The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 6
ADMISSION INTO UNION; CONCESSIONS; STATE BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 6.05

6.05 Transfer of title and jurisdiction over land owned by state.—Whenever a tract of land containing not more than 4 acres shall be selected by an authorized officer or agent of the United States for the bona fide purpose of erecting thereon a lighthouse, beacon, marine hospital, or other public work, and the title to the said land shall be held by the state, then on application by the said officer or agent to the Governor of this state, the said executive may transfer to the United States the title to, and jurisdiction over, said land; provided, always, that the said transfer of title and jurisdiction is to be granted and made, as aforesaid, upon the express condition that this state shall retain a concurrent jurisdiction with the United States, in and over the lands so to be transferred, and every portion thereof, so far that all process, civil or criminal, issuing under authority of this state, or any of the courts or judicial officers thereof, may be executed by the proper officer thereof, upon any person amenable to the same, within the limits and extent of the lands so ceded, in like manner and to like effect as if this law had never been passed; saving, however, to the United States, security to their property within said limits or extent. The said lands shall hereafter remain the property of the United States and be exempt from taxation as long as they shall be needed for said purposes.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 630, 1855; RS 10; GS 8; RGS 8; CGL 8.

F.S. 6.05 on Google Scholar

F.S. 6.05 on Casetext

Amendments to 6.05

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 6.05

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 6.05.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

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

. . . Gouvin, Corporate Groups §§ 6.01, 6.02, 6.05 (2020 Supp.). . . .

RASHO, v. E. WALKER,, 376 F. Supp. 3d 888 (C.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . The evidence showed inmates were receiving an average of 6.05 hours at Menard, 6.97 hours at Pontiac, . . .

OCEAN TOMO, LLC, v. PATENTRATINGS, LLC, 375 F. Supp. 3d 915 (N.D. Ill. 2019)

. . . R. 398-5 at 16 (§ 6.05), 7 (§ 1.01). . . .

N. SELF, v. CITY OF MANSFIELD, TEXAS,, 369 F. Supp. 3d 684 (N.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . . ¶¶ 6.05, 6.07. . . .

HORROR INC. v. MILLER,, 335 F. Supp. 3d 273 (D. Conn. 2018)

. . . (citation omitted) ); see also 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.05 (2018) (noting that "[a] motion picture is . . .

JAUCH, v. CHOCTAW COUNTY, 886 F.3d 534 (5th Cir. 2018)

. . . Rule 6.05. The plaintiff, Jessica Jauch, had been indicted before she was arrested. . . .

SPIREAS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 886 F.3d 315 (3rd Cir. 2018)

. . . Byrnes & Marvin Petry, Taxation of Intellectual Property and Technology § 6.05[3][b] (2017). . . . . § 6.05[4] (citing Dreymann v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , 11 T.C. 153 (1948) ). . . . . § 6.05[3][a]. See also New Britain Mach. Co. v. . . . Id . § 6.05[4]. . . . of Internal Revenue , 352 F.2d 995, 998 n.3 (2d Cir. 1965) ; see generally Byrnes & Petry, supra , § 6.05 . . . are valid" is correct as a matter of contract law, Dissent at 328 (citing Byrnes & Petry, supra, § 6.05 . . . Byrnes & Petry, supra, § 6.05[3][a] ("[P]arties can agree in advance that upon reduction to practice . . .

FIXED INCOME SHARES SERIES M, v. CITIBANK N. A., 314 F. Supp. 3d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . . § 6.05). . . .

IN RE WELLS FARGO COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, 282 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . 2012 6.00 Stumpf, Sloan 3Q 2012 10-Q November 6, 2012 6.04 Stumpf, Sloan 2012 10-K February 27, 2013 6.05 . . .

E. DOWLING, v. PENSION PLAN FOR SALARIED EMPLOYEES OF UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION AND AFFILIATES A. Co, 871 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2017)

. . . justification Union Pacific offers (but on which the majority rightly declines to rely) lies' in § 6.05 . . . Plan § 6.05. . . . But § 6.05 makes clear that it only applies to “the other provisions of this Article [ie., Article VI . . . (Plan §§ 4.02(c)(2), 6.05, App. 157, 178; see also Plan § 2.40(a)(5), App. 148 (noting the “Hours of . . . 4.02(c)(2), App. 157 (providing special rules for disabled participants’ credited service), and Plan § 6.05 . . . Disability Date to the date on which he ceases to be a Disabled Participant as set forth in Section 6.05 . . . Plan § 6.05 states in pertinent part, [A] Participant who has a Disability Date shall continue to be . . . (Plan § 6.05, App. 178.) . . . .

IN RE AOG ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. LLC LLC GP, LLC L. P. GP, LLC L. P. GP, LLC L. P. VII, LLC VII, L. P. VII, L. P. VII, L. P. VII, L. P. VII L. P. PB VII, L. P. B. V. AP NMT Co U. A. AP NMT JV B. V. d b a USA, 569 B.R. 563 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . Section 6.05(a)(1) of each Loan Agreement provided that CORE would not merge with, or sell substantially . . .

UNITED STATES v. ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC. LLC,, 265 F. Supp. 3d 415 (D. Del. 2017)

. . . Specifically, § 6.05 of the merger agreement, labeled “no negotiations,” states that WCS cannot, directly . . . Section 6.05 also contains a “no shop” provision, which states that WCS cannot, directly or indirectly . . . As used in § 6.05, the term "Alternative Transaction” means any direct or indirect sale of the Company . . .

OCEAN TOMO, LLC, v. PATENTRATINGS, LLC, 262 F. Supp. 3d 553 (N.D. Ill. 2017)

. . . R. 241-5 at 16 (§ 6.05). . . .

UNITED STATES v. HILLIARD,, 851 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2017)

. . . Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit § 6.05. . . .

BRUGUIER, v. LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS St. R. v. L. D. F. St., 237 F. Supp. 3d 867 (W.D. Wis. 2017)

. . . Section 6.05 of the L.D.F. . . .

E. DOWLING v. PENSION PLAN FOR SALARIED EMPLOYEES OF UNION PACIFIC,, 173 F. Supp. 3d 88 (E.D. Pa. 2016)

. . . First, § 6.05 describes events that establish the date when one who has been a disabled participant is . . . Ex. 1 at § 6.05. . . . plan in the manner described above, the administrator calculated Dowling’s benefits as follows: • § 6.05 . . .

IN RE P. FREEMAN,, 540 B.R. 129 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . Vatro, Rule 11 Sanctions: Case Law Perspectives and Preventive Measures § 6.05[a][1][A] at 340 (3d ed . . .

OSBERG, v. FOOT LOCKER, INC., 138 F. Supp. 3d 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . benefit at normal retirement age (age 65), and computing the actuarial value of that benefit based on a 6.05% . . .

DE SIMONE, v. VSL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. LLC, USA, SA,, 133 F. Supp. 3d 776 (D. Md. 2015)

. . . G ¶ 6.05. . . .

MARYA v. WARNER CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., 131 F. Supp. 3d 975 (C.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . . § 101 (1976 Act); see also 1-6 Nimmer § 6.05 (“The requisite distinction must lie instead in the intent . . .

SHAULIS, v. NORDSTROM INC. d b a, 120 F. Supp. 3d 40 (D. Mass. 2015)

. . . Code Regs. 6.05(2). . . . Code Regs. 6.05(3). 2. . . . Code Regs. 6.05(2). . . . Code Regs. 6.05(2). Therefore, the alleged violation of Mass. . . . Code Regs. 6.05(2) constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice under Chapter 93A. . . .

IN RE H. MELTZER,, 534 B.R. 757 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2015)

. . . Vairo, Rule 11 Sanctions: Case Law, Perspectives and Preventive Measures § 6.05 at 339 (3d ed.2004). . . .

W. GREENE, v. J. ABLON, a k a, 794 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2015)

. . . One and the same production thus can occupy both statuses.” 1 Nimmer § 6.05 (emphasis omitted). . . .

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, v. NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC., 104 F. Supp. 3d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . 12 / 3.58% 38 /11.34% NHELI 2007-2 109 / 8.10% 33/2.45% NHELI 2007-3' •29/3.1 14 /1.85% TOTAL 373 / 6.05% . . . Pursuant to Regulation AB, Item 6.05 to SEC Form 8-K requires disclosures “if any material pool characteristic . . .

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES, v. G. Jr. v., 122 Fed. Cl. 315 (Fed. Cl. 2015)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.05(2)(e). . . .

IN RE WALLER, v., 525 B.R. 473 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2014)

. . . Sommer & McGarity, supra note 22, ¶ 6.05[5], at 6-66. . . .

POWELL, v. NOBLE, CEO D., 36 F. Supp. 3d 818 (S.D. Iowa 2014)

. . . . at 653, 101 S.Ct. 2559 (“By focusing on the incidental effect of providing an exemption from Rule 6.05 . . .

SCHANE, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL NO. PENSION FUND PENSION PLAN,, 760 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . See Plan § 6.05(a). . . . See Plan § 6.05(a)(i). . . . Plan § 6.05(a) (emphasis added). . . . Plan § 6.05(a). . . . within the categories listed in section 6.05(a). . . .

GARCIA, v. GOOGLE, INC. a LLC, a K. J. M., 766 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 6.05 at 6-14 (1990). . . .

BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI VE TICARET A. S. v. UNITED STATES,, 990 F. Supp. 2d 1384 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014)

. . . Borusan did engage in targeted dumping, but revised Borusan’s rate and assigned a final dumping margin of 6.05% . . .

CABAN, v. EMPLOYEES SECURITY FUND OF THE ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES PENSION PLAN, 16 F. Supp. 3d 167 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . As pointed out above, Section 6.05 of the PTF Plan provides that “[t]he Trustees shall have full discretionary . . .

DAVIDSON, v. HOWE,, 749 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 6.05 (defining the Ricci class and services available to class members). .The magistrate declined . . .

SONGCHAROEN, S. M. D. FACS. P. L. L. C. v. PLASTIC HAND SURGERY ASSOCIATES, P. L. L. C., 561 F. App'x 327 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . PHSA argues that the district court erred in considering the two sections, Sections 7.02 and 6.05, that . . . physician’s membership unit, then PHSA was to make liquidating distributions “in accordance with Section 6.05 . . . Section 6.05, in turn, addresses “Distributions in Kind,” which, according to Songcharoen, meant that . . . jury that Section 7.02 was supposed to reference Section 6.04, “Termination of Company,” not Section 6.05 . . .

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, v. PRITZKER,, 62 F. Supp. 3d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . stock for bottlenose dolphin and showing that the percentage of stock affected at 120 to 180 dB was 6.05% . . .

HARRIS, v. CITY OF BALCH SPRINGS, Z. B. E., 9 F. Supp. 3d 690 (N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . American councilwoman to allow such a hearing, thereby effectively denying the request for over a year. 6.05 . . .

GARCIA, v. GOOGLE, INC. a LLC, a K. J. M., 743 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 6.05 at 6-14 (1990). . . .

UNITED STATES v. JACQUES, Al, v. Al Jr., 555 F. App'x 41 (2d Cir. 2014)

. . . Sand, et al, Modem Federal Jury Instructions— Criminal § 6.05 (2007), and previously sanctioned by this . . .

UNITED STATES, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, 738 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

. . . Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 6.05(1) (2006) (where amount of contract exceeds actual or apparent authority . . .

In PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 986 F. Supp. 2d 207 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . The Class Administrator will distribute the $6.05 billion Cash Fund to Authorized Cash Claimants, on . . .

In R. MILLER,, 501 B.R. 266 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2013)

. . . (Bankr.M.D.Ala.2006); In re Petrosky, 325 B.R. 475, 477 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2005); Collier Family Law ¶ 6.05 . . .

CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. MERGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS INC., 728 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2013)

. . . stopped the vote on the merger, the suit was settled when Merge Healthcare, Inc., made a tender offer of $6.05 . . .

GULF POWER COMPANY, v. COALSALES II, LLC, f. k. a., 522 F. App'x 699 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . CSA, Sections 2.30, 6.04-6.05. . . . See, e.g., CSA, Sections 6.04 and 6.05 (designating approved sources) and Section 7.01 (setting forth . . . other Source(s) approved by Buyer, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.”) and Section 6.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. REEVES,, 717 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 2013)

. . . Had Reeves’s sentence been based on the quantity of cocaine involved in his conviction, 6.05 grams, his . . .

UNITED STATES v. GABRION, II,, 719 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 6.05 (2009). . . .

SENDER, v. FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., 931 F. Supp. 2d 959 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . Sender cites toll 6.05 of the Plan document, which provides as follows: “So long as the Trustee is holding . . . P (Plan ¶ 6.05). While this provision could potentially — in isolation — be read as Mr. . . .

In TEXAS GRAND PRAIRIE HOTEL REALTY, L. L. C. I L. L. C. v. L. L. C. L. L. C. L. L. C. L. L. C., 710 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . Ferrell purported to “utilize the [3.25%] Prime Rate as the Base Rate,” making an upward “adjustment” of 6.05% . . .

In TEXAS GRAND PRAIRIE HOTEL REALTY, L. L. C. I L. L. C. v. L. L. C. L. L. C. L. L. C. L. L. C., 710 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . Ferrell purported to “utilize the [3.25%] Prime Rate as the Base Rate,” making an upward “adjustment” of 6.05% . . .

In GULF STATES LONG TERM ACUTE CARE OF COVINGTON, LLC,, 487 B.R. 713 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2013)

. . . Section 6.05 of the Plan entitled “Release of Claims” provides: In exchange for the consideration outlined . . . In the first paragraph of section 6.05 of the Plan, entitled “Release of Claims,” Debtor provided that . . . Section 6.05, paragraph one, contains a general release. . . . Docket no. 393, section 6.05. . . . . Docket no. 393, section 6.05. . Zednerv. . . .

ASSURED GUARANTY MUNICIPAL CORP. f k a v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB ABS, LLC,, 920 F. Supp. 2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . PL Ex. 90 § 6.05; PL Ex. 451 § 7.02; PL Ex. 198 § 8.02. . . .

ENCORE BANK, N. A. v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. BAC L. P., 918 F. Supp. 2d 633 (S.D. Tex. 2013)

. . . .” #2, Agreement, § 6.05. . . .

SUNTREE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. a v. ECOSENSE INTERNATIONAL, INC. a a, 693 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . Section 6.05 of the bidding documents provided that “[w]henever an item of material or equipment is specified . . . Section 6.05 also set forth the process a contractor must go through in order to gain approval for an . . .

WALKER, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION ADP d b a, 492 F. App'x 559 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . Section 6.05 of the PSA stated in pertinent part: [FedEx] expressly acknowledges that contractor is not . . .

UNITED STATES v. CLARK, Jr., 485 F. App'x 816 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . Because the Sixth Circuit Pattern jury instructions for Coercion/Duress (6.05) and the requested jury . . .

SEIU HEALTH CARE MICHIGAN, v. SNYDER,, 875 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Mich. 2012)

. . . (Agreement § 6.05.) . . .

In DUNBAR, v., 474 B.R. 14 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012)

. . . Reg. 6.05(3)(k). . The Lease describes the apartment as a three-bedroom apartment while Ms. . . . Reg. 6.05(3)(k). . Ms. Dunbar testified at her deposition only that he graduated in 2008. . . .

SNC- LAVALIN AMERICA, INC. v. ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS, INC., 858 F. Supp. 2d 620 (W.D. Va. 2012)

. . . Callahan, Construction Delay Claims, § 6.05 (West-law 2012). . . . express or implied order to accelerate; and (5) actual acceleration.''); Construction Delay Claims at § 6.05 . . .

AKANTHOS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, CNH CA L. P. GLG PLC GLG UCITS GLG IV PLC GLG UCITS CC v. COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, G. J. III, R. Jr. W. K. K. J. III, G. J., 677 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . Plaintiffs also argue that because Section 6.05 of the indentures gives the majority the ability to direct . . . However, Section 6.05 of the indentures also states that “the Trustee may refuse to follow any direction . . .

SHANTOU RED GARDEN FOODSTUFF CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 815 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012)

. . . This combination resulted in surrogate values of 6.05% for factory overhead, 8.37% for SG & A expenses . . .

In SUFFOLK REGIONAL OFFTRACK BETTING CORP. d b a OTB,, 462 B.R. 397 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . 6.03 (“unless excluded by the contracts, the [undisclosed] principal is a party to the contract”), 6.05 . . . Second) of Agency, rather, it incorporated that provision, along with §§ 148, 187, and 294, into new § 6.05 . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.05(2). . . . for them in the same matter or transaction are covered by § 3.16,” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.05 . . . enter into a single contract on behalf of Churchill Downs and Magna, Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.05 . . .

OSPREY- TROY OFFICENTRE L. L. C. a v. WORLD ALLIANCE FINANCIAL CORP. f k a a, 822 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Mich. 2011)

. . . anything herein to the contrary, Section 4.01, 4.02, 6.01, 6.04 (as it relates to operating expenses) and 6.05 . . .

In H W FOOD MART, LLC,, 461 B.R. 904 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011)

. . . Agreement, ¶¶ 6.04-6.05. . . . his bankruptcy filing and no new manager was ever formally designated as provided for in Paragraph 6.05 . . . Although Paragraph 6.05 states “Bankruptcy Event” is defined in "Section 7.7”, the Agreement contains . . . voluntary bankruptcy filing of the manager would constitute a Bankruptcy Event for purposes of Paragraph 6.05 . . .

In LYONS, v., 454 B.R. 174 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2011)

. . . See Sommer & McGarity, supra, ¶ 6.05 [13] at 6-83 (2010). . . . . See In re Trump, 309 B.R. 585 (Bankr.D.Kan.2004), cited at Sommer & McGarity, supra, ¶ 6.05[1] at 6-60 . . .

PURDHAM, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,, 637 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2011)

. . . Even assuming he only worked 350 hours, the result is that Purdham was paid $6.05 per hour in 2008 and . . .

In QUVIS, INC. A. M. D. R. PhJD C. JFM I v. II, L. P., 446 B.R. 490 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2011)

. . . Section 6.05 provides: “No Lender shall have any liability whatsoever to the Borrower, any other Lender . . . Id. at § 6.05. . Seacoast Ex. 3. . . . . Ann. § 84-9-509 (2009 Supp.) and 2003 Agreement, Seacoast Ex. 7, § 6.01(b) and § 6.05. . . . . Seacoast Ex. 7, Section 6.05 provides: "No Lender shall have any liability whatsoever to the Borrower . . . See Seacoast Ex. 7, §§ 6.01(b) and 6.05; Kan. Stat. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SLOAN,, 401 F. App'x 66 (6th Cir. 2010)

. . . Sloan refers to Sixth Circuit Jury Instructions §§ 6.05 and 6.07, addressing coercion/duress and justification . . .

CANAL INSURANCE CO. v. COLEMAN,, 625 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . Nissenberg, The Law of Commercial Trucking § 6.05 (2003) (noting that "[wjhether a trip is in interstate . . .

In E. LaHOOD M. J. FLLZ, LLC, v. E. v. E. J. FLLZ, L. L. C., 437 B.R. 330 (C.D. Ill. 2010)

. . . Similarly, § 6.05 of the Operating Agreement states that an assignee of a membership interest becomes . . . Bankruptcy Court properly noted that Article IV of the Operating Agreement, which contains both §§ 6.01 and 6.05 . . . Richard and FLLZ therefore cannot use the alleged violation of §§ 6.01 and 6.05 of the Operating Agreement . . .

DENIL v. INC., 748 F. Supp. 2d 967 (W.D. Wis. 2010)

. . . . #41-13, § 6.05(c). . . . Dkt. # 41-13, §§ 5.02, 6.05(c). . . .

In HEAVISIDE,, 433 B.R. 749 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2010)

. . . Section 6.05. . . .

WELKER, v. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. HORWITZ,, 699 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (S.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . Barron, Fair Debt Collection Practices- Federal and State Law and Regulation ¶ 6.05[5] (2009), available . . . at FDCP ¶ 6.05[5]. . . . .

In S. WILLIAMS, Sr. L. W. Jr. IV, v. S. Sr. L., 424 B.R. 207 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2010)

. . . Figure reflects $44.95 for internet services added to $6.05 in associated taxes. . . . .

WEISS, v. KEMPTHORNE, U. S., 683 F. Supp. 2d 549 (W.D. Mich. 2010)

. . . (DOI R. at 2021, Lease § 6.05.) . . .

In HRM HOLDINGS, LLC, M. v. LLC HRM LLC HRM LLC HRM LLC HRM LLC,, 421 B.R. 244 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2009)

. . . This was potentially a violation of legal duties under article 6.05(2) of the Tex. Ltd. Liab. Co. . . . Art. 1528N, art. 6.05(2) (Vernons 2003) (expires Jan. 1, 2010). . . . Orgs.Code in the Second Amended Complaint, but Art. 6.05(2) of the Tex. Ltd. Liab. Co. . . .

TITAN TIRE CORPORATION OF BRYAN, v. LOCAL UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,, 673 F. Supp. 2d 582 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

. . . Article VI, Section 6.05(b) provides “[sjeniority will be broken for the following reason: discharge . . .

GULF POWER COMPANY, v. COALSALES II, L. L. C. f k a, 661 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (N.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . In response, Gulf Power argues that Section 6.05, which refers to Section 9.01, established the price . . . provides, in relevant part: “If Seller elects to ship Source B and/or Source C tons,” and on Section 6.05 . . . Furthermore, Section 6.05, "Other Sources,” states that Coalsales could supply “the coal to be supplied . . . 2.06, 2.07, 2.10, 2.12, 2.16, 2.20, 2.22, 2.23, 2.27, 2.28, 2.30, 2.34, 5.02, 5.03, 5.08, 6.02, 6.04, 6.05 . . . which either mention sources other than Source A and Source B directly or refer to Sections 6.04 and 6.05 . . .

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC. LLC LLC I X,, 645 F. Supp. 2d 734 (D. Minn. 2009)

. . . those contemplated by this Agreement and developed by or for other parties.... ” Classic Agreement § 6.05 . . . Classic Agreement §§ 6.01, 6.02, 6.04, 6.05. . . . Classic Agreement §§ 6.05, 7.06; NextGen Agreement § 12.1; Horizon Agreement § 12. 1, TU-FI-1260027. . . .

F. FEBUS- CRUZ, v. SAURI- SANTIAGO,, 652 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D.P.R. 2009)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 6.05[3] at 6-35 (“There is no extension in connection with time periods . . .

REICHHOLD, INC. v. UNITED STATES METALS REFINING COMPANY,, 655 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D.N.J. 2009)

. . . Reich-hold cap the approximately 125,000 square foot slag pile on the BTL Parcel depicted in Figure 6.05 . . . The exposed slag encompasses an area of approximately 125,000 square feet and can be found on Figure 6.05 . . . NJDEP continued to direct its comment to the area shown in Fig. 6.05, i.e., the area of the slag pile . . . The area depicted in Fig. 6.05 was also the extent of any deed restriction on the Site required by the . . . not to sue, Reichhold agreed “to cover the exposed Slag on the Site in the area depicted on Figure 6.05 . . .

NADARAJAH, v. HOLDER Jr., 569 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . account for the paralegal’s billing of clerical work, the district court fee request is reduced by 6.05 . . .

In MORTGAGE LENDERS NETWORK USA, INC. USA, v., 406 B.R. 213 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009)

. . . Ex. 22, p. 41, § 6.05; Def. Tr. Ex. 23, p. 29, § 6.05.) 15. . . . Ex. 22, p. 41, § 6.05; Def. Tr. Ex. 23, p. 29, § 6.05; Def. Tr. Ex. 24, p. 83, § 11.13; Def. Tr. . . .

UNITED STATES v. FARRELL, v., 563 F.3d 364 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . The contracts set compensation at $6.05 per hour and also provided for holiday and overtime pay. . . . upon leaving for the United States, the workers were under the impression that they would be making $6.05 . . .

WATSON, v. ANGLIN,, 560 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2009)

. . . Former 6.05 (Committee Note) (2d ed.1981). . . . Former 6.05 (2d ed.1981). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. MUNDY,, 539 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2008)

. . . Sand, et al., Modem Federal Jury Instructions — Criminal § 6.05 (2007) (citing as authority United States . . .

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS d b a a v. METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC. a, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Colo. 2008)

. . . License Agreement at 10 (Section 6.05); Metabolite II, 370 F.3d at 1370. . Driscoll Const. . . .

CAPITAL VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, v. REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA,, 280 F. App'x 14 (2d Cir. 2008)

. . . Although Section 6.05(a) permits Argentina to request any excess Interest Collateral, Section 6.05(c) . . . Furthermore, Section 6.05(a)(iv) requires that any release request by Argentina be accompanied by a schedule . . . Brady Bondholders’ lien on the released funds will terminate, see Collateral 1 Pledge Agreement, § 6.05 . . . Argentina therefore cannot provide the certification required by Section 6.05(a)(iv). . . . CVI claims that Section 6.05(c) of the Collateral Pledge Agreement does not apply because Argentina may . . .

TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, a v. ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF PERMANENT EASEMENT LOCATED IN MARICOPA COUNTY, LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v. LLC, a v., 544 F. Supp. 2d 939 (D. Ariz. 2008)

. . . Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. 6.05 acres, more . . .

In NORTHWEST AIRLINES CORPORATION, v. v., 383 B.R. 283 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . event, the authority in support of this argument that Northwest cites is Restatement (Third) Agency § 6.05 . . .

C. AMARA, v. CIGNA CORPORATION, 534 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D. Conn. 2008)

. . . benefit at normal retirement age (age 65) and computing the actuarial value of that benefit based on a 6.05% . . . by converting each participant’s annuity benefit into a lump sum using a particular interest rate (6.05% . . . actual historical interest credit rates under Part B are as follows: Year Interest Credit Rates 1998 6.05% . . .

In SOLUTIA INC., 379 B.R. 473 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Section 6.05 of the Original Indenture is captioned “Control by Majority.” . . .

In JNS AVIATION, LLC, v. JNS JNS LLC, JNS LLC, JNS LLC, J. N., 376 B.R. 500 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . Art. 6.05(2) Texas Limited Liability Company Act. . . .

LAUBE, v. F. ALLEN,, 506 F. Supp. 2d 969 (M.D. Ala. 2007)

. . . court finds that the plaintiffs should recover enforcement fees for the following number of hours: 6.05 . . .

PHILLIPS v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., 498 F. Supp. 2d 690 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . The form stated that the interest rate in the first year would be 6.05%, which included a 3.5% “bonus . . .

D. R. HORTON, INC. JACKSONVILLE, v. PEYTON, a a, 959 So. 2d 390 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Under section 6.05 of the City’s Charter, the mayor does not possess the authority to veto, among other . . . Any veto power the Mayor has is derived from Section -6.05, Jacksonville Municipal Code. . . . specific areas, as follows: Section 6.05. . . . Section 6.05 of the Charter prohibits the mayor from vetoing the Council’s quasi-judicial actions, but . . . Thus, the Council’s action was subject to the mayor’s veto power under section 6.05 of the Charter. . . .

In N. GENTILINI, LLP, v. N., 365 B.R. 251 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . the child, even if it is ‘owed’ to someone else.” 1-6 Collier Family Law and the Bankruptcy Code ¶ 6.05 . . .

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. SORRELL, 549 U.S. 158 (U.S. 2007)

. . . Pattern Instr., Civ., No. 6.05 (1997) (“[A]n act or a failure to act is the cause of an injury if it . . .

G. I. v., 127 T.C. 124 (T.C. 2006)

. . . Under section 6.05(1) of the revenue procedures, a taxpayer who computes the amount of his or her M&IE . . .

DIXON v. UNITED STATES, 548 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2006)

. . . Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions § 5.05 (1998); Sixth Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions §6.05 . . . But see Sixth Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions §6.05 (2005) (stating that the burden-of-proof . . .

ACKERMAN, v. LOCAL UNION INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,, 423 F. Supp. 2d 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . CBA §§ 6.02, 6.04, 6.05. No claim whatever lies against the Union itself. III. . . .

In E. ROSS, E. v. Co., 338 B.R. 266 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006)

. . . The Loan had an adjustable rate of interest, i.e., 6.05 percentage points above the “Bank Prime Loan . . .

HAMILTON a v. WASHINGTON STATE PLUMBING PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY PENSION PLAN U. A. a v. a v., 433 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006)

. . . The Children point specifically to Article 6, § 6.05 of the National Pension Fund plan, which states . . . The district court also relied on § 6.05 in determining that the National Pension Fund, by its own terms . . . Section 6.05 cannot be read to trump the rights of a “Qualified Spouse” as it expressly employs the term . . . The National Pension Fund points out that § 6.05 cannot be read in isolation, but must be read in conjunction . . .