Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 11.12 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 11.12 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 11.12

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title III
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH; COMMISSIONS
Chapter 11
LEGISLATIVE ORGANIZATION, PROCEDURES, AND STAFFING
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 11.12
11.12 Salary, subsistence, and mileage of members and employees; expenses authorized by resolution; appropriation; preaudit.
(1) The Chief Financial Officer is authorized to pay the salary, subsistence, and mileage of the members of the Legislature as the same shall be authorized by law. The Chief Financial Officer may pay the compensation of employees of the Legislature, together with reimbursement for their authorized travel as provided in s. 112.061, and such expense of the Legislature as shall be authorized by law, a concurrent resolution, a resolution of either house, or rules adopted by the respective houses, provided the total amount appropriated to the legislative branch shall not be altered, upon receipt of such warrant therefor. The number, duties, and compensation of the employees of the respective houses and of their committees shall be determined as provided by the rules of the respective house or in this chapter. Each legislator may designate no more than two employees to attend sessions of the Legislature, and those employees who change their places of residence in order to attend the session shall be paid subsistence at a rate to be established by the President of the Senate for Senate employees and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for House employees. Such employees, in addition to subsistence, shall be paid transportation expenses in accordance with s. 112.061(7) and (8) for actual transportation between their homes and the seat of government in order to attend the legislative session and return home, as well as for two round trips during the course of any regular session of the Legislature.
(2) All vouchers covering legislative expenses shall be preaudited by the Chief Financial Officer, and, if found to be correct, state warrants shall be issued therefor.
History.ss. 1, 2, ch. 12077, 1927; CGL 103; ss. 1, 2, ch. 21933, 1943; s. 1, ch. 23638, 1947; s. 1, ch. 24157, 1947; s. 1, ch. 24997, 1949; s. 1, ch. 29627, 1955; s. 1, ch. 57-15; ss. 2, 3, ch. 67-371; s. 4, ch. 69-52; s. 1, ch. 79-2; s. 1, ch. 85-61; s. 1, ch. 88-6; s. 1, ch. 90-252; s. 1, ch. 91-34; s. 11, ch. 95-147; s. 2, ch. 98-136; s. 1, ch. 2003-261.

F.S. 11.12 on Google Scholar

F.S. 11.12 on Casetext

Amendments to 11.12


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 11.12
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 11.12.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

KEYS, v. BERT BELL PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN NFL, 387 F. Supp. 3d 1372 (M.D. Fla. 2019)

. . . Doc. 22 at p. 4 (citing Plan § 11.12). . . .

ST. BERNARD PARISH GOVERNMENT, v. UNITED STATES,, 916 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . . §§ 11.3-11.12; 614.4-614.16. . . .

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 257 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 2018)

. . . or Lascivious Offenses Committed Upon or in the Presence of an Elderly Person or Disabled Person), 11.12 . . . Instructions 11.10, 11.11, 11.12, and 29.13(c) are authorized for publication and use as modified. . . . With regard to instruction 11.12, the table of lesser-included offenses is modified from the Committee's . . . adopted in 2007 [965 So.2d 811] and amended in 2010 [48 So.3d 41], and 2015 [163 So.3d 478], and 2018. 11.12 . . .

IN RE TRANSCARE CORP. v., 592 B.R. 272 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . (See Credit Agreement §§ 11.10, 11.12.) . . .

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 242 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 2018)

. . . sought to have the stay lifted, and to withdraw instructions 11.7, 11.10, 11.10(a)-11.10(g), 11.11, 11.12 . . .

FERK FAMILY, LP, v. FRANK,, 240 So. 3d 826 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Section 11.12 of the Agreement provides: Additional Remedies. . . .

PAICE LLC, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, LLC, v., 881 F.3d 894 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

. . . MTO”) to determine whether to operate the engine, the electric motor, or both. ’634 patent, col. 3, 11.12 . . . -21; id. col. 13, 11.12-29, 44-65; id. col. 41, 1. 4, through col. 43, 1. 25 & Fig. 9. . . .

SMART SYSTEMS INNOVATIONS, LLC, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,, 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

. . . The ’816 and ’390 patents similarly recite the use of a “processor” and “memory.” ’816 patent col. 25 11.12 . . .

SIONYX, LLC v. HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K. K., 270 F. Supp. 3d 390 (D. Mass. 2017)

. . . that they “protrude up to about 100 nm above the original surface of the wafer,” ’446 patent col. 6 11.12 . . .

DANESHVAR, v. KIPKE, 266 F. Supp. 3d 1031 (E.D. Mich. 2017)

. . . Id., col.2 11.56-57, col.3 11.12-13. . . . Id., col.6 11.42-47, col.7 11.12-15. . . .

COOPER TIRE RUBBER COMPANY, Co. Co. v. UNITED STATES, AFL- CIO, CLC,, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1373 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2017)

. . . OPINION AND ORDER Stanceu, Chief Judge: Plaintiffs challenge the antidumping duty cash deposit rate of 11.12% . . . same rate as the margin but made a downward adjustment resulting in an applied cash deposit rate of 11.12% . . . Amended Final Results, the two downward adjustments resulted in the applied AD cash deposit rate of 11.12% . . . rate respondent like the 62 other separate rate respondents, the AD cash deposit rate for Cooper is 11.12% . . . Cooper, calculated by subtracting 11.13% and 8.68% from 25.84%. • Cooper’s claims are confined to the 11.12% . . .

BECK- FORD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, v. TCA GLOBAL CREDIT MASTER FUND, LP,, 240 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (S.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . 4, p. 2; D.E. 24-3 at § 5.8, p. 15-16; D.E. 24-6 at ’ ¶ 4; D.E. 24-10 at ¶ 5, p. 2; D.E. 24-11 at § 11.12 . . . 24-11 at § 16(h); D.E. 24-11 at § 5,8; D.E. 24-11 at § 10; D.E. 24-12 at ¶4, p. 2;,.D.E. 24-13 .at § 11.12 . . .

PROBATTER SPORTS, LLC, v. SPORTS TUTOR, INC., 680 F. App'x 972 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

. . . comprising a dynamic or regenerative braking circuit. ’649 patent reexamination certificate col. 3 11.12 . . .

ISSA Q. M. H. a V. N. L. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LANCASTER,, 847 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2017)

. . . Code §§ 11.12, 12.1(a). . . .

DODD, v. CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, 846 F.3d 180 (6th Cir. 2017)

. . . Dodd responded that a separate City Charter provision, § 11.12, prevented the City from repealing the . . . Dodd’s only argument on appeal that Ordinance 12674 was not validly enacted—that City Charter § 11.12 . . . Charter § 11.12 reads: The City of Chattanooga, in the preparation of any digest of its local laws and . . . Charter § 11.12. . . . However, Dodd’s argument ignores the opening clause of Charter § 11.12. . . .

CLOUD FARM ASSOCIATES LP, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. ZF AG,, 674 F. App'x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

. . . portion of the chamber and thus prevent tilting of the frame or body of the vehicle. ’354 patent col.6 11.12 . . .

IN RE MCKAY, 557 B.R. 810 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2016)

. . . [Doc. 1, pg 63, 11.12 b]. . . .

AMERICAN WELL CORP. v. TELADOC, INC., 191 F. Supp. 3d 135 (D. Mass. 2016)

. . . the consumer of services and the identified member of the pool. ’550 Patent col. 2711. 25-44, col. 29 11.12 . . .

SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC., 650 F. App'x 994 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

. . . describe the channel beam as “generally C-shaped.” 101 patent, col. 5 11. 59-60; ’231 patent, col. 6 11.12 . . . Id. at col. 5 11.12-14. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MACKEY, a. k. a., 649 F. App'x 674 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 11.12(d)(l)-(6), and give “written notice of its decision to the debtor,” id. § 11.12(d)(6), before . . . Id. § 3716(a)(3) 28 C.F.R. § 11.12(d)(l)-(6). . . .

NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, v. CASCADE KELLY HOLDINGS LLC, d b a LP,, 155 F. Supp. 3d 1100 (D. Or. 2015)

. . . The permit prohibited CPBR from storing crude oil with a monthly average TVP of 11.12 psi or greater. . . . Darby emphasized that the permit limits CPBR to storing crude with a TVP of 11.12 psi (corresponding . . . An RVP of 12.75 psi corresponds to a TVP of 11.12 psi at approximately 64 degrees Fahrenheit. . . .

HITACHI MAXELL, LTD. v. TOP VICTORY ELECTRONICS TAIWAN CO. LTD. TPV l USA Co. TPV Co. TPV TPV Co., 143 F. Supp. 3d 485 (E.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . their position: ‘412 Patent col.l 11.21-25, col.l 11.45-47, col.16 11.35-39, col.13 11.24-61, col.16 11.12 . . . .8 11.18 & 31, col.15 11.11-27, col.16 11.57, 61, & 65, col.17 1.28, col.20 11.51, 54, & 62, col.23 11.12 . . . at col.6 11.26-29 (in yellow in the annotated Figure 1), col.16 11.57-60, col.20 11.51— 54, col.23 11.12 . . . See id. at col.16 11.12-21, col.16 11.35-49, col.20 11.39-41, col.22 11.63-66. . . . “thin” display apparatuses, such as liquid crystal displays and plasma displays. ‘366 Patent col.l 11.12 . . .

IVERA MEDICAL CORPORATION, v. HOSPIRA, INC., 801 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. . . Id. col. 2 11. 41-43 and col. 5 11.12-15. 3. White. U.S. . . .

JVC KENWOOD CORPORATION, v. NERO, INC., 797 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. . . with high efficiency by an MPEG method or the like.” '008 Patent col. 6 11. 13-26; '491 Patent col. 6 11.12 . . .

IN RE FLORES, v., 535 B.R. 468 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2015)

. . . Id. at ¶¶ 11.12-13, 15. . Id. at ¶ 11.14. . Id. at ¶ 11.16. . Id. at ¶II.l 1. . Trans. . . .

UNITED STATES v. WASHINGTON,, 129 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (W.D. Wash. 2015)

. . . Ex. 135 at pdf p. 5. 11.12. . . .

IN RE FLORES, v., 524 B.R. 420 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2015)

. . . Id. at ¶¶ 11.12-15. . Id. at ¶ 11.16. . Id. at ¶¶ 11.17-18. . Id. at ¶ 11.19. . . . .

In CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. . . Aumayer col. 11.12, col. 5 11.19-31. . . .

ENVIRONMENT TEXAS CITIZEN LOBBY, INC. v. EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION,, 66 F. Supp. 3d 875 (S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Based on the facts expounded supra in paragraphs 11.12-14, the Court finds Exxon made substantial efforts . . .

HEALTH GRADES, INC. v. MDX MEDICAL, INC., 71 F. Supp. 3d 1203 (D. Colo. 2014)

. . . patients with potential healthcare providers, e.g., physicians and hospitals.” ('060 Patent col. 1 11.12 . . .

APPLE, INC. a v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. a a LLC, a, 67 F. Supp. 3d 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . input corresponding to attempts to navigate between user interfaces.” '721 patent col.7 1.64-66, col.8 11.12 . . .

MAPLES, Jr. v. SOLARWINDS, INC., 50 F. Supp. 3d 1221 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . D § 11.12. . . .

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. v. BARLAND,, 751 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 11.12(1) (flatly prohibiting contributions and spending for election-related speech except to, through . . . , id. § 11.14(1), keep detailed records of all contributions and disbursements exceeding $10, id. § 11.12 . . . Sections 11.12(5)-(6), Reporting of Late Contributions and Expenditures Wisconsin Right to Life also . . . challenges sections 11.12(5)-(6), which impose a special reporting requirement for contributions of $500 . . . disbursements or making independent disbursements shall file periodic reports as provided ss. 11.06, 11.12 . . .

ALTAMIRANO, v. CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD,, 41 F. Supp. 3d 982 (D. Colo. 2014)

. . . Docket No. 116-3 at 16 (Altamirano testimony at MSPB hearing, at 239, 11.12-25). . . .

L. ETHERTON, v. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 35 F. Supp. 3d 1360 (D. Colo. 2014)

. . . low back associated with just age and time that were mild,” Docket No. 129-2 at 6 (Ramos dep. at 46, 11.12 . . . Docket No. 129-2 at 7 (Ramos dep. at 47, 11.12-17). At the Rule 702 hearing, Dr. . . .

A. ELKJER, v. SCHEEF STONE, L. L. P., 8 F. Supp. 3d 845 (N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Paragraph 11.12, “Violation of Covenants,” stipulates that, should a partner breach any provision of . . .

BUTAMAX TM ADVANCED BIOFUELS LLC, v. GEVO, INC., 746 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . abbreviations are to be used for the interpretation of the claims and specification.” '188 Patent col. 7 11.12 . . .

HARLAND CLARKE HOLDINGS CORP. v. MILKEN, 997 F. Supp. 2d 561 (W.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . agreements of Seller set forth or contained in, this Agreement or any certificate delivered hereunder. 11.12 . . . C at § 11.12. . . . Therefore, Harland Clarke is a third-party beneficiary of the Purchase Agreement under § 11.12. . . . Section 11.12 provides that third-party beneficiaries of the Agreement have “full rights of enforcement . . . because he is a Seller Indemnified Party under § 8.03(a) and an express third-party beneficiary under § 11.12 . . .

ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. St. LLC, v. ACCESS CLOSURE, INC., 729 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

. . . the flow of blood through the incision without extending into the blood vessel.” '375 patent, col. 10 11.12 . . .

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. OPEN E CRY, LLC, IBG, LLC, TD TD LLC, CQG, INC. CQGT, LLC, LLC, LLC, GL LP, BGC LP, LLC,, 728 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

. . . Id. col. 6 11.12-30. . . .

CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC. v. BIOGEN IDEC,, 968 F. Supp. 2d 660 (D. Md. 2013)

. . . In the examples, mice were given “commonly available human vaccines.” '139 patent, col. 36, 11.12; col . . .

In INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC PATENT LITIGATION, 956 F. Supp. 2d 925 (N.D. Ill. 2013)

. . . wireless transceiver and the second wireless transceiver exclusive of the wired link.” 536 Patent col.10 11.12 . . .

E. DEAKINS, Sr. v. T. S. PACK,, 957 F. Supp. 2d 703 (S.D.W. Va. 2013)

. . . (Document 186 at 11.12.) . . .

J. LAMSON, v. UNITED STATES,, 110 Fed. Cl. 691 (Fed. Cl. 2013)

. . . psychiatric condition of acrophobia appears and can be seen through display 1L ’764 patent col. 15 11.12 . . . Id. col. 15 11.12-22. . . .

SAYPO CATTLE CO. v. RMF DEEP CREEK, LLC a a RMF LLC, v. Co., 901 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (D. Mont. 2012)

. . . think the date of payoff certificate referenced in paragraphs A.l.b.(2) and C.3 should be changed from 11.12 . . .

POZEN INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. Dr. s, 696 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . amounts of sumatriptan and naproxen. 499 patent col.3 11.22-50, col.4 11.1-4, eol.12 11.54-55, col.15 11.12 . . .

K- TEC, INC. v. VITA- MIX CORPORATION,, 696 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Id. col. 7 11.12-14. K-TEC and Vita-Mix compete in the market for commercial blenders. . . .

In APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., 692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Patent col.l 1.62-col.2 1.48; '847 Patent col.2 11.10-61; 115 Patent col.2 11.10-61; '455 Patent col.2 11.12 . . .

In B. CRAMER M. v. B. M., 477 B.R. 736 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2012)

. . . Finally, Ginsberg & Martin on Bankruptcy ¶ 11.12(b), states the following: “[Sec. 1328(a)(1) ] does not . . .

MEYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES LIMITED U. S. v. BODUM, INC., 690 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . complicated machines which involve the use of steam to aerate or foam the liquid.” '087 Patent col.l 11.12 . . .

In MOUTTET, 686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Falk, col.l 11.12-17. . . . Falk, col.l 11.12-17. . . .

PHILIP A. TEMPLETON, M. D. P. A. v. EMCARE, INC., 868 F. Supp. 2d 333 (D. Del. 2012)

. . . (Id. at ¶ 39) Neither party disputes that § 11.12 of the Purchase Agreement states that “[t]ime is of . . .

R. ESCUE, v. SEQUENT, INC., 869 F. Supp. 2d 839 (S.D. Ohio 2012)

. . . Section 11.12 of the merger agreement, however, provides that “[tjhis Agreement may not be amended except . . .

ZAPMEDIA SERVICES, INC. v. APPLE, INC., 482 F. App'x 533 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . discussion that watermarking and encryption techniques can be used with the '414 patent. '414 patent col.ll 11.12 . . .

INTERSPORT FASHIONS WEST, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 103 Fed. Cl. 396 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

. . . Saltzman, IRS Practice and Procedure, If 11.12[1], at 11-74 (2d ed. 1991), prior to the filing of plaintiff . . . Saltzman, supra, ¶ 11.12[1 ], at 11-74. . . . .

INLAND MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION, v. CHIVAS RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC,, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Ill. 2012)

. . . distance of 10.39 feet to a point; THENCE North 84 degrees 28 minutes 56 seconds East for a distance of 11.12 . . .

ICHL, LLC v. SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., 455 F. App'x 978 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col. 4 11.12-39. . . . Id. col. 4 11.12-39. . . .

ABSOLUTE SOFTWARE, INC. v. STEALTH SIGNAL, INC., 659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . communication links used for determining the location of said electronic device. '758 Patent col.21 11.12 . . .

CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION, v. RETAIL DECISIONS, INC., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . J.A. 32, eol.2 11.12-14. . . .

In NTP, INC., 654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col.18 11.1-3, col.19 11.12-15. . . . Id. col.19. 11.12-15. . . .

RECKITT BENCKISER INC. v. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., 430 F. App'x 871 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . therapeutic effectiveness for at least twelve hours were not known as of the patent’s filing date, id. col.3 11.12 . . .

ROOTERS, v. STATE FARM LLOYDS, A, 428 F. App'x 441 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . See Act of May 27, 1991, 72nd Leg., R.S., ch. 242, § 11.12, 1991 Tex. Gen. . . .

FOX GROUP, INC. v. CREE, INC., 819 F. Supp. 2d 490 (E.D. Va. 2011)

. . . See id. col.2 11.12-13 (describing the invention as “using sublimation techniques”); id. 11.65-67 (“In . . . Id. col.2 11.12-15 and 21-24 (emphasis added). . . . See '130 patent col.8 11.12-35 (emphasis added). . . .

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION v. JOHNSON JOHNSON, 647 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col.6 11.12-14. . . .

In G. KLEIN, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Greenspan col.2 11.12-17. . . .

MEMS TECHNOLOGY BERHAD, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, LLC,, 447 F. App'x 142 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col.5 11.12-25 (emphasis added). Claim 2 recites: 2. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ESPINOSA, v. v. A. v. D. v. M., 789 F. Supp. 2d 681 (E.D. Va. 2011)

. . . Transcript of January 12, 2011 Evidentiary Hearing at 17 11.12-14; 28 11.11-12. . . . Tr. at 128 11.2-4; 133 11.6-10; 134 11.12-14; 1341.25-135 1.13; 1621.25-163 1.11. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. STEVENS Jr., 778 F. Supp. 2d 683 (W.D. La. 2011)

. . . Limine as to this portion of the recordings is DENIED AS MOOT. (4)Objection # 4 (Exhibit 13T-p.006, 11.12 . . . stated in ruling on Objection # 4, Objection # 5 is also DENIED. (6)Objection # 6 (Exhibit 14T-p.003, 11.12 . . .

SOLVAY S. A. v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., 622 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . See '817 patent, col.1 11.12-14. . . .

LUCKY LITTER LLC, s v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,, 403 F. App'x 490 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Id. col.5 11.58-61, col.6 11.12— 26. . . .

FUJITSU LIMITED, LG U. S. v. NETGEAR INC., 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Id. col.ll 11.12-15. . . .

CLEARWATER SYSTEMS CORP. v. EVAPCO, INC. W., 394 F. App'x 699 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Id. at col.l 11.12-14. . . . Id. at col.l 11.12-16. . . .

R. M. S. TITANIC, INC. v. WRECKED AND ABANDONED VESSEL, a R. M. S. In, 742 F. Supp. 2d 784 (E.D. Va. 2010)

. . . Ex. 2 at ¶ 6(c),(d), and Ex. 1 at Part 11.12(a).) . . .

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, v. TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP, LP,, 616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . See '544 patent col.5 11.12-13 (explaining that “stored energy acting on plastic can affect the reliability . . .

VIZIO, INC. Co. TPV TPV USA Co. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Co., 605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . and assembling said identified information” in claims 1 and 23, '074 patent col.ll 11.31-33, col.14 11.12 . . .

SRAM CORPORATION SRAM, LLC v. AD- II ENGINEERING, INC., 367 F. App'x 150 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . smaller chain wheel or sprocket to a larger chain wheel or sprocket. '291 Patent col.l 11.55-57, col.9 11.12 . . .

WACHOVIA BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. ENCAP GOLF HOLDINGS, LLC, v. LLC, v. LLC, II, SFT I,, 690 F. Supp. 2d 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . Knight Deck, Ex. 1); the Reimbursement Agreement designates New York law (Reimbursement Agreement § 11.12 . . .

E. SCHROEDER, v. UNITED STATES, 683 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Or. 2010)

. . . See 7 C.F.R § 11.12(a). . . . determination “refused to do so within 30 days of its finality, as required by 7 U.S.C. § 7000 and 7 C.F.R. § 11.12 . . . [sic] § 11.12." . . .

PMI MORTGAGE INSURANCE CO. v. D. KAHN,, 26 So. 3d 25 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . The Florida Bar, Creditors' and Debtors' Practice in Florida § 11.12, at 11-15 (3d. ed. 2007) (citing . . .

In CONGOLEUM CORPORATION,, 414 B.R. 44 (D.N.J. 2009)

. . . provision in the Plan that purported to protect the rights of the insurers in the Coverage Action (§ 11.12 . . .

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC v. COOK INCORPORATED, W. L., 582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . lumens of said bifurcated base structure to form a continuous extension of that lumen. '458 patent col.6 11.12 . . .

v., 133 T.C. 136 (T.C. 2009)

. . . 11.40 11.21 11.64 12.50 12.20 11.65 12.17 11.72 11.89 1998 11.15 11.58 9.98 10.96 11.29 11.21 11.48 11.12 . . .

AMGEN INC. v. F. HOFFMANN- LA ROCHE LTD, GMBH, LA, 580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . See '422 patent col. 10 11.12-18; col. 15 11.7-19; col.25 1.27-eol.29 1.25. . . . (citing '422 patent col.12 11.12-16). . . . See, e.g., '422 patent col.12 11.12-16. . . .

MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION, v. NUTRINOVA, INC. GMBH,, 579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . Id. col.5 11.12-29 (emphasis added). Humans are not economic food animals. . . .

ENTERPRISE NATIONAL BANK, v. J. VILSACK,, 568 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 11.12(a). . . .

E TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION E TRADE a v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG,, 631 F. Supp. 2d 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . In addition, SPA § 11.12 provides for all actions arising out of or relating to the SPA to be heard in . . . The parties agreed in SPA § 11.12 that New York law governs the obligations in the SPA. B. . . . Reading § 2.06 and § 11.12 in conjunction, § 2.06’s arbitration provision pertains to good-faith disputes . . . GAAP, must be filed in court, pursuant to § 11.12. . . . G.E*TRADE Is Entitled to Prejudgment Interest New York law, which, in accordance with SPA § 11.12, governs . . .

MARSHALL JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. v. C. D. BRIAN D., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (W.D. Wis. 2009)

. . . Code § PI 11.12(2), and are not required to accept supinely whatever school officials testify to.” . . .

SUNDANCE, INC. v. DEMONTE FABRICATING LTD., 550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . removed and replaced without replacing or disassembling the entire cover system.” '109 patent col.2 11.12 . . .

RESPIRONICS, INC. RIC LLC, v. INVACARE CORP., 303 F. App'x 865 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . col.20 11.20-25 (distinguishing “predetermined pressure profile” from straight-line CPAP); id. col.21 11.12 . . .

WELKER BEARING COMPANY, v. PHD, INCORPORATED,, 550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . perpendicular to said axis A in response to said rectilinear movement of said locating pin. '254 patent eol.8 11.12 . . .

In J. SWANSON E., 540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Id. col.2 11.12-14. . . .

LEGGETT PLATT, INCORPORATED L P v. VUTEk, INC., 537 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Id. at col.5 11.12-16. . . .

CIF LICENSING, LLC, d b a GE v. AGERE SYSTEMS INC., 565 F. Supp. 2d 533 (D. Del. 2008)

. . . See, e.g., '054 Patent, col. 11.12-28. . . .

MANGOSOFT, INC. v. ORACLE CORPORATION,, 525 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . persistent memory devices that each couple to a respective one of the plural computers.” '377 patent eol.3 11.12 . . .

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. I LLC, v. GATEWAY, INC. LLC, LLC,, 525 F.3d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . solely by the terminal device but in accordance with respective predefined policies.” '131 patent col.2 11.12 . . .

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION, 523 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . surge bleed valve to prevent a build up of pressure and maintain sufficient airflow. '194 Patent col.2 11.12 . . .

LUMA CORPORATION, v. STRYKER CORPORATION,, 273 F. App'x 948 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . at least one output device together with said one or more visual representations. '801 patent col.48 11.12 . . . Id. at col.19 11.12-17; see also col.19 11.30-34 (explaining that “raster anti-aliased text” uses “a . . .

In FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC. n k a FLI, J. P. FI v. d b a PCS PCS USA, 548 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . called green super-phosphoric acid (‘green SPA’) ] from less desirable black acid.” '391 Patent col.l 11.12 . . .

CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. LLC, v. LEAR CORPORATION,, 516 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . e.g., '544 patent col.9 1.67 (the trinary code is “responsive to” the binary code) (claim 1); col.7 11.12 . . .

HORNBECK OFFSHORE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, v. MANITOWOC MARINE GROUP, LLC,, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Ill. 2008)

. . . See Pl.’s Resp. at 6 (citing Contract, arts. 2.7, 11.1-11.12; Murray v. . . .