The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . an hourly rate of $181.81 for Plaintiffs counsel William Fouché, Jr.’s work on the merits in 2013 ($618.15 . . .
. . . issue in this action as, “certain electrical conductor aluminum redraw rod * * * provided for in item 618.15 . . .
. . . issue in this action as, “certain electrical conductor aluminum redraw rod ... provided for in item 618.15 . . .
. . . Judge Davis granted Growers’ motion, reasoning that section 618.15(3), Florida Statutes (1987), requires . . . Pursuant to sections 618.01(3) and 618.15(3), members may receive no more than an 8% per annum return . . . More relevant to the issue presented for our review, however, are the provisions of section 618.15(3) . . . In this case, Growers did exactly what was required of it under section 618.15(3). . . . We reject the Shinns’ interpretation of section 618.15(3), according to which the “permanent surplus . . .
. . . See also, tr. 123.3-.22 (SGM), 150.17-151.5 (SGM), 614.24-615.5 (SGM), 617.12-618.15 (SGM), 621.5-624.15 . . .
. . . . § 618.15 (1975), which required states to recoup overpayments in Federal Supplemental Benefits despite . . .
. . . . § 618.15(a) offers some assistance. . . . the benefits was not a “reasonable measure” and thus not authorized under § 105(b) and 20 C.F.R. § 618.15 . . . no problem in finding that this was a reasonable measure authorized under § 105(b) and 20 C.F.R. § 618.15 . . .
. . . . § 618.15, prohibiting states from waiving recoupment of overpayments in Federal Supplemental Benefits . . . Although we reserved judgment on the validity of 20 C.F.R. § 618.15, we noted that it “departed from . . . In light of our decision in Martinez, the district court’s decision invalidating 20 C.F.R. § 618.15 was . . . Section 618.15 is invalid for the same reasons that 20 C.F.R. § 619.13 was held invalid in Martinez. . . . Like the regulation stricken in Martinez, 20 C.F.R. § 618.15 conflicts with the congressional command . . .
. . . . § 618.15(a) & (f)), has departed from past practices in the area of unemployment compensation regulation . . .
. . . against the defendant, John Speed Elliott, for the years 1925, 1926, 1928 and 1934, in the amount of $6,-618.15 . . .