The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 15
SECRETARY OF STATE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 15.02

15.02 Custodian of state flag; state papers; state laws and legislative documents.—The Department of State shall have custody of the state flag; of all books, papers, files, and documents belonging to the office of Secretary of State; and of the laws of the state and books, papers, journals, and documents of the Legislature.

History.—s. 3, ch. 1, 1845; RS 74; GS 75; RGS 89; CGL 111; s. 2, ch. 28086, 1953; ss. 10, 35, ch. 69-106.

F.S. 15.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 15.02 on Casetext

Amendments to 15.02

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 15.02

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 15.02.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

CLEANUP NORTH BROOKLYN BY CHANTRTANAPICHATE, v. BROOKLYN TRANSFER LLC, GPB NY LLC, GPB LLC,, 373 F. Supp. 3d 398 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . 61.2 42.84 $ 8,568.00 Lena Wong $ 250 $ 250 24.2 0.3 16.73 $ 4,182.50 Nathan Johnson $ 125 $ 70 21.45 15.02 . . .

BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY, v. SNYDER,, 372 F. Supp. 3d 570 (W.D. Mich. 2018)

. . . Cohen's Handbook on Federal Indian Law § 15.02 at 995-96 (Nell Newton, et al., eds., 2012 ed.). . . .

OHIO, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY,, 138 S. Ct. 2274 (U.S. 2018)

. . . Hovenkamp, Fundamentals of Antitrust Law § 15.02[B] (4th ed. 2017) (Areeda & Hovenkamp); Capital Imaging . . . See 1 Kalinowski § 12.02[1]; Areeda & Hovenkamp § 15.02[B]; Capital Imaging Assoc., supra, at 543. . . .

HIAM, v. HOMEAWAY. COM, INC., 887 F.3d 542 (1st Cir. 2018)

. . . Code Regs. 15.02 & 15.03. . . . Code Regs. 15.02. . . .

HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC. v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,, 307 F. Supp. 3d 433 (E.D. Va. 2018)

. . . Nassau Co. 1988) ); 1 Dunham, supra, § 15.02 ("However, where the terms of an insurance policy are ambiguous-admitting . . .

UNITED STATES v. VELASQUEZ,, 881 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2018)

. . . De La Garza and Polanco, in violation of Texas’s murder and conspiracy to commit murder statutes, §§ 15.02 . . . V.T.C.A., Penal Code §§ 15.02, 19.02; 18 U.S.C. § 1959. . . .

AUDIO MPEG, INC. S. p. A. v. DELL INC., 272 F. Supp. 3d 813 (E.D. Va. 2017)

. . . License Agreement § 15.02. . . . not any hardware or any other software capable of encoding or decoding MP3/MPEG Audio files,” id. § 15.02 . . . See id. §§ 2,04, 15.02. . . .

HIAM v. HOMEAWAY. COM, INC., 267 F. Supp. 3d 338 (D. Mass. 2017)

. . . Id. 15.02. . . . Code Regs. 15.02). . . .

UNITED STATES, v. M. EVANS,, 75 M.J. 302 (C.A.A.F. 2016)

. . . Davis, Federal Standards of Review § 15.02, at 15-14 n. 74 (4th ed. 2010) (noting, that de novo review . . .

CORBIN, v. TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT- ADVANCE NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP,, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016)

. . . OPINION BYBEE, Circuit Ju.dge: This case turns on $15.02 and one minute. $15.02 represents the total . . . mistakenly opened an auxiliary computer program before clocking into TWEAN’s timekeeping software platform. $15.02 . . . TWEAN’s policy complied with the federal rounding regulation, see 29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b), and Corbin’s $15.02 . . . In total, however, the parties agree that as a result of TWEAN’s rounding policy, Corbin lost $15.02 . . . As a reminder, the parties agree that Corbin lost $15.02 in compensable wages after TWE-AN implemented . . .

THOMAS, v. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2016)

. . . The following day, Magnachip’s stock price was cut in half, from its previous price of $15.02 per share . . . Perhaps most significantly, Plaintiffs allege that Magnachip’s stock price was cut in half, from $15.02 . . .

IN RE SERRANO,, 545 B.R. 447 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2016)

. . . Section 15.02 of the General Corporations Act of 2009 provides in pertinent part: "[i]f a domestic corporation . . .

WATKINS v. CITY OF ARLINGTON,, 123 F. Supp. 3d 856 (N.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . Ex. 1 (Section 15.02), App. at 10, ECF No. 48-1. . . . Section 15.02 applies universally and is content-neutral. . . . Additionally, Section 15.02 does not raise fatal underinclusivity concerns. . . . By limiting Section 15.02’s reach to only traffic-light controlled intersections, Section 15.02 addresses . . . Here, Section 15.02 leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. . . .

BATTLE, v. CITY OF SEATTLE,, 89 F. Supp. 3d 1092 (W.D. Wash. 2015)

. . . The general permit requirement at issue is contained entirely in Chapters 15.02 and 15.04 of the Ordinance . . . The court suggests no view on the relationship between the general permit requirement in Chapters 15.02 . . . the remainder of this order, it refers solely to the general permit requirement described in Chapters 15.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. WALKER, 596 F. App'x 302 (5th Cir. 2015)

. . . . §§ 15.02, 19.02. . . .

CALLAHAN, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a, 78 F. Supp. 3d 791 (N.D. Ill. 2015)

. . . Taxicab Medallion License Holders (May 1, 2008) (“2008 Medallion Holder Rules”), [121-22] at 51 (Rule 15.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GARCIA- SANTANA,, 774 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 15.02(d); Utah Code Ann. § 76-4-201; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1404(b); Wash. . . .

IN RE LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC., 515 B.R. 171 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . See SPA, Opp’n Ex. 3 § 15.02; SHA, Opp’n Ex. 4 § 11.7. . . .

J. ODOGBA, v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE J. B. M. St. L. R. O B. E. K. L. M., 22 F. Supp. 3d 895 (E.D. Wis. 2014)

. . . Section 15.02 states that the principal administrative unit of the executive branch is a “department” . . .

GILBERT, v. R. DONAHOE,, 751 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . Section 15.02 sets out the grievance procedure and provides: A. . . . It reasoned that Section 15.02, when combined with Section 15.03(C), required that employees submit claims . . .

UNITED STATES v. PASCACIO- RODRIGUEZ,, 749 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 15.02(a)(2) (West 2013); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1404(b) (West 2013); Wash. . . .

FBO DAVID SWEET IRA, v. B. TAYLOR, Jr. J., 4 F. Supp. 3d 1282 (M.D. Ala. 2014)

. . . Ala.Code § 10A-2-15.02 (1975) (emphasis added). . . .

UNITED STATES v. GARCIA- SANTANA,, 743 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 15.02(d); Utah Code Ann. § 76-4-201; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1404(b); , Wash. . . .

ROSARIO, v. LOCAL TRANSPORT WORKS OF AMERICA, 29 F. Supp. 3d 153 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . Pursuant to Article 15.02 of the CBA, on January 31, 2008, a “Step 1” grievance hearing was held without . . .

CITIBANK N. A. v. CITY OF BURLINGTON P. C., 971 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D. Vt. 2013)

. . . Ann. tit. 11 A, § 15.02. . . .

In C. MILLER S., 493 B.R. 55 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2013)

. . . Martin, Ginsberg & Martin on Bankruptcy § 15.02[A][3] at 15-11 to 12 (Susan V. . . .

E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, v. KOLON INDUSTRIES, INC., 894 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. Va. 2012)

. . . Milgrim, Milgrim on Trade Secrets § 15.02[1][a] (2010) (citations omitted). . . . Milgrim, Milgrim on Trade Secrets § 15.02[1][1]). . . . Milgrim, Milgrim on Trade Secrets § 15.02[l][d]. . . . Milgrim, Milgrim on Trade Secrets § 15.02[l][e]. . . .

UNITED STATES v. PANIAGUA, P., 481 F. App'x 162 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . Penal Code § 15.02(a). . . .

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. a LLC, a v. NETWORKS, INC. a, 873 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . Milgrim, Milgrim on Trade Secrets § 15.02[3][h] (2006) (discussing joint and several liability for trade . . .

ITL INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, v. CONSTENLA, S. A. S. A., 669 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . Miss.Code § 79-4-15.02(c). . ITL, 2010 WL 4537931, at *4. . See Gross v. . . .

A. FREDA, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 656 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. 2011)

. . . factors that should be considered in awarding injunctive and monetary relief); Milgrim on Trade Secrets § 15.02 . . . statute found to apply); Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 45; Milgrim on Trade Secrets § 15.02 . . .

HARRELL S, LLC, a LLC, a v. AGRIUM ADVANCED U. S. TECHNOLOGIES, INC. a, 795 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . . # 1(M at 3; at 6, § 2.01(jj); at 9, § 6.01; at 21-22, § 15.02). . . . The Court notes that Section 15.02 excludes a specified class of disagreements from constituting an " . . . (See Doc. # 10-4 at 21-22, § 15.02). . . . Section 15.02 does not affect the Court's analysis because Section 15.03 expressly delegates the task . . . (Doc. # 16 at 9; see Doc. # 10-4 at 21-22, § 15.02). . . .

In TANAKA, 640 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 15.02[9][a] (2011) (noting that, though the Patent Act of 1952 was the first . . .

UNITED STATES v. GORE,, 636 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . Penal Code § 15.02(d) (providing that a conspiracy offense is punishable as a felony that "is one category . . . Penal Code § 15.02(a)(2). . . . Penal Code § 29.03(b) (defining aggravated robbery as a "felony of the first degree”); id. § 15.02(d) . . . Penal Code § 15.02(a). . United States v. . . . See id. § 15.02(a)(2). . 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). . . . . Penal Code § 15.02(a)(2). . Model Penal Code § 5.03(5) ("Overt Act. . . . Penal Code § 15.02(a). . 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). . United States v. . . .

SPECTRUM SCIENCES AND SOFTWARE, INCORPORATED, v. UNITED STATES,, 98 Fed. Cl. 8 (Fed. Cl. 2011)

. . . necessitated in order to compete with the misappropriating defendants); 4-15 Milgrim on Trade Secrets i 15.02 . . .

In DRAKE, v., 434 B.R. 11 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2010)

. . . See Lien Expiration Letter. . 1-15 Weinstein's Evidence Manual § 15.02[3]. . Id. at [2], . . . .

CARPENTERS SOUTHWEST ADMINISTRATIVE CORP. v. THOMAS ASSOCIATES MANUFACTURING, 799 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Nev. 2010)

. . . . § 15.02. . . .

UNITED STATES v. N. LUCK, a k a C-, 611 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. 2010)

. . . Devitt et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 15.02 (4th ed.1992)) (discussing the creation . . .

PFIZER INC. LLC, v. APOTEX INC., 731 F. Supp. 2d 741 (N.D. Ill. 2010)

. . . defective original patent, Congress first codified the power to grant reissues. 4A Chisum on Patents § 15.02 . . . continuation clauses discussed above first were codified in the Patent Act of 1928. 4A Chisum on Patents § 15.02 . . .

KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE S. p. A, 560 U.S. 538 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . See, e. g., Advisory Committee’s 1966 Notes 122; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice §§15.02[1], 15.19[3][a] ( . . .

WANDA KRUPSKI, v. COSTA CROCIERE S. p. A., 177 L. Ed. 2d 48 (U.S. 2010)

. . . See, e.g., Advisory Committee’s 1966 Notes 122; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 15.02[1], 15.19[3] [a] . . .

O. GULLEY, v. DZURENDA, 264 F.R.D. 34 (D. Conn. 2010)

. . . Moore et al„ Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 15.02[1] (3d ed.2004) (citing Foman v. . . .

EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY, INC. v. CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., 681 F. Supp. 2d 694 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)

. . . Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 15.02[c] (8th ed. 1995)); see also Ins. Co. of N. . . .

LONG JOHN SILVER S, INC. v. DIWA III, INC. IV, V, A. A., 650 F. Supp. 2d 612 (E.D. Ky. 2009)

. . . A, Agreement, ¶ 15.02). . . . No. 20, Ex. 3, Agreement ¶ 15.02). D.The Sublease. . . . No. 20, Response, Ex. 3, Agreement, ¶ 15.02). Malik was not a party to that agreement. . . .

PRESSDOUGH OF BISMARCK, LLC, v. A W RESTAURANTS, INC. s,, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (D.N.D. 2008)

. . . See Docket No. 1-6, ¶ 15.02. (5) On February 21, 2001, Long John Silver’s and Pressdough entered into . . . See Docket No. 2-4, ¶ 15.02. (9) On July 1, 2002, Long John Silver’s and Pressdough entered into an “ . . .

RUBIN, v. GARVIN,, 544 F.3d 461 (2d Cir. 2008)

. . . Medicaid reimbursement rates for upcoming years: $13.35 per hour for individual Level II clients in 1994, $15.02 . . .

M. HESSE, v. TOWN OF JACKSON, WYOMING,, 541 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . Wyo.2000) (quoting 5 Eugene McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, Nature and Operation of Ordinances § 15.02 . . .

CITY OF WESTFIELD, v. HARRIS ASSOCIATES PAINTING, INC., 567 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D. Mass. 2008)

. . . Laws ch. 156D, § 15.02(e); Goodwin Bros. Leasing, Inc. v. . . . Section 15.02, though it forbids the invalidation of a contract for lack of registration, states that . . . Laws ch. 156D, § 15.02(a). . . . Laws ch. 181, § 9, the provision replaced by section 15.02(e), similarly stated that "[n]o such failure . . .

HARRINGTON, v. CACV OF COLORADO, LLC, J. A. PC,, 508 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Mass. 2007)

. . . Laws ch. 156D, § 15.02(a), “[a] foreign corporation transacting business in the Commonwealth without . . .

GONGORA, v. QUARTERMAN,, 498 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . to consider whether Gongora was guilty of the separate offense of conspiracy as set out in Section 15.02 . . .

APACHE BOHAI CORPORATION LDC LDC, v. TEXACO CHINA BV,, 480 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 15.02 — Any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including any question regarding . . .

In BARKER a. k. a. J. v. MHC, 358 B.R. 399 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2007)

. . . Barkley Clark & Barbara Clark, The Law of Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code ¶ 15.02 . . .

ARRINGTON, v. HELMS,, 438 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2006)

. . . Code r. 660-3-15.02(2). . . . Code r. 660-3-15.02(3). . . .

INLAND DREDGING COMPANY, L. L. C. v. PANAMA CITY PORT AUTHORITY,, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (N.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . . § 15.02., pages 00100-60 to 00100-61). . . .

AGWAY, INC. EMPLOYEES K THRIFT INVESTMENT PLAN, Co. v. G. MAGNUSON,, 409 F. Supp. 2d 136 (N.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . A § 15.02. . . . A §§ 14.01, 15.01-15.02. . . . .

In NATIONAL AUDIT DEFENSE NETWORK, A. Jr. v. f k a SF, 332 B.R. 896 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2005)

. . . Cards ¶ 15.02[4][B] (2005); Miller & Harrell, supra at § 11.01; Dellas & Zinneoker, supra at 305-06; . . .

CARSON, v. McNEAL,, 375 F. Supp. 2d 509 (S.D. Miss. 2005)

. . . . § 71M-15.02(a), Provident, as Southern’s assignee, is barred from using any federal or state court . . . Mississippi to enforce the mortgage and/or note of the subject transactions, see Miss.Code Ann. § 79-4-15.02 . . . In this regard, Mississippi Code Annotated § 79-^4-15.02(c) states: Notwithstanding subsections (a) and . . . Section 79-4-15.02 states, in pertinent part, (a) A foreign corporation transacting business in this . . .

CS ASSETS, LLC v. H H REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. MOSHER, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Ala. 2005)

. . . CODE, § 10-2B-15.02(a) (Michie Supp.2003). . . . Section 10-2B-15.02 addresses foreign corporations and not foreign LLCs. See id. . . . Even so, the comparison of the two provisions is relevant because section 10-2B-15.02(a) demonstrates . . . Instead, the Defendants rely on cases interpreting section 10-2B-15.02. . . . Defendants argue that section 10-2B-15.02 is analogous to section 10-12-52 and that, because section . . .

YMERI v. ASHCROFT,, 387 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2004)

. . . See 2 Charles Gordon, et al., Immigration Laiv & Procedure §§ 15.02[3], 15.03 (2004). . . .

COBELL, v. NORTON,, 225 F.R.D. 41 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

. . . potential of interfering with the rights of the class members”); see also Newberg on Class Actions § 15.02 . . .

CITIGROUP, INC. v. INDUSTRIAL RISK INSURERS, L. P., 336 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . Lease § 15.02 (emphasis added). . . . constituting a part of the Demised Premises within the meaning of Sections 15.01 [Landlord’s Property] and 15.02 . . . constituting a part of the Demised Premises within the meaning of Sections 15.01 [Landlord’s Property] and 15.02 . . .

CUBA TIMBER COMPANY, INC. v. BOSWELL, 339 F. Supp. 2d 773 (S.D. Miss. 2004)

. . . . § 79^4-15.02, since Cuba Timber’s certificate of authority to do business in Mississippi had been revoked . . . Mississippi Code Annotated § 79-4-15.02(a) provides, “A foreign corporation transacting business in this . . . “punishment for failure to obtain a license to do business within the State,” Miss.Code Ann. § 79-4-15.02 . . . See Miss.Code Ann. § 79-4-15.02( c) (“A court may stay a proceeding commenced by a foreign corporation . . .

LIBBEY, s v. RIDGES, 113 F. App'x 3 (5th Cir. 2004)

. . . Miss.Code Ann. 79-4-15.02(a) (emphasis added). . . .

DOW v. JONES,, 311 F. Supp. 2d 461 (D. Md. 2004)

. . . Kleinberger, Limited Liability Companies: Tax & Business Law §§ 15.01(1), 15.02(3)(b),(e) (2004). . . . See id. §§ 15.02(1),(3). . . . See Bishop & Kleinberger, supra, § 15.02(1); see also, e.g., Md.Code Ann., Corps. & Ass’ns § 9A-106. . . .

BANKS v. DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, 540 U.S. 668 (U.S. 2004)

. . . Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal §15.02 (5th ed. 2000) (jury instructions from the . . .

A. v., 122 T.C. 32 (T.C. 2004)

. . . See 2 Childress & Davis, Federal Standards of Review, sec. 15.02, at 15-3 to 15-4 (3d ed. 1999). . . .

UNITED STATES v. VISA U. S. A. INC., 344 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2003)

. . . According to § 15.02 of Visa International’s bylaws, the Visa International Board of Directors has exclusive . . .

PRESTA OIL, INC. v. VAN WATERS ROGERS CORPORATION,, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Kan. 2003)

. . . See Clark and Clark, The Law of Bank Deposits, Collections and Credit Cards, ¶ 15.02[4] (Rev. . . . See Clark and Clark, supra, at ¶ 15.02[5]. . . .

COBELL, v. A. NORTON,, 212 F.R.D. 14 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . See Newberg on Class Actions § 15.02, at 15-6 (3d ed. 1992) (When the court finds that the class action . . .

VAN ENTERPRISES, INC. v. AVEMCO INSURANCE COMPANY HCC, 231 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Kan. 2002)

. . . Newman, 2 Handbook On Insurance Coverage Disputes, § 15.02[b], at 919-20 (11th ed.2002) (same). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. MOORE,, 209 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . Laboratory, the substances purchased by the undercover officer were crack cocaine with a total weight of 15.02 . . .

In SYNTHROID MARKETING LITIGATION, 201 F. Supp. 2d 861 (N.D. Ill. 2002)

. . . Wolf, Court Awarded Attorneys Fees § 15.02[2](i), at 15-32, 15-33, (Lexis 2001), but “[t]he courts have . . .

THE CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. CONVERIUM R CKERVERSICHERUNG DEUTSCHLAND AG, f k a Z R K AG,, 210 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Ostrager & Newman, supra § 15.02[a]; Staring, supra § 2:4. . . .

UNITED STATES v. VISA U. S. A. INC., 163 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . Visa International By-law Section 15.02, entitled “Fundamental Principles,” defines the relationship . . . Under Section 15.02(d), the Visa International Board possesses the final power to classify matters as . . . having significant effect on worldwide Visa programs,” it therefore has the authority under Section 15.02 . . .

SCOTT, v. SULZER CARBOMEDICS, INC., 141 F. Supp. 2d 154 (D. Mass. 2001)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 15.02, at 441-42 (3d ed.1977) (“[t]he law makes no . . .

NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, v. ODOM INDUSTRIES, INC., 119 F. Supp. 2d 631 (S.D. Miss. 2000)

. . . . § 79^1-15.02; see also Cone Mills Corp. v. . . . in this regard is buttressed by the fact that the legislature, in addition to Miss.Code Ann. § 79-4-15.02 . . . companies tends to suggest that insurance companies are not, in fact, subject to Miss.Code Ann. § 79-4-15.02 . . .

COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SEVEN PROVINCES INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., 217 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2000)

. . . See, e.g., Ostrager & Newman, supra, § 15.02-03, at 777-83 (describing various classes and subclasses . . .

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES, v. SOMDAY, II, L., 96 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (E.D. Wash. 2000)

. . . Article 15.02 provided that each member of the Advisory Committee serve until his successor was appointed . . .

UNITED STATES v. ANTY,, 203 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2000)

. . . Devitt et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 15.02 (1992). . . .

In MERRY- GO- ROUND ENTERPRISES,, 241 B.R. 124 (Bankr. D. Md. 1999)

. . . Carousel lease § 15.02(a). . . . Carousel lease Rider § 15.02(c) (emphasis added). . . .

IBJ SCHRODER BANK TRUST COMPANY, v. FAIRFIELD COMMUNITIES, INC. St. B. Co. Co., 178 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 1999)

. . . See § 15.02(e). Article 5 governs partial and complete redemption of the Notes prior to maturity. . . . through the Maturity Date after application of the funds in the Accounts in accordance with Sections 15.02 . . . I &§ 15.02(a). . . . I & § 15.02(c) & (d). . . .

METROPOLITAN ENTERTAINMENT CO. INC. v. KOPLIK v. SCHER, 20 F. Supp. 2d 354 (D. Conn. 1998)

. . . Respondent has breached Paragraph 15.02 of the Agreement which prohibits participation in ventures which . . .

J. BOWERS, v. TOWN OF SMITHSBURG, MARYLAND,, 990 F. Supp. 396 (D. Md. 1997)

. . . until the ordinance is repealed.' ” Id. at 1303 (quoting’s Eugene McQuil-len, Municipal Corporations § 15.02 . . .

FONTANILLA, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,, 987 F. Supp. 1206 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

. . . CSC Rule 15.02(B); CSC Rule 22.02D(1), (2) and (3). . . .

TERM LIMITS LEADERSHIP COUNCIL, INC. T. v. CLARK,, 984 F. Supp. 470 (S.D. Miss. 1997)

. . . . § 79-4-15.02(a) (“A foreign corporation transacting business in this state without a certificate of . . . See id. § 79-4-15.02(c). . . .

B. BLANCHARD, v. EDGEMARK FINANCIAL CORPORATION, A. A. I, II, 175 F.R.D. 293 (N.D. Ill. 1997)

. . . See Newberg on Class Actions, § 11.75, at 11-200-201; § 15.02, at 15-5-6; § 15.26 (3d ed.1992). . . . the spirit of the rules of professional ethics on the most basic level, Newberg on Class Actions, § 15.02 . . .

In PHILLIPS, 206 B.R. 196 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1997)

. . . Section 15.02. . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. COOK,, 102 F.3d 249 (7th Cir. 1996)

. . . O’Malley, 1 Federal Jury Practice & Instructions § 15.02 (1992), mentions a motive of escaping punishment . . .

HB GENERAL CORP. HB v. MANCHESTER PARTNERS, L. P. v. H. B. PARTNERS, L. P., 95 F.3d 1185 (3d Cir. 1996)

. . . .”); 4 Bromberg & Ribstein, supra § 15.02(b), at 15:13, & § 15.02(e), at 15:16 to 15:17. . . .

WMX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. a v. W. JACKSON,, 168 F.R.D. 64 (M.D. Ala. 1996)

. . . . § 10-2B-15.02 (1975). A. . . .

In EXTRADITION OF LAHORIA, 932 F. Supp. 802 (N.D. Tex. 1996)

. . . TPC Abetment IPC 107, 109 2 7.01, 7.02 Criminal conspiracy IPC 120-A, 120-B 371, 372, 373 15.02 Murder . . .

MACK, v. BRISTOL- MYERS SQUIBB CO. Co., 673 So. 2d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . . & Com.Code § 15.02(a). . (5) The purpose of Florida's Antitrust Act is: to complement the body of federal . . .

S. ROULETTE, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a S., 78 F.3d 1425 (9th Cir. 1996)

. . . legally protest, and acts authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the Street Use Ordinance, Chapters 15.02 . . .

S. ROULETTE, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a S., 97 F.3d 300 (9th Cir. 1996)

. . . legally protest, and acts authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the Street Use Ordinance, Chapters 15.02 . . .

LANDRY, v. A- ABLE BONDING, INC. A-, 75 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1996)

. . . Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 15.02. . . .

SKF USA SKF v. Co., 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 94 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . The recalculated weighted average dumping margins for SKF Germany were 15.02% for BBs, 7.13% for CRBs . . .

UNITED STATES v. BAILEY,, 902 F. Supp. 727 (W.D. Tex. 1995)

. . . . § 15.02 (Vernon Supp.1995) (involuntary termination of parental rights for failure to pay child support . . .

SOFTEL, INC. v. DRAGON MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATIONS LTD. R. H., 891 F. Supp. 935 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . Milgram, Milgram on Trade Secrets § 15.02[3][c] (1994). 10. . . . Hall Chemical Co., 292 F.2d 678, 681-83 (6th Cir.1961); 3 Milgram on Trade Secrets § 15.02[3][e]. . . .

PICKER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, v. IMAGING EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., 931 F. Supp. 18 (D. Mass. 1995)

. . . disclosure or use of a trade secret is ‘settled beyond peradventure.’” 3 Milgrim on Trade Secrets, § 15.02 . . . See 3 Milgrim on Trade Secrets, § 15.02[4][a], 15-266; Remington Rand Corporation-Delaware v. . . .

CORNWALL STEVENS SOUTHEAST, INC. Co. v. M. STEWART,, 887 F. Supp. 1490 (M.D. Ala. 1995)

. . . Acts 245, § 3; Alabama Code § 10-2B-15.02. . . . prevents application of Article XII, § 232 of the Alabama Constitution, and either § 10-2A-247 or § 10-2B-15.02 . . .