Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 6.07 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 6.07 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 6.07

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. 6.07
6.07 Congress may legislate concerning state lands acquired for national forests.Congress may pass such laws and make or provide for the making of such rules and regulations, of both a civil and criminal nature, and provide punishment therefor, as in its judgment may be necessary for the administration, control, and protection of such lands as may be from time to time acquired by the United States under the provisions of s. 6.06.
History.s. 2, ch. 8564, 1921; CGL 10.

F.S. 6.07 on Google Scholar

F.S. 6.07 on Casetext

Amendments to 6.07


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 6.07
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 6.07.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

OLIVER, v. JOHANSON DB LLC,, 357 F. Supp. 3d 758 (W.D. Ark. 2018)

. . . Nimmer on Copyright § 6.07. . . .

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

. . . work for hire agreements, vesting all copyright ownership in the producer." 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.07 . . .

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION BOARD, U. S. NGN W. v. U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NCUA NCUA NCUA NCUA NCUA NCUA NCUA NCUA NCUA NCUA, 898 F.3d 243 (2nd Cir. 2018)

. . . Indenture Agreement at 71, § 6.07(b). Appellants' Opening Br. 27. See Vintage, LLC v. Laws Constr. . . .

MUMIN v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. LLC, v. LLC, USA LLC, LLC, LLC,, 239 F. Supp. 3d 507 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . After deducting his weekly expenses, Mumin calculates that his effective hourly wage was $6.07. . . . he worked an average of 55 hours a week, the court calculates his hourly pay after expenses to be $6.07 . . .

IN RE XTREME POWER INC. Jr. v. H. III SAIL LLC,, 563 B.R. 614 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2016)

. . . See Second Amended Plan ¶¶ 6.01-6.07 (case no. 14-10096, dkt# 897). . . . See Second Amended Plan § 6.07 (case no. 14-10096, dkt# 897). . . . See Second Amended Plan § 6.07 (case no. 14-10096, dkt# 897). . . .

KID STUFF MARKETING, INC. v. CREATIVE CONSUMER CONCEPTS, INC. N, 223 F. Supp. 3d 1168 (D. Kan. 2016)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 6.07[A] [3] at 6-21 (2013). . . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 6.07[A] [2] at 6-20.1 (2013) (and cases cited therein). . . .

IN RE L. MELO, a LLC M Z LLC, v. L., 558 B.R. 521 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2016)

. . . Section 6.07 Exculpation and Indemnification; Fiduciary Duty (a) The Members’ respective Obligations . . .

TADAYON v. DATTCO, INC., 178 F. Supp. 3d 12 (D. Conn. 2016)

. . . Claims & Remedies, § 6.07 (2015) (describing common counterclaims for “patent infringement targets”). . . .

BECKER v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N. A. J. P., 172 F. Supp. 3d 777 (E.D. Pa. 2016)

. . . Loan Agreement §§ 6.2, 6.3, 6.4; Indenture, recitals at 2-3, §§ 6.02, 6.03, 6.07, 7.01; Assignment at . . .

BOKF, N. A. v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, UMB N. A. s s s s v., 144 F. Supp. 3d 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . . ¶¶ 9-11 (citing sections 6.07 and 13.01 of the Indenture). .See id. ¶¶ 17-18. . Id. ¶ 22. . . . .

PHUNWARE, INC. LLC, v. EXCELMIND GROUP LIMITED,, 117 F. Supp. 3d 613 (D. Del. 2015)

. . . Plaintiffs first point to SPA § 6.07. . . . CD-I. 31 at 20) Section 6.07 states in relevant part that parties must “use commercially reasonable efforts . . . Plaintiffs point to ECL defendants’ conduct involving Xurpas as violating SPA § 6.07(i). . . . as true — occurred prior to the drop dead date, the court finds that ECL defendants did not breach § 6.07 . . .

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

. . . author’s contribution be more than de minimis. 1 Melville Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nim-mer on Copyright § 6.07 . . .

MARBLEGATE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, v. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORP., 111 F. Supp. 3d 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . case focuses on the unsecured Notes, which were qualified under the Trust Indenture Act (Indenture §§ 6.07 . . .

GARCIA, v. GOOGLE, INC. a LLC, a K. J. M., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . See 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.07[B][2] at 6-28 to 6-29; 2 William F. . . . See 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.07[B][2], Absent these formalities, courts have looked to implied licenses . . .

MARBLEGATE ASSET MANAGEMENT, v. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORP., 75 F. Supp. 3d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . First, the Notes are qualified under the Trust Indenture Act (Indenture § 12.01), and under Section 6.07 . . . (Indenture § 6.07). . . . deem the removal of the Parent Guarantee to be in violation of the Trust Indenture Act and Indenture § 6.07 . . . impairs or affects their right to receive payment on their Notes, which is enshrined in both Section 6.07 . . . over the Parent Guarantee and the Intercompa-ny Sale are inextricably intertwined, and because Section 6.07 . . .

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

. . . See Sommer & McGarity, supra note 22, n 6.07[4] and 6.07A[3][b], at 6-97 and 6-106, respectively. . . . .

In CORRLINE INTERNATIONAL, LLC,, 516 B.R. 106 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Section 6.07(a) of the JV Agreement requires that a majority vote must consist of at least one minority . . . requires a majority vote consisting of at least one minority member vote — e.g., a Tagos member — under § 6.07 . . . attempt to substantiate its authority to hire counsel to oppose the Petition without complying with § 6.07 . . .

In W. PONCE DE LEON, LLC, LLC, LLC, II, LLC, LP, LLC,, 515 B.R. 660 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2014)

. . . are also to be paid in 120 installments with interest of 4.32% for Green Tree and Wells Fargo, and 6.07% . . . Debtors acknowledged that State Bank, as a junior lien holder, should be paid interest at the rate of 6.07% . . .

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

. . . failed to promulgate a grievance procedure which would have afforded Plaintiff a name-clearing hearing. 6.07 . . . Compl. ¶¶ 6.01-6.07. . . .

BROWNSTEIN, v. LINDSAY, 742 F.3d 55 (3d Cir. 2014)

. . . expression to the work and both must intend that their contributions be combined. 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.07 . . .

In CHINA VALVES TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES LITIGATION, 979 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . the Company’s filing with China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) listed as $6.07 . . . China Valves purchased Changsha Valve from Watts Water, that Able Delight directly paid Watts Water $6.07 . . . which it had purchased from Watts Water, and that the $15 million consideration paid actually was $6.07 . . .

BJ SERVICES S. R. L. BJ L. L. C. v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,, 539 F. App'x 545 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.07 (“A third party’s payment to or settlement of accounts with . . .

UNITED STATES v. EXECUTIVE RECYCLING, INC., 946 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (D. Colo. 2013)

. . . PJI 6.06 and 6.07; see United States v. . . .

CITIBANK, N. A. v. MORGAN STANLEY CO. INTERNATIONAL, PLC,, 482 F. App'x 662 (2d Cir. 2012)

. . . pleadings on the breach of contract claim, we do not rely on or consider Citibank’s argument that § 6.07 . . . Like the District Court, we assume without deciding that § 6.07 applies despite Citibank’s argument. . . .

Dr. ADAMSON, Dr. v. CLAYTON COUNTY ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION BOARD, P. F., 876 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D. Ga. 2012)

. . . 26,914 57.54% 55.95% 28,931 66.71% 65.22% 9.17% 9.27% 9 34,328 68.17% 65.99% 28,895 62.10% 59.72% -6.07% . . .

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

. . . jury instructions for Coercion/Duress (6.05) and the requested jury instruction for Justification (6.07 . . .

In T. HOFFMANN, J. v. T., 475 B.R. 692 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2012)

. . . The next section, 6.07, states that “[t]he name of the Trustee shall not be used by the Beneficiaries . . .

HECKMANN BUILDING PRODUCTS INC. v. HOHMANN BARNARD, INC. LLC,, 866 F. Supp. 2d 965 (N.D. Ill. 2012)

. . . PX 3 ¶ 6.07; PX 4. . . .

In LOWER BUCKS HOSPITAL,, 471 B.R. 419 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . . §§ 6.03. 6.07); • assigned the Authority’s rights under the Loan Agreement to the Indenture Trustee . . .

In BANAYAN, In v. In v., 468 B.R. 542 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . stock, other securities, or partnership interests, other equity or indebtedness;” (3) under Section 6.07 . . .

ELLINGTON CREDIT FUND, LTD. v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., 837 F. Supp. 2d 162 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . have not complied with the prerequisites for filing a suit set forth in § 6.07 of the PSA. . . . (PSA § 6.07.) . . . Plaintiffs thus have failed to comply with the 60-day pre-suit notice requirement set forth in § 6.07 . . . (PSA § 6.07 (emphasis added).) . . . Futility of Compliance with § 6.07 Plaintiffs next argue that compliance with § 6.07’s demand requirement . . .

CORBELLO, v. DeVITO, 832 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Nev. 2011)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 6.07 (Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. 2011). . . . Id. § 6.07[A][1], If all DeVito did was contribute non-copyrightable historical facts, and Woodard supplied . . . See 1 Nimmer & Nimmer, supra, § 6.07[A][3][a]-[c] (citing Gaiman v. . . .

PRESIDIO ADVISORS, LLC, v. THE UNITED STATES,, 101 Fed. Cl. 393 (Fed. Cl. 2011)

. . . Streng, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders: Forms ¶¶ 6.07[2], [7] (2011). . . .

TMTV, CORP. v. MASS PRODUCTIONS, INC. o, a k a o o-, 645 F.3d 464 (1st Cir. 2011)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 6.07[A][3][a], at 6-21 (rev. ed. 2009); but it is not certain that this . . .

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 . . .

EXPORT- IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, v. UNITED CALIFORNIA DISCOUNT CORP., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . to the standby to the assignee who is only entitled to the proceeds assigned, if any .... ” ISP98 § 6.07 . . .

CITIBANK, N. A. v. MORGAN STANLEY CO. INTERNATIONAL, PLC,, 724 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . Nonetheless, MSIP cites to section 6.07 of the Credit Agreement and argues that Citibank, in its role . . . Even assuming that section 6.07 is applicable — a point Citibank does not concede —MSIP’s linguistic . . . Indeed, the plain language of section 6.07 makes clear that “authorization” may be effected by either . . . Credit Agreement § 6.07 (emphasis added and removed). . . . Citibank argues that section 6.07 is inapplicable because the Revolving Facility was never syndicated . . .

OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 372 F. App'x 107 (2d Cir. 2010)

. . . various insurance policies issued by the parties, Transcontinental was responsible for paying the $6.07 . . . In funding the settlement, Transcontinental paid $1 million and Ohio Casualty paid $6.07 million. . . .

ROBINSON KNIFE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 600 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2010)

. . . Gertzman, Federal Tax Accounting ¶ 6.07[4][a] (2009). . . . .

R. VAINISI L. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 599 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2010)

. . . Streng, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders: Forms ¶¶ 6.07[2], [7] (2009). . . .

UNITED STATES v. LEWIS,, 363 F. App'x 382 (6th Cir. 2010)

. . . Pattern Jury Inst. 6.06; 6.07. . . .

WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. v. LAKE OF THE TORCHES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,, 677 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (W.D. Wis. 2010)

. . . and December 11, the Trustee made further requests for documentation as required by Sections 6.06 and 6.07 . . . covenant, condition, agreement or provision” of the Indenture Agreement (including Sections 5.01, 6.06 and 6.07 . . .

BONNIEVIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, LLC F. N. J. K. R. Qi G. Yi Lu v. WOODMONT BUILDERS, L. L. C. L. L. C. A. G. S. J. Co- S., 655 F. Supp. 2d 473 (D.N.J. 2009)

. . . for arsenic and dieldrin for all of the samples taken in the lawn areas of the Residential Lots was 6.07 . . . for arsenic and dieldrin for all of the samples taken in the lawn areas of the Residential Lots was 6.07 . . .

In METALDYNE CORPORATION,, 409 B.R. 671 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . (Credit Agreement § 9.09(a); Security Agreement § 6.07.) . . .

In ELDERCARE PROPERTIES LTD. v. In v., 568 F.3d 506 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . Section 6.07 set minimum coverage levels for “claims for personal injury or property damage under a policy . . .

In ELDERCARE PROPERTIES LTD. v. In v., 568 F.3d 506 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . Section 6.07 set minimum coverage levels for “claims for personal injury or property damage under a policy . . .

V. KORIDZE, v. FANNIE MAE CORP., 593 F. Supp. 2d 863 (E.D. Va. 2009)

. . . Id. at ¶ 6.07. . . . CA ¶ 6.07. . . .

GELOW, v. CENTRAL PACIFIC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,, 560 F. Supp. 2d 972 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . . § 6.07. . . . B (employment contract of Jeffrey Just) § 6.07. . . . B (employment contract of Jeffrey Just) § 6.07. . . .

DEAN, v. LEAKE,, 550 F. Supp. 2d 594 (E.D.N.C. 2008)

. . . districts, the least-populated district is District 23 in Orange and Person Counties, with a deviation of 6.07% . . .

LATIMER, v. ROARING TOYZ, INC. USA, U. S., 550 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 6.07[A][2], Defendants have not demonstrated that Fisher . . .

BANK OF NEW YORK, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, N. A., 508 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

. . . New York] from time to time reasonable compensation for all services rendered” under the Indenture, § 6.07 . . . Indenture refers to NextBank’s “payment obligations to the Indenture Trustee pursuant to this Section 6.07 . . . In its Proof of Claim before the FDIC, it stated that “pursuant to Section 6.07 of the Indenture, the . . .

UNITED STATES v. WISZOWATY, C. O. G., 506 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2007)

. . . Wiszowaty requested Seventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 6.07, which provides that a defendant who . . . The Committee Comment to Instruction 6.07 clarifies it as “a species of good faith.” . . .

J. WRIGHT, D. M. v. FRANKEL, a Jr. a a, 965 So. 2d 365 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 6.07 sets forth the duties and responsibilities of the Commission after the City Clerk has examined . . . It provides: Sec. 6.07. Consideration by City Commission. . . . After the Commission has considered the proposed initiative as required by section 6.07, the Commission . . .

ROUSE v. WALTER ASSOCIATES, L. L. C. J. v., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (S.D. Iowa 2007)

. . . . § 6.07[A][1], at 21. Baker v. Robert I. . . .

SIEGEL v. TIME WARNER INC. D. C., 496 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . motion pictures and [through their efforts] succeed in creating a copyrightable character”); 1 Nim-mer § 6.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. JUMAH,, 493 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2007)

. . . Seventh Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instr. 6.07 (1999). . Although the facts of Dixon v. . . .

DAVIS, Jr. v. EGL EAGLE GLOBAL LOGISTICS LP,, 243 F. App'x 39 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . Section 6.07 of the Agreement mandates, “any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this . . . Section 6.07 further states that “[w]ritten notice of a demand for arbitration must be mailed to the . . . Section 6.07 of the Agreement states that “any claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this . . . deductions, for example a disagreement over the value, must still be arbitrated according to Section 6.07 . . . Section 6.07(a) provides: “Written notice of a demand for arbitration must be mailed to the other party . . .

In C. HALPIN, Jr. J. v. C. Jr., 370 B.R. 45 (N.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Id. at §§ 6.01, 6.07, 6.10-12, 6.14. . . .

ETEVOB v. THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, 471 F. Supp. 2d 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Section 22 of the 1994 FAA, Section 20 of the 1993 FAA, Section 6.07 of the FRB Agreement and Section . . .

In ELDERCARE PROPERTIES, s, 405 B.R. 816 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . The Lease contains the following provisions related to liability insurance: 6.07 Claims for personal . . . The term “general public liability insurance” used in 6.07 is not a known “term of art” or an industry . . .

AMRON, v. MORGAN STANLEY INVESTMENT ADVISORS INC., 464 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2006)

. . . 2002 was 4.11%, while the return of the S & P 500 Index— which the S & P Fund aspired to mimic— was 6.07% . . .

ALEXANDER, v. JBC LEGAL GROUP, P. C. a JBC P. C., 237 F.R.D. 628 (D. Mont. 2006)

. . . Alexander alleges that Defendants mailed him a letter on April 4, 2004, in an attempt to collect $6.07 . . .

BROWN, III, v. C. FLOWERS, a k a, 196 F. App'x 178 (4th Cir. 2006)

. . . Nimmer § 6.07[A][1] (“That language contains no requirement that each contribute an independently copyrightable . . . Nimmer § 6.07[A]. . . . Nimmer % 6.07[A][3][a]. . . .

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

. . . The CBA requires “the employer [to] furnish weekly reports to the Local Union 363 Office,” (CBA § 6.07 . . .

BAKER, v. ROBERT I. LAPPIN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION I. a I., 415 F. Supp. 2d 473 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . But see Nimmer on Copyright § 6.07[A][3][a], at 22 (suggesting that each author’s contribution need not . . . Id. § 6.07[A][1], at 21. . . . Id. § 6.07[A][2], at 21. b. . . .

TRIPLE FIVE OF MINNESOTA, INC. a v. SIMON Si- Si- a a a MS MOA MOAC a a a MOAC LLC MOA LLC MOA LLC L. P. a JV M. O. A. MOA I, a v. Si- Si- a a a MS MOA MOAC a a a MOAC LLC MOA LLC MOA LLC L. P. a JV M. O. A. MOA I, a v. Si- Si- a a a MS MOA MOAC a a a MOAC LLC MOA LLC MOA LLC L. P. a a v. Si- Si- a a a MS MOA MOAC a a a MOAC LLC MOA LLC MOA LLC L. P. a, 404 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . Ribstein, Bromberg & Ribstein on Partnership § 6.07(d) at 6:77-6:88 (1996)). . . .

UNITED STATES v. R. THOMAS,, 398 F.3d 1058 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . found two scales of the type used for measuring controlled substances, three bags of crack totaling 6.07 . . .

MEDINOL LTD. v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP., 346 F. Supp. 2d 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . Transaction Agreement §§ 9.02, 9.04, 9.06; Stockholder Agreement §§ 6.03, 6.04, 6.07. . . . Transaction Agreement §§ 9.08(a), 9.12; Stockholder Agreement §§ 6.07(a), 6.10. D. . . .

NSK LTD. NSK v. U. S., 28 Ct. Int'l Trade 1535 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . In the Final Results, Commerce found a 6.07% weighted-average margin for NSK Japan, 16.87% for NSK Europe . . . NSK Japan argues that Commerce calculated a 6.07% dumping margin on BBs while over 85% of its U.S. sales . . .

NSK LTD. NSK v. UNITED STATES, U. S., 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . In the Final Results, Commerce found a 6.07% weighted-average margin for NSK Japan, 16.87% for NSK Europe . . . NSK Japan argues that Commerce calculated a 6.07% dumping margin on BBs while over 85% of its U.S. sales . . .

E. SYKES, v. HENGEL,, 220 F.R.D. 593 (S.D. Iowa 2004)

. . . expenses ... incurred as a result of any demand, action, suit, or proceeding referred to in paragraph 6.07 . . .

In SENIOR LIVING PROPERTIES, L. L. C. B. L. L. C. v. ZC, 309 B.R. 223 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . . § 6.07. . . . 6.04, the financial information of § 6.05, the access to and accuracy of the books and records of § 6.07 . . .

GAIMAN LLC, v. McFARLANE,, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004)

. . . expression, it would seem that A and B are joint authors of the resulting work.” 1 Nimmer & Nimmer, supra, § 6.07 . . .

BROWN, III v. C. FLOWERS, a. k. a., 297 F. Supp. 2d 846 (M.D.N.C. 2003)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 6.07 (1990). . . . Nimmer at § 6.07. The only reference in Mr. . . .

FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF ROCHESTER, v. UNITED STATES,, 58 Fed. Cl. 139 (Fed. Cl. 2003)

. . . Section 6.07 contains covenants that require First Federal to maintain stock registration under the Securities . . .

In D. PERRY, D. v. SSB,, 345 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . Id. at arts. 6.01(A)(2)(c), 6.07(A). . . .

In D. PERRY, D. v. SSB,, 345 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . Id. at arts. 6.01(A)(2)(c), 6.07(A). . . .

B. POLLARD, v. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., 338 F. Supp. 2d 865 (W.D. Tenn. 2003)

. . . Baker’s assessment and will apply a fringe benefit ratio of six and seven hundredths percent (6.07%). . . .

In GANDY, USA, v., 299 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . Section 6.06 of the Revised Limited Partnership Act provides that: Subject to Sections 6.07 [prohibition . . .

In GANDY, USA, v., 299 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . Section 6.06 of the Revised Limited Partnership Act provides that: Subject to Sections 6.07 [prohibition . . .

SMITH, v. COBB COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS v. Of v. A. L., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (N.D. Ga. 2002)

. . . an ideal district size of 78,429, Post One has a deviation of 46.58%, Post Two has a deviation of -6.07% . . .

GANT, v. SABINE PILOTS, E. R. L. G. E. J. D. S. J. L. R. M. H. J. H. O. R. E. M. A. C. B. K. I. D. M. M. D. C. A. E. K. A., 204 F. Supp. 2d 977 (E.D. Tex. 2002)

. . . Ex. 1 ¶ 6.07. . . . J., Ex. 1 ¶ 6.07. . . .

In LAFOON d b a, 278 B.R. 767 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2002)

. . . time of filing the petition .... ” In re Norton, 30 B.R. at 715 (quoting 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 6.07 . . . See Norton, 30 B.R. at 715 (citing 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 6.07 at 826 (14th ed.1972)). . . .

In DOW CORNING CORPORATION, S. a a S. D. L. v., 280 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . Litigation Facility Agreement § 6.07(a); Plan § 6.8. . . .

In DOW CORNING CORPORATION, S. a a S. D. L. v., 280 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . Litigation Facility Agreement § 6.07(a); Plan § 6.8. . . .

In SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL MECHANICAL CORPORATION, In L. P. Co. In R. E. In In L. P. In R. E. v. I, II, III, IV, V, W. F. L. LLC F. W. L. LLC,, 266 B.R. 827 (W.D. Tenn. 2001)

. . . Resnick, Bankruptcy Law Manual § 6.07 (1986). . . .

In MIDLANDS UTILITY, INC., 253 B.R. 683 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2000)

. . . obligation of the City of Cayce to negotiate in good faith with the Reorganized Debtor pursuant to paragraph 6.07 . . .

E. LASUSA, R. V. a v. LAKE MICHIGAN TRANS- LAKE SHORTCUT, INC. d b a, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (E.D. Wis. 2000)

. . . damages, as requested by Carferry in a separate (and unopposed) “alternative” motion under Local Rule 6.07 . . . Defendant’s motion under Local Rule 6.07 requesting leave to conduct discovery relating to damages is . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. CROSS, Jr. G. II, L. L. C. Jr., 113 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (S.D. Ind. 2000)

. . . See Federal Criminal Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit § 6.07 (1999) (“the defendant is told this . . .

PIESZAK, M. D. v. GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER,, 112 F. Supp. 2d 970 (C.D. Cal. 2000)

. . . The PDTA did contain an at-will provision. 0See PDTA § 6.07.) . . .

UNITED STATES v. TUCKER,, 217 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2000)

. . . The difference in basis of $6.07 million, taxed at the effective 1988 capital gains rate of 28%, would . . .

In MIDLANDS UTILITY, INC., 251 B.R. 296 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2000)

. . . of the City of Cayce to negotiate in good faith with the Reorganized Debt- or pursuant to paragraph 6.07 . . .

ESI, INC. v. COASTAL CORPORATION, f k a S. A. La S. A. C. V. L. L. C. EPEC f k a d b a S. A., 61 F. Supp. 2d 35 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Section 6.07 of the Lease Agreement contains the Forum Selection Clause. Robert C. . . . PP at § 6.07; Pi’s Ex. XX at § 10.10. . James W. . . .

COBELL, v. BABBITT,, 188 F.R.D. 122 (D.D.C. 1999)

. . . Loma Babby $170.00 336.27 $ 57,165.90 James Kawahara $170.00 14.06 $ 2,390.20 John Echohawk $170.00 6.07 . . . Loma Babby $170.00 336.27 $ 57,165.90 James Kawahara $170.00 14.06 $ 2,390.20 John Echohawk $170.00 6.07 . . .

In SCHICK, A D L. L. C. In L. P., 235 B.R. 318 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Kightlinger & Gray, 562 N.E.2d 435, 441 (Ind.Ct.App.1990); II Bromberg & Ribstein § 6.07(a)(2), at 6: . . . See II Bromberg & Ribstein § 6.07(a)(2), at 6:111. . . . part on other grounds, 76 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir.1996); accord II Bromberg & Ribstein on Partnership § 6.07 . . .

SEA SHORE CORPORATION d b a Co. v. J. SULLIVAN, Jr. W., 158 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 1998)

. . . Code tit. 204, §§ 6.01-6.07 (collectively, the “Price Posting Laws”), are a per se violation of the Sherman . . .

HENDERSON, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,, 17 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (N.D. Okla. 1998)

. . . Human Resources Guide § 6.07. . . .

KROHN, v. W. FORSTING,, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (E.D. Mo. 1998)

. . . {See Personnel Rules and Regs., Art. 9, §§ 6.07-.08, attached to Defs.’ Reply Mem.) . . .

T. GREENWAY, v. BUFFALO HILTON HOTEL,, 143 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1998)

. . . Finally, the magistrate judge concluded that Greenway was entitled to pre-judgment interest at a rate of 6.07 . . .