.

(6) If agreed to by both the local government and the sponsoring agency, a conflict may be resolved through informal mediation. The local government shall arrange for the services of an independent mediator. Mediation shall be concluded within 45 days of a request therefor. The resolution of any issue through the mediation process shall not alter any person’s right to a judicial determination of any issue if that person is entitled to such a determination under statutory or common law.

(7) The licensing entity shall not issue a license to a sponsoring agency for operation of a community residential home if the sponsoring agency does not notify the local government of its intention to establish a program, as required by subsection (3). A license issued without compliance with the provisions of this section shall be considered null and void, and continued operation of the home may be enjoined.

(8) A dwelling unit housing a community residential home established pursuant to this section shall be subject to the same local laws and ordinances applicable to other noncommercial, residential family units in the area in which it is established.

(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the authority of any community residential home lawfully established prior to October 1, 1989, to continue to operate.

(10) Nothing in this section shall permit persons to occupy a community residential home who would constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of other persons or whose residency would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others.

(11) The siting of community residential homes in areas zoned for single family shall be governed by local zoning ordinances. Nothing in this section prohibits a local government from authorizing the development of community residential homes in areas zoned for single family.

(12) Nothing in this section requires any local government to adopt a new ordinance if it has in place an ordinance governing the placement of community residential homes that meet the criteria of this section. State law on community residential homes controls over local ordinances, but nothing in this section prohibits a local government from adopting more liberal standards for siting such homes.

History.—s. 1, ch. 89-372; s. 1, ch. 90-192; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 36, ch. 93-206; s. 6, ch. 95-152; s. 42, ch. 96-169; s. 222, ch. 97-101; s. 46, ch. 98-280; s. 14, ch. 98-338; s. 53, ch. 99-193; s. 23, ch. 99-284; s. 7, ch. 2000-135; s. 93, ch. 2004-267; s. 34, ch. 2006-86; s. 110, ch. 2006-120; s. 1, ch. 2006-177; s. 99, ch. 2007-5; s. 30, ch. 2008-245; s. 3, ch. 2010-193; s. 237, ch. 2014-19; s. 29, ch. 2015-30; s. 1, ch. 2016-74; s. 3, ch. 2020-76.

F.S. 419 on Google Scholar

F.S. 419 on Casetext

Amendments to 419

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 419

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 419.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

J. TRUMP, v. R. VANCE, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 2412 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1563, pp. 418-419 (1833). . . . detention" while in office. 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1563, pp. 418-419 . . .

MCGIRT, v. OKLAHOMA, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020)

. . . III, id. , at 419. . . . III and IV, Feb. 14, 1833, 7 Stat. 419; see Marlin , 276 U.S., at 60, 48 S.Ct. 248. . . . Brown , 20 Okla. 355, 419, 94 P. 703, 730, 1 Okla.Crim. 33 (1908). . . .

P. BARR, v. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF POLITICAL CONSULTANTS, INC., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (U.S. 2020)

. . . California , 413 U.S. 15, 23, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973) (obscenity); Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy . . .

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, v. ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, INC., 140 S. Ct. 2082 (U.S. 2020)

. . . . ; App. 171, 217, 222, 419. . . .

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO, v. LLC., 140 S. Ct. 2103 (U.S. 2020)

. . . J. 413, 419 (2016) ; see also Eskine, Square Pegs and Round Holes: Antitrust Law and the Privileging . . . Robel , 389 U.S. 258, 268, n. 20, 88 S.Ct. 419, 19 L.Ed.2d 508 (1967). . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, J. v., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (U.S. 2020)

. . . ."); Overton Park , 401 U.S. at 419, 91 S.Ct. 814 (rejecting "litigation affidavits" from agency officials . . . Volpe , 401 U.S. 402, 419-421, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). . . .

BOSTOCK, v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA v. Jr. Co- R. G. G. R. v., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Automatic Employees Credit Union , 419 U.S. 90, 96, 95 S.Ct. 289, 42 L.Ed.2d 249 (1974). . . .

GEORGIA, v. PUBLIC. RESOURCE. ORG, INC., 140 S. Ct. 1498 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Lidster , 540 U.S. 419, 424, 124 S.Ct. 885, 157 L.Ed.2d 843 (2004) ; see also Cohens v. . . .

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, v. A. CHRISTIAN,, 140 S. Ct. 1335 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. , 458 U.S. 419, 421, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982). . . .

RAMOS, v. LOUISIANA, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Louisiana , 419 U.S. 522, 536, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975). . . . Texas , 311 U.S. 128, 130, 61 S.Ct. 164, 85 L.Ed. 84 (1940) ; Taylor , 419 U.S. at 527, 95 S.Ct. 692. . . . Steinberg , 419 U.S. 379, 392, 95 S.Ct. 533, 42 L.Ed.2d 521 (1975) (Burger, C. . . . Louisiana , 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975) ; Brandenburg v. . . . Louisiana , 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975) -another opinion by Justice White-that . . . State in which a case was tried, ante , at 1402, n. 47, but since all States barred women, see Taylor , 419 . . .

KANSAS, v. GLOVER, 140 S. Ct. 1183 (U.S. 2020)

. . . 101 S.Ct. 690, and analyzed whether the officer assembled "fact on fact and clue on clue," id. , at 419 . . .

COMCAST CORPORATION, v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AFRICAN AMERICAN- OWNED MEDIA,, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Mayer Co. , 392 U.S. 409, 419, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968) ; Runyon v. . . .

MONASKY, v. TAGLIERI, 140 S. Ct. 719 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See id. , at 419 (opinion of Moore, J.). . . . See 907 F.3d at 419-420 ; id. , at 421-422 (opinion of Gibbons, J.); id. , at 423 (opinion of Stranch . . . R., at 419, ¶38, 424 D. L. R. (4th), at 408, ¶38; Punter , [2007] 1 N. Z. L. R., at 88, ¶204; AR v. . . .

C. ROTKISKE, v. KLEMM,, 140 S. Ct. 355 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Wilson , 545 U.S. 409, 418-419, 125 S.Ct. 2444, 162 L.Ed.2d 390 (2005) (quoting Bay Area Laundry and . . .

L. SAULSBERRY, v. LEE,, 140 S. Ct. 445 (U.S. 2019)

. . . No. 19-419 Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BAPTISTE,, 935 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Seals , 419 F.3d 600, 606 (7th Cir. 2005) ; see also, e.g. , United States v. . . .

G. STEPHENS v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a, 935 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . McGlothan , 606 F.3d 410, 419 (7th Cir. 2010) ; see also Wackman v. . . .

R. PESCI, v. BUDZ, LLC, LLC,, 935 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Thornburgh , 490 U.S. at 419, 109 S.Ct. 1874. . . .

BOWLES, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 935 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 419, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005). . . .

SEMPLE, a a k a a v. GRISWOLD, Be USA A., 934 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bowen, 419 F. Supp. 746, 749 (S.D. . . .

SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR v. BRISTOL EXCAVATING, INC., 935 F.3d 122 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co. , 325 U.S. 419, 424, 65 S.Ct. 1242, 89 L.Ed. 1705 (1945) (emphasis added . . .

BACA v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, G. T. L. M., 935 F.3d 887 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Scalia & Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 419 (2012). . . .

BURKE, v. REGALADO, v., 935 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ferber Resorts, LLC , 419 F. . . .

CONILLE v. COUNCIL AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, 935 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Workers, Local 71, 502 U.S. 93, 103, 112 S.Ct. 494, 116 L.Ed.2d 419 (1991) ; Lydon, 770 F.3d at 54 (" . . .

UNITED STATES v. CANO,, 934 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (describing how the "individual prosecutor . . .

MARTINEZ, v. WALGREEN COMPANY,, 935 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Co. , 419 F.3d 355, 360 (5th Cir. 2005) (explaining that the "open courts" provision does not create . . .

UNITED STATES v. BROWN,, 935 F.3d 43 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Lake , 419 F.3d 111, 113 n.2 (2d Cir. 2005). . . . We also remanded for resentencing in Lake , 419 F.3d at 114, in the situation, similar to Crosby , 397 . . .

NALPROPION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC., 934 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Ther. 419-22 (1985), J.A. 8948-51 ("Atkinson"). U.S. . . .

MEJIA- RAMOS, v. P. BARR,, 934 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Gonzales, 419 F.3d 756, 761 (8th Cir. 2005) (establishing that the reasonableness of a fear of persecution . . .

MENAKER, v. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY,, 935 F.3d 20 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Ambulance Serv. , 835 F.3d 267, 271 (2d Cir. 2016) (construing Title VII); see also Staub , 562 U.S. at 419 . . . See Staub, 562 U.S. at 419, 131 S. Ct. 1186. . . .

UNITED STATES v. GLENN,, 935 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CLARK,, 935 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 433-34, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995), quoting United States v. . . .

PIZZUTO, Jr. v. BLADES,, 933 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Woodall , 572 U.S. 415, 419, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 188 L.Ed.2d 698 (2014). . . .

SANOFI- AVENTIS U. S. LLC, IP, v. DR. REDDY S LABORATORIES, INC. Dr. s USA, LLC, LLC, LLC,, 933 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 419, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007) ; see In re Dillon , 919 F.2d . . .

O DONNELL, v. CAINE WEINER COMPANY, LLC,, 935 F.3d 549 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . defendant not guilty on the issue of liability and did not reach the question of damages." 279 F.2d 416, 419 . . .

IN RE J. SHENK, Sr. J. Sr. v. U. S., 603 B.R. 671 (Bankr. N.D. N.Y. 2019)

. . . See generally, In re Turturo , 522 B.R. 419, 426 n. 16 (Bankr. . . .

CLARK, v. WARDEN,, 934 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ). . . .

H. BURTON, v. KOHN LAW FIRM, S. C., 934 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Severn , 129 F.3d 419, 427 (7th Cir. 1997) ). . . .

E. ANDREWS, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., 932 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 495 U.S. 411, 419, 110 S.Ct. 1979, 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990), we will not expand the CFAA's . . .

P. DYER, v. VENTRA SANDUSKY, LLC,, 934 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Cadon Plating & Coatings, L.L.C ., 747 F.3d 419, 427 (6th Cir. 2014). . . .

LUXOTTICA GROUP, S. P. A. a v. AIRPORT MINI MALL, LLC, a d. b. a. LLC, a a. k. a. C. C., 932 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Wynn , 212 Ga.App. 69, 441 S.E.2d 417, 419 (1994), disapproved on other grounds by George v. . . . Rucker , 441 S.E.2d at 419. . . .

CHAVEZ, De E. De De De v. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a, 933 F.3d 186 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Old Navy, LLC , 647 F.3d 419, 429 (2d Cir. 2011). . . .

T. SCHMITT v. LAROSE,, 933 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . Husted , 144 Ohio St.3d 361, 43 N.E.3d 419, 423 (2015) (per curiam). . . . Husted , 144 Ohio St.3d 361, 43 N.E.3d 419, 423 (2015) (per curiam) ("Election officials serve as gatekeepers . . .

IN RE W. PASLEY, W. v. W., 603 B.R. 6 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2019)

. . . (In re Hake ), 419 B.R. 328, 331 (6th Cir. BAP 2009) (citations omitted). . . .

HAIDAK, v. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS- AMHERST, 933 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 574, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975) ; see also Gorman v. . . . itself and other students from those whose behavior violates the basic values of the school, Goss, 419 . . . Goss, 419 U.S. at 579, 95 S.Ct. 729 (emphasis added). . . . Goss, 419 U.S. at 582, 95 S.Ct. 729 ; Gorman, 837 F.2d at 12-13. . . . Goss, 419 U.S. at 582-83, 95 S.Ct. 729 ; see also Elena v. . . .

BENAVIDEZ v. HOWARD,, 931 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409, 419 n.13, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) ("An absolute immunity defeats . . .

UNITED STATES v. LAUREANO- SALGADO, a k a L. a k a, 933 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ); accord Flores-Rivera, 787 F.3d . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. RIVERA- CARRASQUILLO, a k a KX, a k a a k a a k a n V a k a, 933 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ); accord Flores-Rivera, 787 F.3d . . .

JACKSON, v. DAVIS,, 933 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . DiGuglielmo , 544 U.S. 408, 419, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005) (refusing to apply equitable . . .

JONES, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 831 (M.D. Tenn. 2019)

. . . App'x 419, 425 (6th Cir. 2013). . . .

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BEACH MART, INC. L L, 932 F.3d 268 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Mash , 163 N.C.App. 419, 594 S.E.2d 148, 153 (2004) (recognizing that, under state law, counterclaims . . .

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. DIXON, 932 F.3d 696 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Prince Charles, Inc., 427 S.W.2d 414, 419 (Mo. 1968) ("[R]ecoupment is a purely defensive matter ... . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOSYK,, 933 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Coreas , 419 F.3d 151, 156 (2d Cir. 2005) (Rakoff, J.) . . . Coreas , 419 F.3d at 156. . . . (quoting Coreas , 419 F.3d at 156 ). . . . Coreas , 419 F.3d at 156 (rejecting the use of "unparticularized allegations" to justify an otherwise . . . Clayton , 68 M.J. 419, 428 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (Ryan, J., dissenting) (lamenting that the majority opinion . . .

UNITED STATES v. JOHN, 391 F. Supp. 3d 458 (E.D. Pa. 2019)

. . . Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ). . . .

W. MAC NAUGHTON, v. HARMELECH,, 932 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Meyers , 419 U.S. 449, 458, 95 S.Ct. 584, 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975) ("We begin with the basic proposition . . .

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION, 392 F. Supp. 3d 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Republic of Cuba, 775 F.3d 419, 424 (D.C. Cir. 2014) )); O'Bryan v. . . .

IN RE GREER- ALLEN, v., 602 B.R. 831 (Bankr. Mass. 2019)

. . . In re O'Brien , 419 F.3d 104, 106 (2d Cir. 2005) ("While it may be true that TERI merely guaranteed, . . .

RUIZ- CORTEZ, v. CITY OF CHICAGO,, 931 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 441-42, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). . . .

JUSTICE NETWORK INC. v. CRAIGHEAD COUNTY In s, 931 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Webb , 419 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2005) (injunctive relief not barred when judges act in enforcement capacity . . .

UNITED STATES v. CHARLES, II,, 932 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 517 U.S. 292, 116 S.Ct. 1241, 134 L.Ed.2d 419 (1996), the Court noted: The separate conviction . . .

HUPP R. H. a v. COOK C. R., 931 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Sheriff's Dep't , 431 F.3d 415, 419 (4th Cir. 2005), the procedural steps taken by an officer no longer . . .

ANDERSON, v. CITY OF ROCKFORD,, 932 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 437-38, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ). . . .

HAHN, v. MOSELEY,, 931 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 419-21. . . .

EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT, v. BARR,, 385 F. Supp. 3d 922 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc. , 419 U.S. 281, 285, 95 S.Ct. 438, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974) ). . . .

CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA,, 931 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419, 436-39 (Fla. 2013) (Canady, J., dissenting) (insisting that majority's application . . .

OBASI INVESTMENT LTD Wu v. TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS, INC Yu Z. L. III Co. L. L. P. L. III,, 931 F.3d 179 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . LLC , 773 F.3d 411, 419 (2d Cir. 2014) ("In ordinary usage, the word 'similar' means 'having characteristics . . .

MATSON, v. SANDERSON FARMS, INC., 388 F. Supp. 3d 853 (S.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . Prof'l Med Team , 394 F.3d 414, 419 (6th Cir. 2005) )); see also Novak v. MetroHealth Med. . . .

J. UCCARDI, v. LAZER SPOT, INC., 390 F. Supp. 3d 911 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . See also In re Enron Corp. , 419 F.3d 115, 126-27 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding a party being too busy with . . .

BRAEBURN INC. v. UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . AR 419 (sealed). . . .

IN RE A. STEWART, P., 603 B.R. 138 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2019)

. . . Cir. 1987) ); In re Owens Corning , 419 F.3d 195 (3rd Cir. 2005). . . .

IN RE LICKING RIVER MINING, LLC, v. LLC,, 603 B.R. 336 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2019)

. . . Gentry , 419 S.W.2d 745, 747 (Ky. 1967) (citations omitted). 2. . . . Mattingly , 419 S.W.2d at 747 (evaluating at K.R.S. § 378.020 claim and holding that "[t]he creditor . . . Comerica Bank (In re Norwalk Furniture Corp.) , 428 B.R. 419, 425 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009). . . .

IN RE HANNA, DMM s, v., 603 B.R. 571 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . Kakde (In re Kakde), 382 B.R. 411, 419 (Bankr. S.D. . . .

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. WATTLES COMPANY, a, 930 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ct. 252, 264 n.18, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981) (citing John Henry Merryman, The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction . . .

ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY AFFILIATED PLANS, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 22 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . Corps. , 419 U.S. 102, 134, 95 S.Ct. 335, 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. SIHAI CHENG,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 141 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . Ciampi, 419 F.3d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 2005). . . . Ciampi, 419 F.3d at 23 (cleaned up). . . .

In CRANBERRY GROWERS COOPERATIVE, v. S. LAYNG,, 930 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Koenig , 831 F.3d 416, 419 (7th Cir. 2016). See also Robiner v. Danny's Mkts., Inc. . . .

R. BRADLEY, v. VILLAGE OF UNIVERSITY PARK, ILLINOIS,, 929 F.3d 875 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Andrus , 419 F.3d 348, 351-53 (5th Cir. 2005), the district court dismissed a claim against a municipal . . .

VUGO, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK,, 931 F.3d 42 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . newsrack ban both reflected bias against commercial speech and rendered the ban ineffective. 507 U.S. at 419 . . .

SCOTTSDALE CAPITAL ADVISORS CORPORATION, v. FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 72 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . See Scottsdale I, 844 F.3d at 419. . . .

IN RE ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION v. Co. VC, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1042 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . See State Farm , 538 U.S. at 419, 123 S.Ct. 1513 (instructing courts to consider whether the defendant . . . See id. at 419, 123 S.Ct. 1513. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MILLS,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 528 (E.D. Mich. 2019)

. . . Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 526, 538, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975) ; Berghuis v. . . . cross section of the community is not based on the actual composition of either the petit jury, Taylor, 419 . . .

FITZGERALD TRUCK PARTS AND SALES, LLC, v. UNITED STATES, 391 F. Supp. 3d 794 (M.D. Tenn. 2019)

. . . Id. at 419-20, 110 S.Ct. 2465. . . . of the federal statute upon which his ultimate claim to the funds must rest," Richmond, 496 U.S. at 419 . . .

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, v. P. BARR, R., 929 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Arkansas-Best Freight Sys. , Inc ., 419 U.S. 281, 286, 95 S.Ct. 438, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974) ). . . .

INDIVIOR INC. UK RB Rx, LLC, v. DR. REDDY S LABORATORIES, S. A. Dr. s UT, USA, UK RB v. LLC,, 930 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . See KSR , 550 U.S. at 419, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (explaining that "[g]ranting patent protection to advances . . . Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 419, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007), DRL's proffered motivation . . .

STARR INDEMNITY LIABILITY COMPANY, v. BRIGHTSTAR CORP., 388 F. Supp. 3d 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp., 419 F.3d 310, 316 (5th Cir. 2005) ; Port of Olympia v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MILLS,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 895 (E.D. Mich. 2019)

UNITED STATES v. PHILLIPS,, 929 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . would receive something of pecuniary value in exchange for performing the solicited murderous act." 419 . . . See Chong , 419 F.3d at 1081-82. . . .

OVERBEY v. MAYOR OF BALTIMORE UC MPA D. C. s E. W., 930 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bartlett , 575 F.3d 419, 424 (4th Cir. 2009). . . . Ehrlich , 437 F.3d 410, 419 (4th Cir. 2006). . . .

RODR GUEZ- VILLAR, v. P. BARR,, 930 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Gonzales, 419 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 2005) (citation omitted) (quoting Gailius v. . . .

CURRY- MALCOLM, v. ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 389 F. Supp. 3d 189 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Ceballos , 547 U.S. 410, 419, 126 S. Ct. 1951, 164 L. Ed. 2d 689 (2006). . . .

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, v. S. NADKARNI,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 917 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . Rptr. 104, 419 P.2d 168 ( Gray ).) . . . Rptr. 104, 419 P.2d 168 ; CNA Casualty of California v. . . .

SHULMAN v. CHAITMAN LLP LLP,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Hellas Telecomm., S.A.R.L. , 790 F.3d 411, 419, n.5 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Makarova , 201 F.3d at 113 . . .

IN RE TS EMPLOYMENT, INC. S. TS v. LLP, 603 B.R. 700 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Supp. 2d 419, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CAREY,, 929 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . United States , 471 U.S. 419, 424, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) ). . . .

CORBITT, SDC, a v. VICKERS,, 929 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Sarasota Cty., 419 F.3d 1160, 1166 (11th Cir. 2005). . . .

H. WILSON, v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC., 930 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . See Lee & Mouritsen, supra , at 809; Scalia & Garner, supra , Appendix A at 419 (noting that dictionaries . . . Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs 506 (1983); see also Scalia & Garner, supra , Appendix A at 419 ( . . .

FORREST, v. PARRY, PHM PHM I- IV, 930 F.3d 93 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Riga, 208 F.3d 419, 426-27 (3d Cir. 2000) ). . . .

SIMON, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, 929 F.3d 118 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995), a problem arises when the defendant . . .

DONELSON, v. HARDY, 931 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . City of Chicago , 774 F.3d 419, 422 (7th Cir. 2014) ; Larsen v. . . .

FOUNTAIN, v. STATE, 275 So. 3d 253 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . United States , 419 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1969) ). . . .