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. 11.40

11.40 Legislative Auditing Committee.—

(1) The Legislative Auditing Committee may take under investigation any matter within the scope of an audit, review, or examination either completed or then being conducted by the Auditor General or the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, and, in connection with such investigation, may exercise the powers of subpoena by law vested in a standing committee of the Legislature.

(2) Following notification by the Auditor General, the Department of Financial Services, the Division of Bond Finance of the State Board of Administration, the Governor or his or her designee, or the Commissioner of Education or his or her designee of the failure of a local governmental entity, district school board, charter school, or charter technical career center to comply with the applicable provisions within s. 11.45(5)-(7), s. 218.32(1), s. 218.38, or s. 218.503(3), the Legislative Auditing Committee may schedule a hearing to determine if the entity should be subject to further state action. If the committee determines that the entity should be subject to further state action, the committee shall:

(a) In the case of a local governmental entity or district school board, direct the Department of Revenue and the Department of Financial Services to withhold any funds not pledged for bond debt service satisfaction which are payable to such entity until the entity complies with the law. The committee shall specify the date that such action must begin, and the directive must be received by the Department of Revenue and the Department of Financial Services 30 days before the date of the distribution mandated by law. The Department of Revenue and the Department of Financial Services may implement this paragraph.

(b) In the case of a special district created by:

1. A special act, notify the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the standing committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives charged with special district oversight as determined by the presiding officers of each respective chamber, the legislators who represent a portion of the geographical jurisdiction of the special district, and the Department of Economic Opportunity that the special district has failed to comply with the law. Upon receipt of notification, the Department of Economic Opportunity shall proceed pursuant to s. 189.062 or s. 189.067. If the special district remains in noncompliance after the process set forth in s. 189.0651, or if a public hearing is not held, the Legislative Auditing Committee may request the department to proceed pursuant to s. 189.067(3).

2. A local ordinance, notify the chair or equivalent of the local general-purpose government pursuant to s. 189.0652 and the Department of Economic Opportunity that the special district has failed to comply with the law. Upon receipt of notification, the department shall proceed pursuant to s. 189.062 or s. 189.067. If the special district remains in noncompliance after the process set forth in s. 189.0652, or if a public hearing is not held, the Legislative Auditing Committee may request the department to proceed pursuant to s. 189.067(3).

3. Any manner other than a special act or local ordinance, notify the Department of Economic Opportunity that the special district has failed to comply with the law. Upon receipt of notification, the department shall proceed pursuant to s. 189.062 or s. 189.067(3).

(c) In the case of a charter school or charter technical career center, notify the appropriate sponsoring entity, which may terminate the charter pursuant to ss. 1002.33 and 1002.34.

(3)(a) As used in this subsection, “independent contract auditor” means a state-licensed certified public accountant or firm with which a state-licensed certified public accountant is currently employed or associated who is actively engaged in the accounting profession.

(b) Audits specified in this subsection cover the quarterly compensation reports for the previous calendar year for a random sample of 3 percent of all legislative branch lobbying firms and a random sample of 3 percent of all executive branch lobbying firms calculated using as the total number of such lobbying firms those filing a compensation report for the preceding calendar year. The committee shall provide for a system of random selection of the lobbying firms to be audited.

(c) The committee shall create and maintain a list of not less than 10 independent contract auditors approved to conduct the required audits. Each lobbying firm selected for audit in the random audit process may designate one of the independent contract auditors from the committee’s approved list. Upon failure for any reason of a lobbying firm selected in the random selection process to designate an independent contract auditor from the committee’s list within 30 calendar days after being notified by the committee of its selection, the committee shall assign one of the available independent contract auditors from the approved list to perform the required audit. No independent contract auditor, whether designated by the lobbying firm or by the committee, may perform the audit of a lobbying firm where the auditor and lobbying firm have ever had a direct personal relationship or any professional accounting, auditing, tax advisory, or tax preparing relationship with each other. The committee shall obtain a written, sworn certification subject to s. 837.06, both from the randomly selected lobbying firm and from the proposed independent contract auditor, that no such relationship has ever existed.

(d) Each independent contract auditor shall be engaged by and compensated solely by the state for the work performed in accomplishing an audit under this subsection.

(e) Any violations of law, deficiencies, or material misstatements discovered and noted in an audit report shall be clearly identified in the audit report and be determined under the rules of either house of the Legislature or under the joint rules, as applicable.

(f) If any lobbying firm fails to give full, frank, and prompt cooperation and access to books, records, and associated backup documents as requested in writing by the auditor, that failure shall be clearly noted by the independent contract auditor in the report of audit.

(g) The committee shall establish procedures for the selection of independent contract auditors desiring to enter into audit contracts pursuant to this subsection. Such procedures shall include, but not be limited to, a rating system that takes into account pertinent information, including the independent contract auditor’s fee proposals for participating in the process. All contracts under this subsection between an independent contract auditor and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate shall be terminable by either party at any time upon written notice to the other, and such contracts may contain such other terms and conditions as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate deem appropriate under the circumstances.

(h) The committee shall adopt guidelines that govern random audits and field investigations conducted pursuant to this subsection. The guidelines shall ensure that similarly situated compensation reports are audited in a uniform manner. The guidelines shall also be formulated to encourage compliance and detect violations of the legislative and executive lobbying compensation reporting requirements in ss. 11.045 and 112.3215 and to ensure that each audit is conducted with maximum efficiency in a cost-effective manner. In adopting the guidelines, the committee shall consider relevant guidelines and standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants to the extent that such guidelines and standards are applicable and consistent with the purposes set forth in this subsection.

(i) All audit reports of legislative lobbying firms shall, upon completion by an independent contract auditor, be delivered to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for their respective review and handling. All audit reports of executive branch lobbyists, upon completion by an independent contract auditor, shall be delivered by the auditor to the Commission on Ethics.

History.—s. 1, ch. 67-470; s. 1, ch. 69-82; s. 1, ch. 73-6; s. 18, ch. 95-147; s. 21, ch. 96-318; s. 13, ch. 2001-266; s. 879, ch. 2002-387; s. 5, ch. 2003-261; s. 1, ch. 2004-5; s. 1, ch. 2004-305; s. 4, ch. 2005-359; s. 1, ch. 2009-74; s. 12, ch. 2011-34; s. 11, ch. 2011-52; s. 35, ch. 2011-142; s. 1, ch. 2011-144; s. 2, ch. 2014-22; s. 1, ch. 2016-22; s. 1, ch. 2019-15.

Note.—Former s. 11.181.

F.S. 11.40 on Google Scholar

F.S. 11.40 on Casetext

Amendments to 11.40

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 11.40

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 11.40.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

In MATTER OF THOMAS v., 931 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . however, she had worked for eight years at a call center in Southeastern Virginia and was earning $11.40 . . .

NANTKWEST, INC. v. MATAL, U. S., 860 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 11.40(b). . . .

ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES INNOVATIONS, LLC, v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION SERVICES, INC. LLC, s, ADS L. P., 858 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

. . . See, e.g., id. col.1 11.21— 62; id. col.4 11.40-64; Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 769, 799-804, 821, 846-47 . . .

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. WEY,, 246 F. Supp. 3d 894 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . and November 2010, these accounts sold over a million shares of Deer for a profit at prices between $11.40 . . .

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)

. . . Id. at col.6 11.20-21, col.16 11.47-48, col.20 11.40 — 41, col.22 11.64-65. . . .

EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC, v. SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, L. P. L. P. LLC, v. LLC, v. LLC, v. LLC, v. LLC, v. LLC, v. LLC, v. LLC, v., 137 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (N.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . Compare id. col.30 11.15-27 and 11.40-54. . . .

TOPSHELF MANAGEMENT, INC. Co. LLC, LLC f k a LLC, v. CAMPBELL- EWALD COMPANY,, 117 F. Supp. 3d 722 (M.D.N.C. 2015)

. . . Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1297 n. 11.40-(3d ed. 2004 & Supp.) . . .

VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC. v. MICROSTRATEGY, INC. TIBCO v. TIBCO, 782 F.3d 671 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. . . patents-in-suit describes dynamically “accessing a plurality of incompatible source databases,” '006 patent col.2 11.40 . . .

ASTRAZENECA LP AB, v. BREATH LIMITED, LP AB, v. LP AB, v. LP AB, v., 88 F. Supp. 3d 326 (D.N.J. 2015)

. . . PTX 2099 at col.2 11.40— 56. . . .

HOWLINK GLOBAL LLC, v. NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP., 561 F. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . announcement for request to accept the collect call is outputted to the called terminal. '744 Patent col.8 11.40 . . .

SIMPSON, v. SANDERSON FARMS, INC., 744 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . earned a starting wage of approximately $8.50 per hour in 2008 and an ending wage of approximately $11.40 . . .

ELCOMMERCE. COM, INC. v. SAP AG SAP, 745 F.3d 490 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . patent explains that the formatting depends on the selection of the user, e.g., '903 patent at col.3, 11.40 . . .

INTEX RECREATION CORPORATION, v. TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION,, 42 F. Supp. 3d 80 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . Id. col.8 11.40-43, 57-59 (emphasis added). . . . reciting claim 7, which requires that socket and pump be connected using threads and screws); id. col. 8, 11.40 . . .

WRIGHT, v. ST. VINCENT HEALTH SYSTEM, St., 730 F.3d 732 (8th Cir. 2013)

. . . . §§ 5.00, 11.00, 11.40 n. 5 (stating ‘‘[t]he appropriate standard in a section 1981 case is not clearly . . .

PFIZER INC. LLC, v. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 920 F. Supp. 2d 552 (D. Del. 2013)

. . . suspected FK-506 was nephrotoxic or generally toxic, this was not in the prior art. '899 Patent col.l, 11.40 . . .

UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ,, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . Processed Questionnaires .79 / 18.39 = 4.30% _Report) = .79%_ 2008 19.21 - 17.02 = 2.19%_2,19 / 19.21 = 11.40% . . .

In SUTTON, 497 F. App'x 29 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Id. at col.2 11.35-44; eol.4 11.34-37, col.5 11.40-42. . . .

SANDISK CORPORATION, v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY CO. INC., 695 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Id. at col.9 11.40-53. . . . First, the claims recite “at least a user data and an overhead data portion.” '316 patent col.21 11.40 . . . programmed and omitting use of the original data from the pages earlier programmed. '424 patent col.15 11.40 . . .

ACTIVEVIDEO NETWORKS, INC. v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . J.A. 254 (emphasis added); see '883 patent col.5 11.40-44. This construction is not challenged. . . . .

In ANTOR MEDIA CORPORATION, 689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . an ISDN line, capable of transmission at 64kbits/sec as embodying the invention. '961 patent col.l 11.40 . . . 64kbits/sec and as embodying the claimed “high data rate telecommunication network.” '961 patent col.l 11.40 . . .

RACK ROOM SHOES, SKIZ LLC, v. UNITED STATES,, 856 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012)

. . . and swimwear; other garments swimwear; other garments Subheading: 12.40: Swimwear, Worn- Subheading: 11.40 . . .

DAVIS, v. DUNN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 872 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (N.D. Ala. 2012)

. . . Pilkington screed 12.20 12.55 Caucasian Stanley Conley screed 10.70 11.50 Caucasian Jason Evans screed 11.00 11.40 . . . Evans was paid $11.00 per hour in 2006, and his pay rate was increased to $11.40 per hour in 2007. . . . Defendant’s 2008 Hourly Pay Increases chart demonstrates that Camp’s pay rate was increased from $11.40 . . .

ERGO LICENSING, LLC v. CAREFUSION INC., 673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . exact designation of tile solution, the type of the syringe, and the metering rate. '412 patent, col.5 11.40 . . .

BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC. M. D. C. R. v. W. L. GORE ASSOCIATES, INC., 670 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Id. col.6 11.40-42 (emphasis added). . . .

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS OPERATIONS, INC. v. LIFESCAN INCORPORATED,, 452 F. App'x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . See '146 patent col.32 11.40-41. . . .

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, v. NOVA CHEMICALS CORPORATION CANADA, 458 F. App'x 910 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . yet the patents in suit do not, for whatever reason, include the promised drawing. '053 patent col.6 11.40 . . .

SKINMEDICA, INC. v. HISTOGEN INC. LLC K., 830 F. Supp. 2d 986 (S.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . See '494 Patent col. 4 11.40-44; '746 Patent col. 40 11.7-18. . . .

STONE STRONG, LLC, v. DEL ZOTTO PRODUCTS OF FLORIDA, INC., 455 F. App'x 964 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . connector sockets on the bottom of the block designed to receive the connector pins. '642 Patent col.3 11.40 . . .

MB PLAZA, LLC, a v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,, 72 So. 3d 205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See Guy Piers Coburn, Extraordinary Remedies, in Creditors’ and Debtors’ Practice in Florida, § 11.40 . . .

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

. . . J.A. 32, col.2 11.40-42. . . .

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

. . . a cover, and a microphone (also termed a transducer). '089 patent col.l 11.49-50; '231 patent col.l 11.40 . . . Environmental and Interference Shield” (emphasis added)); col.l 11.8-12, 36-41; col.3 11.3-4; col.4 11.40 . . .

FUJITSU LIMITED, v. TELLABS OPERATIONS, INC. v. v., 782 F. Supp. 2d 635 (N.D. Ill. 2011)

. . . and 11 all contain a similar “controlling means” claim element. (006 Patent, col. 7 11.37-44; col. 8 11.40 . . . {Id. at col. 6 1.62-col. 7 1.2; col. 8 11.40-48 (emphasis added).) . . . switches the path switch 23 in accordance with the result of the determination. ('006 Patent, col. 4 11.40 . . .

CENTOCOR ORTHO BIOTECH, INC. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES,, 636 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . antibodies, and numerous examples describing making and using the chimeric antibody. '775 patent col.15 11.40 . . .

ERBE ELEKTROMEDIZIN GMBH ERBE USA, v. CANADY TECHNOLOGY LLC, Dr., 629 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . the distal end of the tube at a low flow rate of less than about 1 liter/minute.” '745 patent col.ll 11.40 . . .

UNITED STATES, SINGH M. D. M. D. V. M. D. M. D. v. BRADFORD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, V S LLC, M. D. M. D. I XX,, 752 F. Supp. 2d 602 (W.D. Pa. 2010)

. . . Test: Cardolite tests costs 14 tests 288.68- Adenosine tests 18 tests 511.56 Hepatobilliary 1 test 11.40 . . .

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

. . . See '706 patent, col.1 1.60 — col.2 1.25; col.4 11.40-42. . . .

INTERVET INC. v. MERIAL LIMITED SAS,, 617 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . sequence encoding an epitope which is specific to PCV-2 and not specific to PCV-1.” '601 patent col.28 11.40 . . .

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

. . . See, e.g., '544 patent, col.4 11.40-44 (stating that a spring may be encompassed “between” the joints . . .

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES, L-, 93 Fed. Cl. 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . would tend to avoid looking through the [NVG] while viewing the color local display.” 914 patent col.2 11.40 . . . Id. col.4 11.40-41. . . . the patent specification explains that the display is “viewable by the crewmember.” '914 patent col.2 11.40 . . .

SILICON GRAPHICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ATI ULC,, 607 F.3d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . can be performed in fixed point without departing from the scope of the present invention,” col.ll 11.40 . . .

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

. . . Id. col.7 11.40-42. . . . program being transmitted on [a] selected sub-channel ... is advantageously reduced.” '074 patent col.7 11.40 . . .

ROLLS- ROYCE, PLC, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,, 603 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . passage shock even though the specification states that they are unrelated. '931 application col.l 11.40 . . .

ANASCAPE, LTD. v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., 601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Id. col.7 11.40-42. . . .

PA ADVISORS, LLC, v. GOOGLE, INC., 706 F. Supp. 2d 739 (E.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . cultural, educational, professional, and social backgrounds or the user’s psychological profile.” col.3 11.40 . . .

AJINOMOTO CO. INC. LLC, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Co. Co. Co. HK, 597 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Id. col.8 11.40-63; see also col.5 11.20-43. . . .

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ESPEED, INC. LLC,, 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Id. col.7 11.40^42. . . .

In P. CHAPMAN J., 595 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . See, e.g., Gonzalez, col.19 11.56-65, col.19 11.40-46, cols.102-123. . . .

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES, L-, 596 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . would tend to avoid looking through the [NVG] while viewing the color local display.” '914 patent col.2 11.40 . . . Id. col.4 11.40-41. . . . the patent specification explains that the display is “viewable by the crewmember.” '914 patent col.2 11.40 . . . display that uses a local source of light comprising red, green, and blue color bands, see id. col.4 11.40 . . .

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES, L-, 596 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

INTELLECTUAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. SONY ELECTRONICS, INC. US JVC JVC, 589 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . user can enjoy digital music by playing a disc situated in [another] compartment.” ’575 patent col. 12 11.40 . . .

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

. . . 10.51 10.68 10.80 11.99 12.90 11.56 13.20 13.05 12.56 13.63 13.12 12.05 1997 12.25 12.14 11.34 12.48 11.40 . . .

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

. . . See '422 patent col.38 11.40-41 (“wherein said erythropoietin is purified from mammalian cells grown . . . limitation in claim 1 of the '422 patent is "purified from mammalian cells grown in culture,” col.38 11.40 . . .

BOSS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U. S. A. INC., 333 F. App'x 531 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . See '149 patent col.2 11.40-45; col.4 11.8-13; col.6 11.33-34; see also '630 patent col.3 11.35-36 (“ . . .

LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, v., 566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . See id. col.2 11.40-50; col.6 11.43-55. . . . Id. col. 16 11.40-67; col. 18 1.57-col. 19 1.10. . . .

ERBE ELEKTROMEDIZIN GMBH USA, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, LLC GMBH,, 566 F.3d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . Id. col.3 11.40-42. . . .

ICU MEDICAL, INC. v. ALARIS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . spikeless claims; it claims a needleless connector valve comprising a body and a seal. '592 patent col.18 11.40 . . . connector valve comprising a body and a seal; it does not recite any spike limitation. '592 patent col.18 11.40 . . .

In V. OAKLEY D. H. v., 397 B.R. 36 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2008)

. . . Defendants contend that this provision was taken from a form of Mandatory Buy-Sell Agreement contained in § 11.40 . . .

PRAXAIR, INC. v. ATMI, INC., 543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . with the necessary fittings for sealing fluid flow through the capillary passages.” '609 patent col.3 11.40 . . .

PAPYRUS TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., 581 F. Supp. 2d 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . See '877 Patent col.10 11.17-21, col.29 11.40-44, col.30 11.54-57 & Fig. 1 step 328. . . . Although NYSE cites the '002 Patent col.10 11.3-6 and col.18 11.40-41, identical language appears in . . .

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY v. HOFFMANN- LA ROCHE INC. v. La, 541 F.3d 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . unregulated expression of DNA polymerase I, which otherwise would be lethal to the cell. '708 patent col.2 11.40 . . . Id. col.2 11.40-46. . . .

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. v. BIOLITEC, INC., 569 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Mass. 2008)

. . . Id. col. 15, 11.40-41. . . .

YINGBIN- NATURE GUANGDONG WOOD INDUSTRY CO. LTD. Co. Co. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, B. V. N. C. LLC,, 535 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . application was amended to refer to the spaces as “dust chambers or clearances 81,” '779 patent col.12 11.40 . . . during the engagement do not exert an adverse influence upon good engagement.” '779 patent col. 12 11.40 . . .

DUGAR v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,, 565 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . Gillespie earned $11.40 /hour plus time and a half for overtime. 2. . . . As a porter, she earned $11.40/hour. . . . Had she not been injured, Gillespie’s wages as a porter, $11.40/hour, would have been expected to increase . . . Prior to the accident, Gillespie earned $11.40/hour at Realty Management. . . . the full amount that Gillespie would have earned after taxes had she worked during this period at $11.40 . . .

PSN ILLINOIS, LLC, v. IVOCLAR VIVADENT, INC., 525 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Id. at col. 4 11.40-47 (emphases added). . . .

JOHNSON JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC. v. CIBA VISION CORPORATION,, 540 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . While Table F of the patent ('100 Patent col. 67 11.40-67) refers to an “Ionoflux Ion Permeability Coefficient . . .

REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, v. DAKOCYTOMATION CALIFORNIA, INC. v. A S,, 517 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Id. col.8 11.40-44. . . .

TRI STATE HDWE. INC. v. JOHN DEERE COMPANY,, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (W.D. Mo. 2007)

. . . Wolfe has a life expectancy of 11.40 years and should be fully compensated for each remaining year of . . .

MAURICE MITCHELL INNOVATIONS, L. P. v. INTEL CORPORATION,, 249 F. App'x 184 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . Col.24 1.67 to Col.25 1.56 when the following additional passages also disclose structure: Col.15, 11.40 . . . The specification refers to the MCS6520 Peripheral Interface Adaptor (“PIA”). '154 Patent col.15 11.40 . . .

L. B. PLASTICS, INC. v. AMERIMAX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., 499 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . Id. col.5 11.40-44. . . .

SAFETCARE MANUFACTURING, INC. v. TELE- MADE, INC., 497 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . See id. col.3 11.49-57, col.4 11.40-51, Fig. 5. . . . Col.4 11.40-57. . . .

POLYVISION CORPORATION, v. SMART TECHNOLOGIES INC. v., 501 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (W.D. Mich. 2007)

. . . (Col. 3, 11.40-44.) . . .

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. UNIVERSAL AVIONICS SYSTEMS CORP., 488 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . runway to prevent nuisance warnings when the aircraft is taking off and landing ....” '080 patent col.10 11.40 . . .

McKESSON INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. v. BRIDGE MEDICAL, INC., 487 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . several “subsystem controllers,” which in turn communicate with a central controller. '793 patent col.2 11.40 . . . station” subject to intermittent polling by a polling station. '421 patent col.2 11.64-67; id. col.3 11.40 . . .

WELLS, Jr. v. STATE, 952 So. 2d 582 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . of execution against the State of Florida to enforce a cost judgment in his favor in the amount of $11.40 . . .

PLANET BINGO, LLC, v. GAMETECH INTERNATIONAL, INC., 472 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . with a marked bingo flashboard in the '786 patent. '289 patent, col.5 11.20-25; '786 patent, col.4 11.40 . . .

F. KNIGHT, Jr. v. ALABAMA,, 469 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Ala. 2006)

. . . Newburg & Alba Conte, Newburg on Class Actions § 11.40 (3d ed.1992). . . .

In CREDIT SUISSE- AOL SECURITIES LITIGATION, 465 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Mass. 2006)

. . . reaction to these events, AOL’s stock price declined even further from a July 24, 2002, closing price of $11.40 . . .

In HERITAGE ORGANIZATION, L. L. C. v., 354 B.R. 407 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . The Probate Defense Under RCW ch. 11.40 Mikron, claiming that it is an accommodation party under the . . . are barred by the applicable probate claims bar date under Washington state law, specifically Chapter 11.40 . . .

ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, INC. LP UK v. MAYNE PHARMA USA INC., 467 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . Id., col.3 11.40-41. . . .

MONSANTO COMPANY, v. SCRUGGS, LLC, HES MES MHS, 459 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . reference deposits with the American Type Culture Center, which are publicly available. ’605 patent col.5 11.40 . . .

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. RISK CAPITAL TRADING GROUP, INC., 452 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (N.D. Ga. 2006)

. . . Calls-Settle Puts-Settle Price Jan Feb Apr Jan Feb Apr 285 10.50 10.70 14.80 .20 1.00 2.50 290 5.70 1.20 11.40 . . .

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, INC. v. ITT INDUSTRIES, INC. ITT AUTOMOTIVE, INC. TG TG USA A., 452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . Id., col.l 11.40-43. . . .

MATHERS, v. NORTHSHORE MINING CO. a, 217 F.R.D. 474 (D. Minn. 2003)

. . . Her pay was cut from $18.40 to $11.40 per hour. . . .

WINN INCORPORATED, a v. EATON CORPORATION,, 272 F. Supp. 2d 968 (C.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . (Id., Col.2, 11.40-45). . . .

COOK, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 246 F. Supp. 2d 908 (E.D. Tenn. 2003)

. . . Plaintiff submitted a response stating that because the defendant’s fee calculation is only $11.40 less . . .

MESECK, v., 284 B.R. 901 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2002)

. . . Debtor was employed as a full-time plant laborer at Farmland Foods, Inc. in Dennison, Iowa earning $11.40 . . . Debtor went from making $11.40 per hour at the Dennison plant to making $6.75 per hour. . . .

UNITED STATES J. AVERBACK, M. D. v. PASTOR MEDICAL ASSOCIATES P. C. M. M. D. M. M. D. Co., 224 F. Supp. 2d 342 (D. Mass. 2002)

. . . Averback claims that Borten performed 272.30 hours of core work and 11.40 hours of non-core work, and . . .

ALLERGY ASTHMA TECHNOLOGY, LTD. v. I CAN BREATHE, INC. J. I v., 195 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (N.D. Ill. 2002)

. . . masks and $11 each for the cold weather masks, below Allergy Asthma’s respective costs of $10.40 and $11.40 . . .

ORANGE COUNTY, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., 812 So. 2d 475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Line Charge $20.00 7% Public Service Tax $ 1.40 SUBTOTAL: $21.40 Refund Credit: ($10.00) AMOUNT DUE $11.40 . . .

NOVAMEDIX DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, v. Q. DICKINSON, U. S., 175 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2001)

. . . venous-return flow can be substantially unimpeded in its direct delivery.” ’101 Patent, at Col. 5, 11.40 . . .

In NWFX, INC., 267 B.R. 118 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2001)

. . . January 27, 1987 11.40 Trip to Fayetteville, Arkansas; review and revise demand letter on agents; visit . . .

BEAM LASER SYSTEMS, INC. v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 144 F. Supp. 2d 475 (E.D. Va. 2001)

. . . plurality of digitally formatted video signals stored locally at or near the switch.” ’825 Patent, col. 2, 11.40 . . .

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. TRUONG,, 98 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2000)

. . . Of these shares, 5,000 sold at $11.20 per share, 2,000 sold at $11.75 per share, and 3,500 sold at $11.40 . . .

EDMONDS INSTITUTE, v. BABBITT,, 93 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2000)

. . . See A.R. 11.40, Memorandum from Director of Yellowstone Center for Resources to Yellowstone Superintendent . . .

In RICHARD, C. M. E. L. Jr., 241 B.R. 403 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1999)

. . . GMAC 1993 Acura Legend $12,340.00 18.00% Rickey and Emma Moten GMAC 1996 Chevrolet Lumina $ 9,015.00 11.40% . . .

BLEVINS v. HEILIG- MEYERS CORPORATION, 184 F.R.D. 663 (M.D. Ala. 1999)

. . . Accordingly, the court will reduce Holcomb’s bill of costs by $11.40. C. . . . Holcomb and Patrick Patterson, to $2,288.70. • Holcomb’s bill of costs of $811.50 will be reduced by $11.40 . . .

POPE TALBOT, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 162 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 1999)

. . . Here the distributees are con-cededly taxed on the basis of property valued at $11.40 per unit; there . . .

In ACE- TEXAS, INC. U. S., 217 B.R. 719 (Bankr. D. Del. 1998)

. . . , in the aggregate principal amount of $8,883,301, which provide for a pre-default interest rate of 11.40% . . .

BENION v. BANK ONE, DAYTON, N. A., 967 F. Supp. 1031 (N.D. Ill. 1997)

. . . One year later, repeat sales accounted for 11.40% of the sales under the Plan. . . .

YEAGER S FUEL, INC. v. PENNSYLVANIA POWER LIGHT COMPANY LOSCH BOILER SALES SERVICE COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA POWER LIGHT COMPANY, 953 F. Supp. 617 (E.D. Pa. 1997)

. . . In the space heating context, oil costs $11.07 per million Btu, gas $11.40, electric baseboard heat $22.56 . . . pump plus ($12.77), ceramic ($13.77), conventional oil ($11.07), pulse oil ($8.70), conventional gas ($11.40 . . .