Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 815 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 815 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 815

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 815
COMPUTER-RELATED CRIMES
View Entire Chapter
CHAPTER 815
CHAPTER 815
COMPUTER-RELATED CRIMES
815.01 Short title.
815.02 Legislative intent.
815.03 Definitions.
815.04 Offenses against intellectual property.
815.045 Trade secret information.
815.06 Offenses against users of computers, computer systems, computer networks, and electronic devices.
815.061 Offenses against public utilities.
815.062 Offenses against governmental entities.
815.07 This chapter not exclusive.
815.01 Short title.The provisions of this act shall be known and may be cited as the “Florida Computer Crimes Act.”
History.s. 1, ch. 78-92.
815.02 Legislative intent.The Legislature finds and declares that:
(1) Computer-related crime is a growing problem in government as well as in the private sector.
(2) Computer-related crime occurs at great cost to the public since losses for each incident of computer crime tend to be far greater than the losses associated with each incident of other white collar crime.
(3) The opportunities for computer-related crimes in financial institutions, government programs, government records, and other business enterprises through the introduction of fraudulent records into a computer system, the unauthorized use of computer facilities, the alteration or destruction of computerized information or files, and the stealing of financial instruments, data, and other assets are great.
(4) The proliferation of new technology has led to the integration of computer systems in most sectors of the marketplace through the creation of computer networks, greatly extending the reach of computer crime.
(5) While various forms of computer crime might possibly be the subject of criminal charges based on other provisions of law, it is appropriate and desirable that a supplemental and additional statute be provided which proscribes various forms of computer abuse.
History.s. 1, ch. 78-92; s. 2, ch. 2014-208.
815.03 Definitions.As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
(1) “Access” means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, a computer system, a computer network, or an electronic device.
(2) “Computer” means an internally programmed, automatic device that performs data processing.
(3) “Computer contaminant” means any set of computer instructions designed to modify, damage, destroy, record, or transmit information within a computer, computer system, or computer network without the intent or permission of the owner of the information. The term includes, but is not limited to, a group of computer instructions, commonly called viruses or worms, which are self-replicating or self-propagating and which are designed to contaminate other computer programs or computer data; consume computer resources; modify, destroy, record, or transmit data; or in some other fashion usurp or interfere with the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or computer network.
(4) “Computer network” means a system that provides a medium for communication between one or more computer systems or electronic devices, including communication with an input or output device such as a display terminal, printer, or other electronic equipment that is connected to the computer systems or electronic devices by physical or wireless telecommunication facilities.
(5) “Computer program or computer software” means a set of instructions or statements and related data which, when executed in actual or modified form, cause a computer, computer system, or computer network to perform specified functions.
(6) “Computer services” include, but are not limited to, computer time; data processing or storage functions; or other uses of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
(7) “Computer system” means a device or collection of devices, including support devices, one or more of which contain computer programs, electronic instructions, or input data and output data, and which perform functions, including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data storage, retrieval, communication, or control. The term does not include calculators that are not programmable and that are not capable of being used in conjunction with external files.
(8) “Data” means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, computer software, computer programs, or instructions. Data may be in any form, in storage media or stored in the memory of the computer, or in transit or presented on a display device.
(9) “Electronic device” means a device or a portion of a device that is designed for and capable of communicating across a computer network with other computers or devices for the purpose of transmitting, receiving, or storing data, including, but not limited to, a cellular telephone, tablet, or other portable device designed for and capable of communicating with or across a computer network and that is actually used for such purpose.
(10) “Financial instrument” means any check, draft, money order, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, bill of exchange, credit card, or marketable security.
(11) “Intellectual property” means data, including programs.
(12) “Property” means anything of value as defined in s. 812.012 and includes, but is not limited to, financial instruments, information, including electronically produced data and computer software and programs in machine-readable or human-readable form, and any other tangible or intangible item of value.
History.s. 1, ch. 78-92; s. 9, ch. 2001-54; s. 4, ch. 2010-117; s. 3, ch. 2014-208; s. 39, ch. 2019-167.
815.04 Offenses against intellectual property.
(1) A person who willfully, knowingly, and without authorization introduces a computer contaminant or modifies or renders unavailable data, programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device commits an offense against intellectual property.
(2) A person who willfully, knowingly, and without authorization destroys data, programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device commits an offense against intellectual property.
(3) A person who willfully, knowingly, and without authorization discloses or takes data, programs, or supporting documentation that is a trade secret as defined in s. 812.081 or is confidential as provided by law residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device commits an offense against intellectual property.
(4)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, an offense against intellectual property is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If the offense is committed for the purpose of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain any property, the person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.s. 1, ch. 78-92; s. 1, ch. 94-100; s. 431, ch. 96-406; s. 1, ch. 2014-177; s. 4, ch. 2014-208; s. 5, ch. 2016-5; s. 20, ch. 2016-6; s. 31, ch. 2022-5.
815.045 Trade secret information.The Legislature finds that it is a public necessity that trade secret information as defined in s. 812.081 be expressly made confidential and exempt from the public records law because it is a felony to disclose such records. Due to the legal uncertainty as to whether a public employee would be protected from a felony conviction if otherwise complying with chapter 119, and with s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution, it is imperative that a public records exemption be created. The Legislature in making disclosure of trade secrets a crime has clearly established the importance attached to trade secret protection. Disclosing trade secrets in an agency’s possession would negatively impact the business interests of those providing an agency such trade secrets by damaging them in the marketplace, and those entities and individuals disclosing such trade secrets would hesitate to cooperate with that agency, which would impair the effective and efficient administration of governmental functions. Thus, the public and private harm in disclosing trade secrets significantly outweighs any public benefit derived from disclosure, and the public’s ability to scrutinize and monitor agency action is not diminished by nondisclosure of trade secrets.
History.s. 2, ch. 94-100; s. 41, ch. 2022-5.
Note.Former s. 119.165.
815.06 Offenses against users of computers, computer systems, computer networks, and electronic devices.
(1) As used in this section, the term “user” means a person with the authority to operate or maintain a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device.
(2) A person commits an offense against users of computers, computer systems, computer networks, or electronic devices if he or she willfully, knowingly, and without authorization or exceeding authorization:
(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device with knowledge that such access is unauthorized or the manner of use exceeds authorization;
(b) Disrupts or denies or causes the denial of the ability to transmit data to or from an authorized user of a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device, which, in whole or in part, is owned by, under contract to, or operated for, on behalf of, or in conjunction with another;
(c) Destroys, takes, injures, or damages equipment or supplies used or intended to be used in a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device;
(d) Destroys, injures, or damages any computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device;
(e) Introduces any computer contaminant into any computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device; or
(f) Engages in audio or video surveillance of an individual by accessing any inherent feature or component of a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device, including accessing the data or information of a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device that is stored by a third party.
(3)(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), a person who violates subsection (2) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) A person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if he or she violates subsection (2) and:
1. Damages a computer, computer equipment or supplies, a computer system, or a computer network and the damage or loss is at least $5,000;
2. Commits the offense for the purpose of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain property;
3. Interrupts or impairs a governmental operation or public communication, transportation, or supply of water, gas, or other public service; or
4. Intentionally interrupts the transmittal of data to or from, or gains unauthorized access to, a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device belonging to any mode of public or private transit, as defined in s. 341.031.
(c) A person who violates subsection (2) commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the violation:
1. Endangers human life; or
2. Disrupts a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device that affects medical equipment used in the direct administration of medical care or treatment to a person.
(4) A person who willfully, knowingly, and without authorization modifies equipment or supplies used or intended to be used in a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(5)(a) In addition to any other civil remedy available, the owner or lessee of the computer, computer system, computer network, computer program, computer equipment or supplies, electronic device, or computer data may bring a civil action against a person convicted under this section for compensatory damages.
(b) In an action brought under this subsection, the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
(6) A computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer data, or electronic device owned by a defendant that is used during the commission of a violation of this section or a computer or electronic device owned by the defendant that is used as a repository for the storage of software or data obtained in violation of this section is subject to forfeiture as provided under ss. 932.701-932.704.
(7) This section does not apply to a person who:
(a) Acts pursuant to a search warrant or to an exception to a search warrant authorized by law;
(b) Acts within the scope of his or her lawful employment; or
(c) Performs authorized security operations of a government or business.
(8) For purposes of bringing a civil or criminal action under this section, a person who causes, by any means, the access to a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device in one jurisdiction from another jurisdiction is deemed to have personally accessed the computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device in both jurisdictions.
(9) This chapter does not impose liability on a provider of an interactive computer service as defined in 47 U.S.C. s. 230(f), information service as defined in 47 U.S.C. s. 153, or communications service as defined in s. 202.11 that provides the transmission, storage, or caching of electronic communications or messages of others; other related telecommunications or commercial mobile radio service; or content provided by another person.
History.s. 1, ch. 78-92; s. 11, ch. 2001-54; s. 5, ch. 2014-208; s. 40, ch. 2019-167.
815.061 Offenses against public utilities.
(1) As used in this section, the term “public utility” includes:
(a) A public utility or electric utility as defined in s. 366.02.
(b) A utility as defined in s. 367.021.
(c) A natural gas transmission company as defined in s. 368.103.
(d) A person, corporation, partnership, association, public agency, municipality, cooperative, gas district, or other legal entity and their lessees, trustees, or receivers, now or hereafter owning, operating, managing, or controlling gas transmission or distribution facilities or any other facility supplying or storing natural or manufactured gas or liquefied gas with air admixture or any similar gaseous substances by pipeline to or for the public within this state.
(e) A separate legal entity created under s. 163.01 and composed of any of the entities described in this subsection for the purpose of providing utility services in this state, including wholesale power and electric transmission services.
(2) A person may not willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
(a) Gain access to a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device owned, operated, or used by a public utility while knowing that such access is unauthorized.
(b) Physically tamper with, insert a computer contaminant into, or otherwise transmit commands or electronic communications to a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device that causes a disruption in any service delivered by a public utility.
(3)(a) A person who violates paragraph (2)(a) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) A person who violates paragraph (2)(b) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.s. 6, ch. 2014-208.
815.062 Offenses against governmental entities.
(1) As used in this section, the term “governmental entity” means any official, officer, commission, board, authority, council, committee, or department of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of state government; any state university; or any county or municipality, special district, water management district, or other political subdivision of the state.
(2) A person who willfully, knowingly, and without authorization introduces a computer contaminant that gains unauthorized access to, encrypts, modifies, or otherwise renders unavailable data, programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing within a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device owned or operated by a governmental entity and demands a ransom to prevent the publication of or to restore access to the data, programs, or supporting documentation or to otherwise remediate the impact of the computer contaminant commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) An employee or contractor of a governmental entity with access to the governmental entity’s network who willfully and knowingly aids or abets another in the commission of a violation of subsection (2) commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) In addition to any other penalty imposed, a person convicted of a violation of this section must pay a fine equal to twice the amount of the ransom demand. Moneys recovered under this subsection shall be deposited into the General Revenue Fund.
History.s. 6, ch. 2022-220; s. 127, ch. 2023-8.
815.07 This chapter not exclusive.The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to preclude the applicability of any other provision of the criminal law of this state which presently applies or may in the future apply to any transaction which violates this chapter, unless such provision is inconsistent with the terms of this chapter.
History.s. 1, ch. 78-92.

F.S. 815 on Google Scholar

F.S. 815 on Casetext

Amendments to 815


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 815
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S633.815 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - REPEALED 2013-183 - M: S
S815.04 1 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9698 - F: T
S815.04 1 - PROPERTY CRIMES - TAMPER COMPUTER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - F: T
S815.04 2 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9699 - F: T
S815.04 2 - PROPERTY CRIMES - DESTROY COMPUTER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - F: T
S815.04 3 - LARC - REPEALED 2022-5 - F: T
S815.04 3 - LARC - VIOLATE TRADE SECRET OR CONFIDENTIAL INFO - F: T
S815.04 3 - EMBEZZLE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7723 - F: T
S815.04 4 - EMBEZZLE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9776 - F: T
S815.04 4b - FRAUD-SWINDLE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7724 - F: S
S815.04 4b - FRAUD-SWINDLE - COMPUTER CRIME WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD - F: S
S815.04 5b - FRAUD-SWINDLE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9700 - F: S
S815.05 1a - FRAUD - REPEALED CH 2001-54 - M: F
S815.05 1b2 - FRAUD-SWINDLE - REPEALED CH 2001-54 - F: T
S815.05 2b1 - DAMAGE PROP-CRIM MISCH - REPEALED CH 2001-54 - M: F
S815.05 2b2 - DAMAGE PROP-CRIM MISCH - REPEALED CH 2001-54 - F: T
S815.05 2b3 - DAMAGE PROP-CRIM MISCH - REPEALED CH 2001-54 - F: S
S815.06 - FRAUD - REPEALED CH 2001-54 - F: T
S815.06 1a - PROPERTY CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7725 - F: T
S815.06 2a - PROPERTY CRIMES - ACCESS COMPUTER ELECTRONIC DEVICE WO AUTHORITY - F: T
S815.06 1b - PROPERTY CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7726 - F: T
S815.06 1c - PROPERTY CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7728 - F: T
S815.06 1d - DAMAGE PROP - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7729 - F: T
S815.06 1e - PROPERTY CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7730 - F: T
S815.06 2b - FRAUD-SWINDLE - REPEALED CH 2001-54 - F: S
S815.06 2b - PROPERTY CRIMES - DISRUPT DENY ABILITY TRANSMIT DATA COMPTR NTWK - F: T
S815.06 2b - PROPERTY CRIMES - DISRPT DENY ABLTY TRANS DATA CMPTR SYS ELE DEV - F: T
S815.06 2b1 - PROPERTY CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7733 - F: S
S815.06 2b2 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7734 - F: S
S815.06 2b3 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7735 - F: S
S815.06 2c - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7737 - F: F
S815.06 2c - PROPERTY CRIMES - TAKE DMGE COMPUTER EQUP SUPPLIES ELECTRNIC DEV - F: T
S815.06 2d - DAMAGE PROP - DESTROY DAMAGE CMPTER OR SYST NTWK OR ELEC DEV - F: T
S815.06 2e - PROPERTY CRIMES - INTRODUCE COMPUTER CONTAMINANT - F: T
S815.06 2f - PROPERTY CRIMES - AUDIO VIDEO SURV ACCESS CMPTR SYS NTWK ELE DEV - F: T
S815.06 2f - PROPERTY CRIMES - ACCES DATA INFO CMPTR SYS NTWK ELE DEV 3RD PTY - F: T
S815.06 3 - PROPERTY CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7739 - M: F
S815.06 3b1 - PROPERTY CRIMES - COMPUTER CRIME DAMAGE AT LEAST 5K DOLS - F: S
S815.06 3b2 - FRAUD - COMPUTER CRIME TO DEFRAUD OBTAIN PROPERTY - F: S
S815.06 3b3 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - COMPUTER CRIME IMPAIR PUBLIC SERVICE - F: S
S815.06 3b4 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - CMPTR CRIME INTRUPT ACCESS PUB PRIV TRANSIT - F: S
S815.06 3c1 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - COMPUTER CRIME ENDANGER HUMAN LIFE - F: F
S815.06 3c2 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - COMPUTER CRIME MED EQUP IN CARE TRMT OF PERSON - F: F
S815.06 4 - PROPERTY CRIMES - MODIFY COMPUTER EQUIP SUPPLY ELEC DEV WO AUTH - M: F
S815.061 2a - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - COMPUTER CRIME UNAUTH ACCESS PUBLIC UTILITY - F: T
S815.061 2b - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - CMPTR CRIME TMPR CONTAMINT DISRUP PUB UTIL SVS - F: S
S815.062 2 - PROPERTY CRIMES - INTRODUCE CONTAMINANT TO GOVT PC DEMAND RANSOM - F: F
S815.062 3 - PROPERTY CRIMES - EMPLOY AID ABET GOVT PC CONTAMINANT DEM RANSOM - F: F



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

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

. . . Id., at 815. . . . Id., at 815. . . .

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

. . . S. 815, 113th Cong., 1st Sess. . . .

M. PHOENIX, v. REGIONS BANK., 140 S. Ct. 2760 (U.S. 2020)

. . . No. 19-815. Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS, v. UNITED STATES v. v. v., 140 S. Ct. 1308 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Monsanto Co. , 467 U.S. 986, 1016-1017, 104 S.Ct. 2862, 81 L.Ed.2d 815 (1984) (citing United States v . . . Byrd , 521 U.S. 811, 815, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997) (treating legal obligations of the Government . . .

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

. . . Coronado Oil & Gas Co. , 285 U.S. 393, 406, 52 S.Ct. 443, 76 L.Ed. 815 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting . . . 199, 168 P.3d 1208 (2007), rev. denied, 345 Ore. 415, 197 P.3d 1104 (2008), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 815 . . . Oregon , 558 U.S. 815, 130 S.Ct. 52, 175 L.Ed.2d 21 (2009) ; Lee v. . . .

E. RODRIGUEZ, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,, 140 S. Ct. 713 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 194, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). . . .

PETER, v. NANTKWEST, INC., 140 S. Ct. 365 (U.S. 2019)

. . . United States , 511 U.S. 809, 815, 114 S.Ct. 1960, 128 L.Ed.2d 797 (1994), Congress must provide a sufficiently . . .

CRUTSINGER v. DAVIS,, 140 S. Ct. 2 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Joyner , 815 F.3d 163, 168 (C.A.4 2016) ("We too have held that 'a change in decisional law subsequent . . .

F. SHARPE, v. UNITED STATES,, 935 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . . § 815(a). . . . Id. at 815-16 (citation and footnote omitted). . . .

CHACHANKO, v. UNITED STATES, 935 F.3d 627 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Muhammad , 735 F.3d at 815. This court affirmed the denial of the § 2255 motion. . . .

UNITED STATES v. TOWN OF COLORADO CITY,, 935 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Christensen , 828 F.3d 763, 815 (9th Cir. 2015). . . . Chung , 659 F.3d 815, 833 (9th Cir. 2011) ("Instructions to an individual to do something are ... not . . .

UNITED STATES v. FITZGERALD,, 935 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) ). . . .

EDMO, v. CORIZON, INC. Al v. Al, 935 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Greenpeace, Inc. , 815 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2016). . . .

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

. . . Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 815, 89 S.Ct. 1493, 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969), the Court considered a declaratory judgment . . .

J. GENZER, v. JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,, 934 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Hall , 26 Okla. 815, 110 P. 911, 911 (1910). . . .

B. VANZANT v. HILL S PET NUTRITION, INC., 934 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . PetSmart, Inc., asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 . . . practices include any "misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact." 815 . . . See 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 505/10b(1). . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. HOPPER,, 934 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Avila , 557 F.3d at 815 (quoting United States v. Stigler , 413 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2005) ). . . .

COLE v. CARSON, v., 935 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ct. at 815-16. . . . Ct. at 815-816. The majority's analysis conflates these inquiries. . . . Cisneros , 815 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2016) ); Kinney v. . . . Ct. 808, 815, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) ("Qualified immunity is lost if a case is erroneously permitted . . . Fitzgerald prevents plaintiffs from relying on subjective evidence of bad faith. 457 U.S. 800, 815-16 . . .

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

. . . Hill , 815 F.3d at 657. . . . Hill , 815 F.3d at 668 ; see also Sheets v. . . . Hill , 815 F.3d at 668 (quotations and alterations omitted). c. . . . Hill , 815 F.3d at 668 ; see also Prager v. Campbell Cty. Mem. . . . Hill , 815 F.3d at 670. . . .

UNITED STATES v. STAHLMAN,, 934 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Yost, 479 F.3d 815, 819 (11th Cir. 2007). . . .

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

. . . Lara , 815 F.3d 605, 613 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Davis , 564 U.S. at 232, 131 S.Ct. 2419 ). . . . See Lara , 815 F.3d at 613 ; see also Wanjiku , 919 F.3d at 485-86 (finding that agents had reasonable . . . Lara , 815 F.3d at 613-14. * * * In sum, the manual searches and the Cellebrite search of Cano's cell . . .

ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. MUSHKIN, INC., 934 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Postal Serv. , 875 F.2d 814, 815 (10th Cir. 1989) ; Percy v. S.F. Gen. . . .

FLORES, v. P. BARR, K. U. S. U. S. U. S., 934 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Enomoto , 815 F.2d 1323, 1327 (9th Cir. 1987) (appointment of a special master cannot be appealed under . . .

UNITED STATES v. GILES,, 935 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Shabaz , 579 F.3d 815, 819-820 (7th. Cir 2009). . . .

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

. . . Glover , 755 F.3d at 815 ; see also Hancock , 844 F.3d at 707-08. A. . . .

ROMO, v. P. BARR,, 933 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Lynch , 815 F.3d 469, 482-83 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (Owens, J., concurring) ("A better mousetrap is . . .

GOLDEN v. NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v., 934 F.3d 302 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 815 ; see also Jefferson Cty. v. . . . See Papp , 842 F.3d at 815 ("A defendant need not win his case before he can have it removed." . . .

COEUR D ALENE TRIBE, a v. W. HAWKS A., 933 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 815. . . .

UNITED STATES v. R. PAUP,, 933 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Tulsiram , 815 F.3d 114, 119 (2d Cir. 2016) ("[W]e have no difficulty in reaching our holding today: . . .

UNITED STATES v. GAMMELL, v., 932 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). United States v. Salean, 583 F.3d 1059, 1060 n.2 (8th Cir. 2009). . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) requires us to analyze whether there . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 191, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007), when confronted with a similar . . .

SANDHU, LLC, a v. L. KANZLER, Jr. LLC, a, 932 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Supp. 2d at 815. . . .

SPORTFUEL, INC. v. PEPSICO, INC., 932 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . See 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 505/1, 510/1. . . .

SINKLER, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 932 F.3d 83 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Bowen , 815 F.2d 1152, 1155 (7th Cir. 1987) ; Fenix v. . . .

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

. . . Ct. 808, 815, 190 L. Ed.2d 679 (2015). . . .

UNITED STATES v. THOMAS, v., 933 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Johnson , 624 F.3d 815, 821-22 (7th Cir. 2010). . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ- MIESES,, 931 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Alatorre, 863 F.3d 810, 815 (8th Cir. 2017) (protective sweep of four rooms on one floor of residence . . .

CELGENE CORPORATION, v. A. PETER, v. A., 931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Avid Tech., Inc. , 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). . . .

WOODSTOCK VENTURES LC LLC, v. WOODSTOCK ROOTS, LLC, LLC d b a LLC, LLC, CHET- LP,, 387 F. Supp. 3d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . No. 91-1) (the "'815 Registration")) According to Defendants, "[s]ometime after Defendants' application . . . No. 91-1); '815 Registration (Dkt. . . . No. 91-1); '815 Registration (Dkt. . . . No. 91-1)) The '815 Registration grants Defendants the right to use the WOODSTOCK mark on "cigarette . . . roiling papers" and "lighters for smokers." ('815 Registration (Dkt. . . .

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

. . . Balmoral Racing Club, Inc. , 831 F.3d 815, 834 (7th Cir. 2016) (approving of a similar instruction); . . .

SEVUGAN, v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, a, 931 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Illinois's Rate Relief Law as "to deregulat[ing] the electricity market to allow for competition." 815 . . . to switch electricity suppliers through false promises of a teaser rate, which she never received. 815 . . . Court the question whether the Illinois Commerce Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over her claim, 815 . . . Richards stands unrebutted that a public utility is not a relevant comparator in these circumstances. 815 . . .

COBA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 932 F.3d 114 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Blackfin Yacht Corp. , 357 N.J.Super. 418, 815 A.2d 537, 541 (2003) ; see also N.J. Stat. . . .

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a v. GOVINDARAJ, a, 931 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Fibreboard Corp. , 527 U.S. 815, 846, 119 S.Ct. 2295, 144 L.Ed.2d 715 (1999) (citation omitted); Zenith . . .

DJERF, v. L. RYAN,, 931 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Schriro , 882 F.3d 778, 815-16 (9th Cir. 2018) ; Apelt v. . . .

EDWARDS, v. PENIX, 388 F. Supp. 3d 135 (N.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Vill. of Monroe , 815 F. . . .

UNITED STATES v. WALKER,, 931 F.3d 576 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). . . .

DIAZ- QUIRAZCO, v. P. BARR,, 931 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Lynch , 818 F.3d 808, 815 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that Chevron deference applies where "there is 'binding . . .

UNITED STATES v. MCKOWN,, 930 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . State , 303 Ga. 853, 815 S.E.2d 903 (2018). . . . whose medical prognosis was not definitive and whose future competency was legally unsettled"); Carr , 815 . . .

MARINELARENA, v. P. BARR,, 930 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 192, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . . Id. at 188, 127 S.Ct. 815. The Court disagreed with that argument. Id. at 190, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . . Id. at 192, 127 S.Ct. 815 (emphasis added). . . . Id. at 194-95, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . . Almanza-Arenas , 815 F.3d at 489 (Watford, J., concurring). . . .

UNITED STATES v. T. HERMAN,, 930 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Taylor , 620 F.3d at 815 (quoting Miera , 539 F.3d at 1236 ). . . .

GRAVES, I. Y. M. Y. A. Y. v. A. LIOI L. Jr. I. Y. M. Y. A. Y. v. A. L. Jr., 930 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . J.A. 112, 451-52, 485, 707-08, 762, 815. . . .

SELLARS, v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC., 385 F. Supp. 3d 803 (N.D. Iowa 2019)

. . . Plaintiffs' Commencement of Employment with CRST ...815 E. . . .

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

. . . Proc. 89-14, 1989-1 C.B. 815) (observing that "[r]evenue rulings are written and reviewed at the same . . .

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

. . . Jewell , 815 F.3d 544, 554 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting River Runners for Wilderness v. . . . Alaska Oil , 815 F.3d at 554 (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . Alaska Oil , 815 F.3d at 554. * * * In sum, DOJ's use of the two scoring factors is well within its statutory . . .

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD., 929 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Groupon, Inc. , 815 F.3d 1331, 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016). . . . Blue Calypso , 815 F.3d at 1339, 1348. . . .

ACUITY, A v. REX, LLC LLC EVAC EMS,, 929 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Lee , 232 F.2d 811, 815 (9th Cir. 1956) ; 7 Wright et al. , § 1716. . . .

RICHARDSON, v. THOMAS,, 930 F.3d 587 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Joyner , 815 F.3d 163, 168 (4th Cir. 2016). . . .

UNITED STATES v. PEREZ,, 929 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) ). . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . . 184, 191, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013) (quoting Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815 . . . such a manner, he fails to meet the threshold set forth in Duenas-Alvarez . 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815 . . .

TRIBUE, v. UNITED STATES, 929 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Adams , 815 F.3d 1291, 1292-93 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding that, after Johnson , a Florida conviction for . . .

UNITED STATES v. PEREZ,, 932 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) ). . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . . 184, 191, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013) (quoting Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815 . . . such a manner, he fails to meet the threshold set forth in Duenas-Alvarez . 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815 . . .

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

. . . Murguia-Rodriguez , 815 F.3d 566, 574 (9th Cir. 2016) ("Without a forfeited error, plain error does not . . .

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

. . . Ct. 808, 815, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). . . . Ct. 808, 815, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting . . .

LLOYD S SYNDICATE v. FLOATEC LLC,, 388 F. Supp. 3d 835 (S.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . M/V Roberta Tabor , 815 F.2d 1037, 1043 (5th Cir. 1987) ("[A]n insurer cannot by way of subrogation recover . . . Roberta Tabor , 815 F.2d at 1045 (emphasis in original). . . . Peavey , 971 F.2d at 1177 ; Roberta Tabor , 815 F.2d at 1044-45 ; Marathon Oil , 786 F.2d at 1302. . . .

REID v. DONELAN,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 201 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . Principi, 422 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[P]ublic interest concerns are implicated when a constitutional . . . Id. at 815. . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 275 So. 3d 800 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Betz , 815 So. 2d 627, 633 (Fla. 2002) ("As the odor of previously burnt marijuana certainly warranted . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOLEYN v. v. v. v., 929 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . expressly abrogated the distinction among principals and aiders and abettors." 549 U.S. 183, 189, 127 S.Ct. 815 . . . Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . . principal, within the scope of [the theft offense's] generic definition." 549 U.S. at 189, 127 S.Ct. 815 . . . at 85, 134 S.Ct. 1240 (Alito, J., dissenting) (2014); see Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815 . . .

COBA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 930 F.3d 174 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Blackfin Yacht Corp. , 357 N.J.Super. 418, 815 A.2d 537, 541 (2003) ; see also N.J. Stat. . . .

BETANSOS, v. P. BARR,, 928 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Id. at 82 (quoting Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815 ). . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) ). . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . .

UNITED STATES v. COURTADE,, 929 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Burleson , 815 F.3d 170, 176 (4th Cir. 2016) (finding petitioner actually innocent where he pleaded guilty . . .

N. BROWN, v. UNITED STATES, 929 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). . . .

BAKER v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L. L. C. EQR- LLC,, 390 F. Supp. 3d 246 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300, 820 N.E.2d 815, 824 n.17 (2005) (quoting Doe v. New Bedford Hous. . . .

RAULERSON, Jr. v. WARDEN,, 928 F.3d 987 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Robinson , 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. CENTURA HEALTH,, 933 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . McLane Co., 857 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 2017). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CRUZ- RAMOS,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 720 (W.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . Ashcroft , 253 F.3d 811, 815 (5th Cir. 2001) ("[R]emoval proceedings commence when the INS files the . . . Ashcroft , 253 F.3d at 815 ; see also Arbaugh v. . . .

IN RE GRAVEL, In In, 601 B.R. 873 (Bankr. Vt. 2019)

. . . Ledyard Nat'l Bank (In re Campbell), 398 B.R. 799, 815 (Bankr. D. . . . Ledyard Nat'l Bank (In re Campbell), 398 B.R. 799, 815 (Bankr. D. . . .

UNITED STATES v. JAMES,, 928 F.3d 247 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Brown , 250 F.3d 811, 815 (3d Cir. 2001). . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. LICKERS,, 928 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ranjel , 872 F.3d 815, 821 (7th Cir. 2017) (applying similar waiver principles to a challenge to the . . .

D. NELSON, v. GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC., 928 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Amended Complaint asserts violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 . . .

J. GRESS L. v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,, 386 F. Supp. 3d 455 (M.D. Pa. 2019)

. . . . ; Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. . . .

In SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, In L. L. LLC, v., 603 B.R. 682 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Id. at 757 ; accord Slatkin , 525 F.3d at 815 ("Although the Johnsons argue that there is a question . . .

KANE COUNTY, UTAH, v. UNITED STATES, 928 F.3d 877 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Crandall Assoc., Inc. , 815 F.2d 426, 428 (6th Cir. 1987) ("[A] successive motion [must] state new facts . . .

KEVIN BARRY FINE ART ASSOCIATES, v. KEN GANGBAR STUDIO, INC., 391 F. Supp. 3d 959 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . Random House, Inc. , 297 F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2002) ). . . .

ESTATE OF OSUNA, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, s, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1162 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . In Munoz the California Court of Appeal noted that under Government Code § 815, "a public entity is not . . . public entity liable for this type of negligence, no direct liability could be established under section 815 . . . Plaintiffs acknowledge that under California Government Code § 815, "direct tort liability of public . . .

HERAEUS MEDICAL GMBH, v. ESSCHEM, INC., 927 F.3d 727 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . Cricks , 815 A.2d 1063, 1070 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) ; see Coll. Watercolor Grp., Inc. v. William H. . . .

UNITED STATES v. EMERY,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1023 (D. S.D. 2019)

. . . Walsh, 791 F.2d 811, 815 (10th Cir. 1986) (noting that the Supreme Court in Jacobsen held that removing . . .

KNICK, PETITIONER v. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA,, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Monsanto Co. , 467 U.S. 986, 1016, 104 S.Ct. 2862, 81 L.Ed.2d 815 (1984) we rejected a takings claim . . . Coronado Oil & Gas Co. , 285 U.S. 393, 406, 52 S.Ct. 443, 76 L.Ed. 815 (1932) (dissenting)). . . . Monsanto Co. , 467 U.S. 986, 1018, n. 21, 104 S.Ct. 2862, 81 L.Ed.2d 815 (1984) ). . . . Coronado Oil & Gas Co. , 285 U.S. 393, 406, 52 S.Ct. 443, 76 L.Ed. 815 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting . . .

UNITED STATES v. PERRIN,, 926 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ellis, 815 F.3d 419, 422 n.2 (8th Cir. 2016) (reinforcing Bain ); accord United States v. . . .

KHATA, v. BELOVA,, 274 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Sonson, 815 So. 2d 685, 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding the "trial court properly ratified the general . . .

MARTINEZ, v. L. RYAN,, 926 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Supreme Court routinely articulated and insisted on [an] unconstitutional causal nexus test." 813 F.3d at 815 . . .

MATTHEWS, v. P. BARR,, 927 F.3d 606 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) ); see also United States v . . . Id. at 190-94, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . . Id. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . . outside the generic definition of a crime.' " (quoting Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815 . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815. . . . Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). . . . Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). . . . apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition." 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815 . . .

GAMBLE, v. UNITED STATES, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Rep. 815 (K. B. 1726) 1 Leach 134, 168 Eng. Rep. 169 (K. B. 1775). See, e.g. , A. . . . Coronado Oil & Gas Co. , 285 U.S. 393, 406-408, 52 S.Ct. 443, 76 L.Ed. 815 (1932) (dissenting opinion . . . Rep. 815 (K. B. 1726). . . . Rep., at 815. . . .

B. WELTY, A. K. v. UNITED STATES,, 926 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Orleans , 425 U.S. 807, 815-16, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), but such conditions and restrictions . . .

HINSON, v. R. A. BIAS, B. K. S. T. Z. M. ROB, 927 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 815, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (internal quotation marks and alteration . . .

VIKEN DETECTION CORPORATION, v. VIDERAY TECHNOLOGIES INC. E., 384 F. Supp. 3d 168 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1002, 104 S.Ct. 2862, 81 L.Ed.2d 815 (1984). . . .

NICOSIA, v. AMAZON. COM, INC., 384 F. Supp. 3d 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Denny's Rests., Inc. , 117 Wash.2d 426, 435, 815 P.2d 1362 (Wash. 1991) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. GUZMAN, v., 926 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Starks, 815 F.3d 438, 441 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. . . . See, e.g., Starks, 815 F.3d at 441 ; United States v. Mendoza, 341 F.3d 687, 693 (8th Cir. 2003). . . .

HU, NY v. CITY OF NEW YORK, L. D. D., 927 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Vill. of Wesley Hills , 815 F. Supp. 2d 679, 696-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ; T.S. Haulers, Inc. v. . . . See Mosdos Chofetz Chaim , 815 F. Supp. 2d at 693-97 (collecting cases). . . .

IN RE BULLOCK, s, 603 B.R. 411 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . ."); In re Schnabel , 153 B.R. 809, 815 (Bankr. N.D. . . .

UNITED STATES v. TJADER,, 927 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ranjel , 872 F.3d 815, 821-22 (7th Cir. 2017). . . .

BODUM USA, INCORPORATED, v. A TOP NEW CASTING INCORPORATED,, 927 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . common law unfair competition; and violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 . . .

THOURTMAN, v. JUNIOR,, 275 So. 3d 726 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . State, 815 So. 2d 657, 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), rev'd on other grounds by State v. . . .