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. 11.51

11.51 Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability.—

(1) The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability is authorized to examine all entities and records listed in s. 11.45(3).

(2) At the conclusion of an examination, the designated representative of the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability shall discuss the examination with the official whose office is examined and submit to that official the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability’s preliminary findings. If the official is not available for receipt of the preliminary findings, clearly designated as such, delivery thereof is presumed to be made when it is delivered to his or her office. Whenever necessary, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability may request the official to submit his or her written statement of explanation or rebuttal within 15 days after the receipt of the findings. If the response time is not requested to be within 15 days, the official shall submit his or her response within 30 days after receipt of the preliminary findings.

(3) No later than 18 months after the release of a report of the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, the agencies that are the subject of that report shall provide data and other information that describes with specificity what the agencies have done to respond to the recommendations contained in the report. The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability may verify the data and information provided by the agencies. If the data and information provided by the agencies are deemed sufficient and accurate, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability shall report to the Legislative Auditing Committee and to the legislative standing committees concerned with the subject areas of the audit. The report shall include a summary of the agencies’ responses, the evaluation of those responses, and any recommendations deemed to be appropriate.

(4) Work papers held by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability which relate to an authorized project or a research product are exempt from s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. The exemption applies to work papers held by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability before, on, or after the effective date of the exemption.

History.—s. 2, ch. 90-110; s. 16, ch. 94-249; s. 30, ch. 96-318; s. 1, ch. 96-380; s. 6, ch. 2001-86; s. 17, ch. 2001-266; s. 3, ch. 2004-305; s. 14, ch. 2011-34; s. 1, ch. 2011-35.

F.S. 11.51 on Google Scholar

F.S. 11.51 on Casetext

Amendments to 11.51

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 11.51

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 11.51.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

VOIGT v. COYOTE CREEK MINING COMPANY, LLC, a, 329 F. Supp. 3d 735 (D. N.D. 2018)

. . . August 2014 draft included the following PTE estimates for the coal pile in "FUG-1": 23.02 tpy PM; 11.51 . . . tpy PM10, and 11.51 tpy PM2.5. . . . methodology, the estimates were those set forth in the August 2014 draft application of: 23.02 tpy PM; 11.51 . . . tpy PM10, and 11.51 tpy PM2.5. . . .

MULTICULTURAL MEDIA, TELECOM AND INTERNET COUNCIL v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 873 F.3d 932 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 11.51(h)(3). . . . Final Order, 31 FCC Rcd. at 2417-2418 ¶ 6; see 47 C.F.R. § 11.51(n). . . . . § 11.51(n). They must broadcast Presidential emergency messages immediately. . . .

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, d b a v. BRANSEN ENERGY, INC. f k a LLC,, 850 F.3d 645 (4th Cir. 2017)

. . . Agreement and Pre-COD Confirmation was 9.0%; the SGS analysis measured as-received moisture at 11.56% and 11.51% . . .

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

. . . Id. at 14-15 (citing ’354 patent col.5 11.51-67). . . .

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)

. . . 44, eol.6 11.53-64, col.7 11.2-16, col. 15 1.40 — col.16 1.15, col.16 11.35-39, col.16 1.57, col.19 11.51 . . . col.7 11.29, 33, & 51, col.8 11.18 & 31, col.15 11.11-27, col.16 11.57, 61, & 65, col.17 1.28, col.20 11.51 . . . Id. 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 . . . two color difference signals.” ‘412 Patent col.3 11.45-54, col.6 11.26-29, col.16 11.57-60, col.20 11.51 . . . Id. at col.4 11.22-28, col.4 11.51-54, col.5 1.56 — col.6 1.12. . . .

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. v. K. LEE, U. S., 797 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. . . adjust the control input and to vary the switching frequency of the power supply, '876 Patent col.8 11.51 . . .

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

. . . DTX 848 at col.3 11.51-61. . . .

AMERICAN CALCAR, INC. v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC., 768 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . and visually communicating to the user instructions for reaching the destination. 355 patent, col.l 11.51 . . .

ALLERGAN, INC. v. APOTEX INC. Hi- Co. v., 754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . Id. at col.10 11.51-56. . . .

DICK L. v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L. P. LLC,, 297 F.R.D. 283 (W.D. Ky. 2014)

. . . F.Supp.2d 985, 1016 (S.D.Ohio 2001) (citing Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.51 . . .

BARQUIN v. MONTY S SUNSET, L. L. C., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . The Handbook twice states, “All front of the house employees are guaranteed $11.51 per hour, for each . . . In an environment where each employee is guaranteed $11.51 per hour, complaints about method of compensation . . . previously discussed, Plaintiffs knew the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, knew they were guaranteed $11.51 . . .

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

. . . Id. col.ll 11.51-62. . . .

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC. s, a v. MOC PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. a, 856 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (S.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . old ATF thereby drives a “rotary pump,” which pumps in an equal volume of new ATF. '629 Patent col.ll 11.51 . . .

METTLER- TOLEDO, INC. v. B- TEK SCALES, LLC,, 671 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . I. '547 Patent The '547 patent describes a load cell for measuring a force. '547 patent col.l 11.51— . . .

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

. . . distance 12.96 feet to a point; THENCE North 66 degrees 19 minutes 29 seconds East for a distance of 11.51 . . .

ZIRCON CORPORATION, v. STANLEY BLACK DECKER, INC., 452 F. App'x 966 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. at col.7 11.51-53. . . . Id. col.14 11.51-52, 65. . . .

STAR SCIENTIFIC, INC. v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY A R. J. A, 655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col.6 11.51-55. . . .

In NTP, INC., 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . the plurality of destination processors.” '960 patent col.49 11.31-35; see also '611 patent col.48 11.51 . . .

RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. J. v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY,, 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col.911.38-41, col.9 11.51-56. . . . Id. col.9 11.51-56. . . .

INVENTIO AG, v. THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR AMERICAS CORPORATION,, 649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col.5 11.51-58. . . .

DUDUM v. ARNTZ, a, 640 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . all first-choice votes: Lynette Sweet, 12.07%; Tony Kelly, 11.80%; Malia Cohen, 11.78%; Marlene Tran, 11.51% . . .

INNOVENTION TOYS, LLC, v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. R Us,, 637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . The scoring modules are mounted to the frame of the game board, see Swift patent col.2 11.51-56, and . . .

AMERICAN PILEDRIVING EQUIPMENT, INC. v. GEOQUIP, INC. v., 637 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . See id. col.5 11.51-60 (explaining that the holes in the gear “effectively reduce the amount of metal . . .

SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA, INC. v. SAINT- GOBAIN CERAMICS PLASTICS, INC., 637 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col.4 11.51-58. . . .

ZOLTEK CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 95 Fed. Cl. 681 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

. . . Id. at eol.2 11.51— 53. . . .

In ANCHORAGE SPORTSPLEX, INC., 462 B.R. 722 (Bankr. D. Alaska 2010)

. . . Sportsplex issued a $11.51 million note to AIDEA and a leasehold deed of trust in favor of Wells Fargo . . .

RING PLUS, INC. v. CINGULAR WIRELESS CORP. II LLC, LLC, AT T, 614 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Sleevi col.5 11.51-54. . . .

ADAMS RESPIRATORY THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. PERRIGO COMPANY, L., 616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . pH dependencies which affect its dissolution rate, and hence its bioavailability.” '252 patent col.2 11.51 . . .

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

. . . Id. col.l 11.51— 54. . . .

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

. . . Id. col.6 11.51-54. The second stage of the pipeline is called “rasterization,” 138. . . .

HEARING COMPONENTS, INC. v. SHURE INC., 600 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . discussing “a hearing aid through which solvent may be pumped to remove wax buildup”); id. at col.l 11.51 . . .

ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,, 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . NF-éB would bind the decoy, and thus, not be available to bind its natural target.” '516 patent col.37 11.51 . . .

DEKOVEN, v. ASSOCIATES, B. v., 599 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2010)

. . . Partnership, supra, 34 F.3d at 414-15; Manual for Complex Litigation § 11.51, pp. 112-13 (4th ed.2004 . . .

THACKER, v. CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, L. L. C., 695 F. Supp. 2d 521 (E.D. Ky. 2010)

. . . F.Supp.2d 985, 1016 (S.D.Ohio 2001) (citing Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.51 . . .

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

. . . Gonzalez, col.21 11.51-59. . . .

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

. . . Id. col.l 11.51— 54. . . .

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

. . . Id. col.l 11.51-54. . . .

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

. . . See '868 patent col.40 11.27-29; '698 patent col.38 11.51— 53. . . .

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

. . . .”); id. at col.7 11.51-54 (“A further aspect of the present invention includes introducing omega-3 HUFAs . . . See, e.g., '244 Patent col.7 11.51-54 ("[T]he whole-cell biomass can be used directly as a food additive . . .

CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY, v. ACUSHNET COMPANY,, 576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . multi-layer cover consisting of a first or inner layer 14 and a second or outer layer 16. '293 patent col.5 11.51 . . . Nesbitt col.3 11.51-61 (emphases added). . . . Nesbitt col.3 11.51-61. . . . See, e.g., '293 patent col.3 11.51— 53. . . .

AMGEN INC. USA v. ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 333 F. App'x 549 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . NF-kB would bind the decoy, and thus, not be available to bind its natural target.” '516 patent col.37 11.51 . . .

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

. . . Id. col.9 11.51-52. . . .

PARAGON SOLUTIONS, LLC, v. TIMEX CORPORATION,, 566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . Id. col.28, 11.51-52. . . .

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

. . . Patent col.2 11.62-67 (“[s]ince the working channel itself serves for the delivery of gas”); id. col.4 11.51 . . .

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, v. SANDOZ, INC. GMBH, USA, v., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . distinguishing peaks” at the seven particular PXRD angles enumerated in claim 1. '507 patent col.l 11.51 . . .

ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,, 560 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . NF-kB would bind the decoy, and thus, not be available to bind its natural target.” '516 patent col.37 11.51 . . .

In Re KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION. To, 601 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D. La. 2009)

. . . [of legal subrogation are] all ... in the Louisiana statutes”). . 5 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise § 11.51 . . .

RICOH COMPANY, LTD. v. QUANTA COMPUTER INC. USA, NU, 550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . ; and wherein said record circuit does not write any run-out blocks while paused. '755 patent col.8 11.51 . . .

QR SPEX, INC. v. MOTOROLA INC., 588 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (C.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . combination of the co-molded and assembled components may be used to maximize efficiency. ('767 Patent col.7 11.51 . . .

M. MINKS, v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., 546 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . input to thereby selectively inhibit ignition responsive to the speed of said engine. '080 patent eol.5 11.51 . . .

K. VODA, M. D. v. CORDIS CORPORATION,, 536 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . directed to an “advantageous orientation of the guide catheter in the aortic complex.” '625 patent col.8 11.51 . . .

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

. . . See id. col. 18,11.1-2, 59; col. 20, 11.11-13; col. 21, 11.51-52; col. 23, 11.8-9; col. 24,11.30-31. . . .

COLLINS v. SANDERSON FARMS, INC., 568 F. Supp. 2d 714 (E.D. La. 2008)

. . . Camp, 2004 WL 2149079 at *7 (citing 4 Newbeeg on Class Actions § 11.51 (4th ed.)). . . .

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)

. . . acid/10 ml H20 for 68% P205) as measured using a scanning UV/Vis spectrophotometer. '391 Patent col.19 11.51 . . .

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. M- I LLC M- I L. L. C., 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Id. at col.3 11.51-53 (emphasis added). . . .

In DELPHI CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE ERISA LITIGATION, 248 F.R.D. 483 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

. . . Telectronics, 137 F.Supp.2d at 1018 (citing Newberg on Class Actions § 11.51 (3d ed. 1992) (“Courts respect . . .

CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY, v. ACUSHNET COMPANY,, 523 F. Supp. 2d 388 (D. Del. 2007)

. . . (Col.3, 11.51-61) (emphasis added) Nesbitt proceeds to state that the inner layer may be “preferably . . .

ALLVOICE COMPUTING PLC, v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . data as distinct actions accomplished through separate means. '273 Patent col.16 11.32 — 46, col.18 11.51 . . .

ORMCO CORPORATION, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., 498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . See, e.g., '444 patent col. 10 1. 63-col. 11 1.2, col. 13 11.51-57. . . .

AUTOMED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. MICROFIL, LLC, 244 F. App'x 354 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . Compare, e.g., 927 patent col. 8 11.51-59, with id. col. 11 11.43—46. . . .

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., 494 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Mass. 2007)

. . . (See '645 Patent, col.6 11.51-54 (“Typically, the URL has a hostname identifying the Content Provider's . . .

P. YOUNG, v. LUMENIS, INC., 492 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . tendon; and (h) incising the subcutaneous tissues, of the pad of the second phalanx. '579 patent col.5 11.51 . . .

LUPIN LIMITED, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, v., 484 F. Supp. 2d 448 (E.D. Va. 2007)

. . . very same seven PXRD angles which define the '507 patent’s invention in Claim 1. '507 Patent col.l 11.51 . . . peaks” located at the diffraction angles fisted in column 1 of the specification. '507 Patent col.l 11.51 . . . See, e.g., id. col.12 11.51-68, eol.14 11.1-17, fig. 1. . . .

In OMEPRAZOLE PATENT LITIGATION. KBI- E, KBI, LP, v. Co., 483 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . equipment used for the process as well as the specific enteric coating polymer(s).” '281 Patent col. 8 11.51 . . . with respect to the equipment used as well as the specific enteric polymer.... ” '281 Patent eol.8 11.51 . . .

ACUMED LLC, v. STRYKER CORPORATION,, 483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . See, e.g., '444 patent Claim 1, col.5 11.51-53 (“the butt portion ... defining a plurality of at least . . .

ISRAEL BIO- ENGINEERING PROJECT, v. AMGEN INC. Co. S. A., 475 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . Id. col.16 11.51-55. . . .

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

. . . patentees defined “edetate” in the specification as “EDTA and derivatives thereof.” 520 patent, col.4 11.51 . . . edetate’ we mean ethylenediaminetetraa-cetic acid (EDTA) and derivatives thereof ....” '520 patent, eol.4 11.51 . . . invention include trisodium ede-tate, tetrasodium edetate and disodium calcium edetate. '520 patent, col.4 11.51 . . .

CITY OF SYRACUSE, v. ONONDAGA COUNTY C. NY,, 464 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2006)

. . . suggested by the City “would render the separate definitions given for ‘Commissioner’ and ‘County’ in § 11.51 . . . See OCAC § 11.51. . . .

PALMTOP PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. LO- Q PLC,, 450 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (N.D. Ga. 2006)

. . . (col.27, 11.51-56) (emphasis added). The term appears in a similar manner in claims 17 and 18. . . .

REULAND, v. J. HYNES,, 460 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2006)

. . . Indianapolis, Indiana (12.28); Syracuse, New York (12.22); Houston, Texas (11.77); Phoenix, Arizona (11.51 . . .

SKYLINE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC. v. KEYHOLE, INC., 421 F. Supp. 2d 371 (D. Mass. 2006)

. . . (col.8, 11.51-55) (emphasis supplied) This allows “an operator of the server and/or the user ... . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. GREER E. G. G. C., 383 F. Supp. 2d 861 (W.D.N.C. 2005)

. . . The Defendant first negotiated the sale of 11.51 acres located within the original 14.92 acres. . . . On January 5, 1988, his mother then conveyed the 11.51 acres to Lake Toxaway Company in exchange for . . .

HEMPHILL, v. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., 225 F.R.D. 616 (S.D. Cal. 2005)

. . . See Newberg § 11.51 at 158-159. . . .

FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES, v. UNITED STATES,, 61 Fed. Cl. 718 (Fed. Cl. 2004)

. . . institutional grade apartment properties in unleveraged, ie., all cash, transactions — the average of which was 11.51 . . .

GLOBETROTTER SOFTWARE, INC. v. ELAN COMPUTER GROUP, INC., 362 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

. . . node 14 for the given computer program 24A. ’297 patent, col. 9, 11.49-54; see also id. at col. 13, 11.51 . . .

SMITH v. TOWER LOAN OF MISSISSIPPI, INC., 216 F.R.D. 338 (S.D. Miss. 2003)

. . . Existence of Fraud or Collusion Although according to Newberg on Class Actions § 11.51 (4th ed. 2002) . . .

In TML, INC. v. A., 291 B.R. 400 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2003)

. . . square foot per year (assuming 13,299 sq, ft.) 1991 $143,059.78 $6.36 $10.76 1992 $153,022.74 $6.80 $11.51 . . .

ATLANTIC STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION, v. THE ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DRAINAGE AND SANITATION, v., 233 F. Supp. 2d 335 (N.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . Onondaga County Administrative Code § 11.51(c). . . . Onondaga County Administrative Code § 11.51(d). . . . suggested by the City would render the separate definitions given for “Commissioner” and “County” in § 11.51 . . .

ROSENBLUTH INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. TRAVEL ANALYTICS, INC., 157 F. Supp. 2d 833 (N.D. Ohio 2001)

. . . (Col.8, 11.51-52, 60-61). . . .

In TELECTRONICS PACING SYSTEMS, INC. J, 137 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2001)

. . . Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.51 (3d ed. 1992) (“[Cjourts respect the integrity . . . Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.51 (3d ed. 1992) (“[Cjourts respect the integrity . . .

UNITED STATES v. TURNER,, 93 F.3d 276 (7th Cir. 1996)

. . . for personal use (28.07 grams by his estimation) and calculated his base offense level using only the 11.51 . . .

In J. EADS M. In R. PROBASCO In McKINNEY Jo J. EADS M. In- v. R. PROBASCO, C. ARNOLD, v. J. EADS M., 69 B.R. 730 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1986)

. . . Starr, California Real Estate § 11.51 (1977). . . .

COMPTROLLER OF CURRENCY, v. T. LANCE,, 632 F. Supp. 437 (N.D. Ga. 1986)

. . . . § 78n(a), and Regulations promulgated under 12 CFR §§ 11.5 and 11.51, for a failure to disclose material . . .

COMPTROLLER OF CURRENCY, v. CALHOUN FIRST NATIONAL BANK,, 626 F. Supp. 137 (D.D.C. 1985)

. . . . § 78n(a), as well as the regulations promulgated thereunder, codified at 12 C.F.R. 11.5 and 11.51. . . .

HOOKS, v. R. HOOKS, Lt., 771 F.2d 935 (6th Cir. 1985)

. . . jurisdiction under the terms of the PKPA and Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), Tex.Fam.Code §§ 11.51 . . .

HEARTFIELD, v. HEARTFIELD,, 749 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1985)

. . . enacted pursuant to Texas’ adoption of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) Tex.Fam.Code §§ 11.51 . . .

HEDSTROM LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 7 Cl. Ct. 16 (Cl. Ct. 1984)

. . . 3,267.00 Birch 46 4.87 224.02 Pulp: Aspen 213 $ 2.27 $ 483.51 Balsam Fir 539 5.47 2,948.33 White Spruce 77 11.51 . . .

OHIO POWER COMPANY, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 668 F.2d 880 (6th Cir. 1982)

. . . AEP recommended the use of a single, systemwide capital structure and an overall return of 11.18% to 11.51% . . .

SIMA PRODUCTS CORPORATION, v. Dr. McLUCAS,, 460 F. Supp. 128 (N.D. Ill. 1978)

. . . . § 11.51. . . . .

CAMEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 215 Ct. Cl. 460 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . 664,928.55 570,135.32 94,793.23 % Profit (of total sales) 8.7% * 7.46%" 1.2%* % Profit (of Renegot. sales) 11.51% . . . renegotiable business) from 20.50%, 24.68%, and 28.01%, respectively, for the three review years, to 11.51% . . .

CAMEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 572 F.2d 280 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . 664,928.55 570,135.32 94,793.23 % Profit (of total sales) 8.7% * 7.46% * 1.2% * % Profit (of Renegot. sales) 11.51% . . . renegotiable business) from 20.50%, 24.68%, and 28.01%, respectively, for the three review years, to 11.51% . . . fashion: Comparison Y Renegotiable Commercial FY Sales (000) Profits Sales (000) Profits 1966 4,954 11.51% . . . $1,934,809.00 6.1 % PY 1965 4.591.568.00 2,503,541.00 4.7 % Review Years PY 1966 7,639,054.63 4,954,207.39 11.51% . . .

MARSHALL v. HOLMES, 365 F. Supp. 613 (N.D. Fla. 1973)

. . . contrary the evidence would suggest that the black persons in Levy County in 1969, who represented 11.51% . . .

v., 56 T.C. 698 (T.C. 1971)

. . . ■Section 11.51. Notice By Treasurer. . . .

G. SCHWARTZ, v. J. R. CIANCHETTE SONS CORP., 362 F.2d 500 (1st Cir. 1966)

. . . the seller so that he may have a reasonable opportunity to cure them. 3 American Law of Property § 11.51 . . . as long as this does not result in hardship or prejudice to the buyer. 3 American Law of Property § 11.51 . . .

D. C. Co. La. v., 55 Cust. Ct. 676 (Cust. Ct. 1965)

. . . Item 1 $11.51 Item 2 11.10 Item 3 11.78 Item 4 11.33 Item 5 12.24 Item 6 11.83 Item 7 12.24 Item 8 13.01 . . .

COMMON STOCKHOLDERS COMMITTEE OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. v. SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 183 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1950)

. . . proportions: To Long Island preferred stockholders 76.98 per cent., to Queens preferred stockholders 11.51 . . .

WALKER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 145 F.2d 602 (6th Cir. 1944)

. . . posting against trespassers; $331.52 for guards against trespassing and fires; and in 1939 he expended $11.51 . . .

PREMIER SHARES, v. ROTHENSIES,, 117 F.2d 809 (3d Cir. 1941)

. . . such undertaking will be the sum of 99$S per share, Premier Shares, Inc. to receive the net amount of $11.51 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GARDNER, 189 F. 690 (E.D. Wis. 1911)

. . . by Indian police, he was an Indian, within Federal Penal Code (Act March 4, 1909, c. 321, 35 Stat. 11.51 . . .