The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 15
SECRETARY OF STATE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 15.07

15.07 Acts and papers of the Legislature to be deposited with the Department of State.—All original acts and resolutions passed by the Legislature, and all other original papers acted upon thereby, together with the Journal of the Senate, and the Journal of the House of Representatives, shall, immediately upon the adjournment thereof, be deposited with, and preserved in, the Department of State, by which they shall be properly arranged, classified, and filed, provided that the journal of the executive session of the Senate shall be kept free from inspection or disclosure except upon the order of the Senate itself or some court of competent jurisdiction.

History.—s. 1, ch. 1904, 1872; RS 78; GS 79; s. 10, ch. 7838, 1919; RGS 94; CGL 116; s. 7, ch. 24337, 1947; ss. 10, 35, ch. 69-106.

F.S. 15.07 on Google Scholar

F.S. 15.07 on Casetext

Amendments to 15.07

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 15.07

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 15.07.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE D. LETTIE M., 597 B.R. 637 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2019)

. . . ."); see also supra n.2, Ginsberg and Martin on Bankruptcy § 15.07[C][2]. . . . Kelley, Ginsberg and Martin on Bankruptcy § 15.07[C][2], noting that "courts issued conflicting decisions . . . See, e.g. , supra n.2, Ginsberg and Martin on Bankruptcy § 15.07[C][2]. . . .

SHEPHERD, v. INCOAL, INC., 915 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . years of coal mine employment and determined that the miner should have been credited with a total of 15.07 . . . Deducting 0.32 years from the 15.07 years of coal mine employment found by the administrative law judge . . . analytical framework, the administrative law judge determined that the miner should be credited with 15.07 . . .

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, A a v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 890 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2018)

. . . PLN's own exhibit shows that the percentage of problematic ads increased from 9.80% in 2009 to 15.07% . . .

UPSTATE CITIZENS FOR EQUALITY, INC. T. v. UNITED STATES M. R. U. S. L. U. S. J., 839 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2016)

. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 15.07[1][a] (2012) (“Cohen, Handbook”). . . .

UPSTATE CITIZENS FOR EQUALITY, INC. T. v. UNITED STATES M. R. U. S. L. U. S. J., 841 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2016)

. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal .Indian Law § 15.07[l][a] (2012) (“Cohen, Handbook”). . . .

SCOTT v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. LLC,, 315 F.R.D. 33 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . divided all cash compensation by the number of scheduled hours to reach an average regular rate of $15.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MAYER,, 162 F. Supp. 3d 1080 (D. Or. 2016)

. . . J.I. 15.07, 15.01(11); Haw. Rev. . . .

COUNTY OF AMADOR, CALIFORNIA v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR S. M. R., 136 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . .”); 1-15 Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law ¶ 15.07 (2012) (“Taking land into trust shields the . . .

CITIZENS AGAINST CASINO GAMBLING IN ERIE COUNTY, Co- D. G. J. D. F. C. E. C. A. H. Sr. v. CHAUDHURI,, 802 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . See ' Cohen’s Handbook § 15.07[l][b]; see also 25 U.S.C. § 465. . . . See 25 U.S.C. §§ 465, 1774f(c); Cohen’s Handbook § 15.03, 15.07[1]. . . .

CITIZENS AGAINST CASINO GAMBLING IN ERIE COUNTY, Co- D. G. J. D. F. C. E. C. A. H. Sr. v. CHAUDHURI,, 802 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . See Cohen’s Handbook § 15.07[l][b]; see also 25 U.S.C. § 465. . . .

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, v. L. JONES,, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . In 2014, (3)(Z )-prohibited advertisements averaged 15.07% of the publication. Id. . . .

OSBORNE, v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, d b a L. P., 798 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2015)

. . . Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence § 15.07 (4th ed.2007). . . . .

J. FITZPATRICK, v. UNI- PIXEL, INC. W., 35 F. Supp. 3d 813 (S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . (ACAC ¶ 64) Plaintiffs allege that on December 10, 2012, Uni-Pixels’ share price closed at $15.07 per . . .

In H. LING, L. s, 511 B.R. 83 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . The Lings’ home is located on a 4.69 acre tract of land, which is adjoined by a 15.07 acre tract of land . . . Jack Rabbit Lane separates the Lings’ property so that the 15.07 acre tract and the 4.69 acre tract are . . . In 1994, the Lings purchased the 15.07 acre tract and the 4.69 acre tract. • The 15.07 acre tract is . . . The McLaughlins request that the Court sustain their objection to the 15.07 acre tract and the 17.7 acre . . . The McLaughlins do not dispute the Lings’ contention that the 15.07 acre tract and the 4.69 acre tract . . .

MATCH- E- BE- NASH- SHE- WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS, v. PATCHAK L. v., 132 S.Ct. 2199 (U.S. 2012)

. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 15.07[l][a], p. 1010 (2005 ed.) (hereinafter Cohen). . . .

MATCH- E- BE- NASH- SHE- WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS v. PATCHAK, 567 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2012)

. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 15.07[1][a], p. 1010 (2005 ed.) (hereinafter Cohen). . . .

NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, v. H. MILLARD, v. H., 287 F.R.D. 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Kaplan, International Discovery in Antitrust Litigation § 15.07 in 2 Antitrust Counseling and Litigation . . .

ADAMOWICZ v. UNITED STATES,, 101 Fed. Cl. 485 (Fed. Cl. 2011)

. . . Saltzman, at ¶ 15.07; see also Internal Revenue Manual § 5.8.1.1.L These compromises conclusively settle . . .

J. JOHNSON v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., 675 F. Supp. 2d 236 (D.N.H. 2009)

. . . . § 293-A:15.07(l) (emphasis added), but it also may be simply the office of the company’s registered . . . agent, see id. § 293-A:15.07(2)(i). . . .

ZAYAS v. BACARDI CORPORATION,, 524 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2008)

. . . See 1 Bornstein, supra § 15.07[2] (explaining that industrial double jeopardy “applies only to subsequent . . .

ECKERT, v. TITAN TIRE CORPORATION s LLC, s v. LLC,, 514 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2008)

. . . Section 15.07. . . .

In PARMALAT SECURITIES LITIGATION, 239 F.R.D. 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . Kaplan, International Discovery in Antitrust Litigation § 15.07 in 2 Antitrust Counseling and Litigation . . .

CITY OF CLARKSDALE, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., 428 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 79-^1-15.07 (2001). . . .

YOUNG v. UNITED STATES, 535 U.S. 43 (U.S. 2002)

. . . Saltzman, IRS Practice and Procedure ¶ 15.07[1], p. 15-47 (1981). . . .

P. YOUNG, v. UNITED STATES, 122 S. Ct. 1036 (U.S. 2002)

. . . Saltzman, IRS Practice and Procedure ¶ 15.07[1], p. 15-47 (1981). . . .

SWEET, a k a v. SHEAHAN, N. L. SCM SCM f k a SCM O d b a O E. I. De Co., 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000)

. . . Stein et al., 3 Administrative Law, § 15.07[3] at 15-125-126 (1999) (discussing factors used to differentiate . . .

In AUCTION HOUSES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 196 F.R.D. 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . Kaplan, International Discovery in Antitrust Litigation § 15.07 in 2 Antitrust Counseling and Litigation . . .

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

. . . policy of the Plan and determine the appropriate method of carrying out the Plan’s objectives. ' Article 15.07 . . .

CHILES, v. B. PHELPS, A CHOICE FOR WOMEN R. M. D. v. WEBSTER,, 714 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1998)

. . . signed objections from the 1997 regular session to the Department of State, as he asserted section 15.07 . . . maintains possession of the remaining vetoed bills from the 1997 regular session in violation of section 15.07 . . . merit in petitioners’ claim that the Clerk’s continued holding of the vetoed bills violates section 15.07 . . . We do not interpret section 15.07 to require vetoed bills which were not taken up by the legislature . . . Section 15.07, Florida Statutes (1997) provides: All original acts and resolutions passed by the Legislature . . .

MANELA, v. GARANTIA BANKING LIMITED, 5 F. Supp. 2d 165 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . LOW-ENFELS, BROMBERG AND LOWENFELS ON SECURITIES FRAUD & COMMODITIES FRAUD §§ 15.07(251), 15:179 (2d . . . Burke, 981 F.2d at 1379 (quoting duPont, 828 F.2d at 76); see also BROMBERG § 15.07(251), 15:179; cf. . . .

STATE v. S. BANOUB,, 700 So. 2d 44 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Erwin, J.D., et al., Defense of Drunk Driving Cases, Sec. 15.07, 3d ed. (1993). . . .

A. CERASOLI, v. XOMED, INC. a, 952 F. Supp. 152 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal- Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1996). . . .

SAVE- A- PATRIOT FELLOWSHIP, v. UNITED STATES, 962 F. Supp. 695 (D. Md. 1996)

. . . NATURE OF THE CASE As stated in Saltzman, “IRS Practice and Procedure,” ¶ 15.07 [2][a] (2nd ed.1991): . . .

In B. SLAUGHTER,, 191 B.R. 135 (Bank. W.D. Wis. 1995)

. . . “trustee” as a party in interest); accord Ginsberg & Martin, 2 Bankruptcy: Text, Statutes, Rules, § 15.07 . . .

LOUDNER, V. v. UNITED STATES, 905 F. Supp. 747 (D.S.D. 1995)

. . . Childress & Davis, Federal Standards of Review, § 15.07 at 15-41 (2d ed. 1992) (citing Motor Vehicle . . .

C. VANDEVENTER, L. Jo v. WABASH NATIONAL CORPORATION,, 893 F. Supp. 827 (N.D. Ind. 1995)

. . . Larson, Employment Discrimination § 15.07, 15-50. See also, 2 Employment Discrimination, 34.04. . . .

VON EYE, v. UNITED STATES, 887 F. Supp. 1287 (D.S.D. 1995)

. . . See Childress & Davis, Federal Standards of Review, § 15.07 at 15 — 41 (2d ed. 1992) (citing Motor Vehicles . . .

DOWNER, v. UNITED STATES By UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE,, 894 F. Supp. 1348 (D.S.D. 1995)

. . . Childress & Davis, Federal Standards of Review, § 15.07 at 15-41 (2d ed. 1992) (citing Motor Vehicle . . .

UNITED STATES v. CONINE,, 33 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 1994)

. . . Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 15.07 (Vernon Supp.1994). . . .

MEGA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 29 Fed. Cl. 396 (Fed. Cl. 1993)

. . . such overhead was incurred for the full 288 day delay period claimed at a calculated daily rate of $15.07 . . .

UNITED STATES TUCKER, t a t a v. THOMAS HOWELL KIEWIT USA INC., 149 F.R.D. 125 (E.D. Va. 1993)

. . . .) ¶ 15.07[2] at 851-52; 6 Charles A. . . .

L. ALEXANDER v. FUJITSU BUSINESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC. R., 818 F. Supp. 462 (D.N.H. 1993)

. . . Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1992) (footnotes omitted); see also McDonald v. . . .

In C. HALL,, 151 B.R. 412 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1993)

. . . Plan is not subject to ERISA, this court further concludes the restriction on transfer in paragraph 15.07 . . . Paragraph 15.07 of the Pension Plan provides “[n]o Participant or Beneficiary may assign, alienate, encumber . . . , anticipate or otherwise dispose of any benefits hereunder.... ” (Trustee’s Ex. 1, at ¶ 15.07.) . . . .

AUDUBON SOCIETY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS B. F. H. H. v. DAILEY C. III,, 977 F.2d 428 (8th Cir. 1992)

. . . of a given condition is left to the judgment of the agency); see generally, Childress and Davis, § 15.07 . . . See generally, Steven Childress & Martha Davis, Federal Standards of Review § 15.07 (2d ed. 1991). . . . .

BAKER, v. LATHAM SPARROWBUSH ASSOCIATES, 808 F. Supp. 992 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . Porco, 289 F.Supp. 403, 408 (S.D.N.Y.1968); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.07 at 15-36 (2d ed.1987) . . .

BARRETT, v. UNITED STATES, 965 F.2d 1184 (1st Cir. 1992)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1992) ("If the section 2255 movant asserts a claim . . .

QUILTER, v. V. VOINOVICH,, 794 F. Supp. 695 (N.D. Ohio 1992)

. . . Franklin 8.77 961,437 152,840 15.9 2 869,126 131,016 15.07 1-1 3. . . .

M. BARNETT, Jr. v. NORFOLK DEDHAM MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 773 F. Supp. 1529 (N.D. Ga. 1991)

. . . Stevenson & Co., Inc., 629 F.2d at 370 n. 68 (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.07(3)). . . .

In J. FONNEMANN, E. M. KINNALLY, v. J. FONNEMANN E., 128 B.R. 214 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1991)

. . . Rule 15.07(b)(1) provides: (b) It shall be the responsibility of the person seeking to affect the marital . . .

OCEAN BEACH RESORT, INC. v. RODACK,, 586 So. 2d 363 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . See Fla.Admin.Code Rule 7D-15.07 (1985) (describing when the term “developer” shall include “successor . . .

LILLEY, v. BTM CORPORATION,, 759 F. Supp. 1248 (E.D. Mich. 1991)

. . . Trial .S3 Eh '-O *3 208.52 144.20 1,084.60 Xerox bo O 8.97 22.54 53.33 Telephone i — 1 O h-* 25.80 15.07 . . .

W. CAINE, Jr. M. D. v. HARDY, M. D. L., 905 F.2d 858 (5th Cir. 1990)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1989). . . .

KLINGLER v. YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U. S. A., 738 F. Supp. 898 (E.D. Pa. 1990)

. . . Gruff, Administrative Law § 15.07[3] (1988 & Supp.1990). . . .

L. RANNELS v. W. HARGROVE, 731 F. Supp. 1214 (E.D. Pa. 1990)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Procedure ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1989). . . .

FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, J. J. H. A. A., 730 F. Supp. 501 (E.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[3] (2d ed. 1989); Terukuni Kaiun Kaisha v. C.R. . . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1989). . . .

MARRA, Sr. v. BURGDORF REALTORS, INC., 726 F. Supp. 1000 (E.D. Pa. 1989)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Procedure 1J 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1989) This court would have allowed Marra to amend . . .

ROMCO, LTD. v. OUTDOOR ALUMINUM, INC. Co., 725 F. Supp. 1033 (W.D. Wis. 1989)

. . . . § 15.07(1), 15.91 (1987). . . .

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. AN AFFILIATE OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,, 718 F. Supp. 400 (D.N.J. 1989)

. . . , the Union cites paragraph 11.01 captioned RULES APPLICABLE TO LAYOFFS AND REHIRING, and paragraph 15.07 . . . In addition, paragraph 15.07 provides in part that [n]o outside driver shall be permitted to operate . . . Paragraph 15.07 LEASED OR HIRED EQUIPMENT: The Company may not lease or hire outside equipment to supplement . . .

MOYSI, v. TRUSTCORP, INC. SIEGENTHALER, v. TRUSTCORP, INC. HAND, Jr. v. TRUSTCORP, INC., 725 F. Supp. 336 (N.D. Ohio 1989)

. . . set forth above, as well as all actions filed in the Eastern Division pursuant to Rules 15.02 through 15.07 . . . Rule 15.07. United States as Defendant (Civil Actions). . . .

GOVERNMENT OF VIRGIN ISLANDS v. COMMISSIONG,, 706 F. Supp. 1172 (D.V.I. 1989)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Instructions § 15.07, at 454-55 (3d ed. 1977). . . . .

In PATEL, A. SCHAPS, v. PATEL,, 92 B.R. 314 (N.D. Ill. 1988)

. . . Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 15.07(2) at 15-38-39 (1971). . . .

FONTE v. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF CONTINENTAL TOWERS CONDOMINIUM,, 848 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1988)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2], at 15-33 to 15-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

C. TUMMINELLO, v. UNITED STATES,, 14 Cl. Ct. 693 (Cl. Ct. 1988)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[3] (2d ed. 1985); McLellan v. . . .

In HARWELL, UNION PLANTERS NATIONAL BANK, v. P. HARWELL,, 80 B.R. 901 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1987)

. . . See also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.07[2], pp. 15-34 through 35 (2nd 1987). In Zaidi v. . . .

LIQUI- BOX CORPORATION, v. REID VALVE COMPANY, INC. a, 672 F. Supp. 198 (W.D. Pa. 1987)

. . . Hall, 579 F.2d 120 (1st Cir.1978); Moore’s Federal Practice & Procedure ¶ 15.07[2]. . . .

In N. RODRIGUEZ G., 82 B.R. 74 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1987)

. . . The parties stipulated that the restrictions on alienation contained in the Plan are as follows: 15.07 . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. GAMMON GAMMON v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 646 F. Supp. 55 (E.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 15.07[2] (1985). . . .

ROSS, v. FRANZEN,, 777 F.2d 1216 (7th Cir. 1985)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice § 15.07[2]. . . .

PAHOKEE FARMS, INC. v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 20 Fla. Supp. 2d 222 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1985)

. . . Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, for a determination of whether “proposed rules” 16Q-15.01 and 16Q-15.07 . . . published in the March 1, 1985, Florida Administrative Weekly, as proposed rules 16Q-15.01 and 16Q-15.07 . . . 31, 1985. (2) Leases of state-owned lands within the EAA are presently governed by existing Rule 16Q-15.07 . . . the March 1, 1985, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly as “proposed rules” 16Q-15.01 and 16Q-15.07 . . .

ROLLINS BURDICK HUNTER OF WISCONSIN, INC. a v. E. LEMBERGER,, 105 F.R.D. 631 (E.D. Wis. 1985)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.07 [3] at 15-56—15-57 (1985) (“A conflict may often arise when . . .

S. STRAUSS, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a, 760 F.2d 765 (7th Cir. 1985)

. . . Moore, 3 Moore’s Federal Practice II 15.07[2] at 15-51 (1984). . . .

G. ZAHARAKIS, v. HECKLER,, 744 F.2d 711 (9th Cir. 1984)

. . . methodology for defining “wetlands” not a substantive rule); Mezines, Stein and Gruff, Administrative Law, § 15.07 . . .

HOLIDAY VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER, a By T. MITCHELL, v. UNITED STATES, 5 Cl. Ct. 566 (Cl. Ct. 1984)

. . . McKee, Federal Taxation of Partnership and Partners, § 15.07[2] at 15-52 (1977). . . .

SUNSTREAM JET EXPRESS, INC. a v. INTERNATIONAL AIR SERVICE CO. LTD. a, 734 F.2d 1258 (7th Cir. 1984)

. . . Wicker, Moores Federal Practice ¶¶ 15.07[3], 41.06-1 (2nd ed. 1982). . . .

CZEREMCHA, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL- CIO,, 724 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . University, 299 F.2d 368, 369-70 (4th Cir.1962); Wright & Miller, § 1483; Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07 . . . Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2]; Wright & Miller, § 1483. . . . See Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2]. . . .

STATE OF MINNESOTA, H. HUMPHREY, III, L. v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY, INDIANA, 568 F. Supp. 556 (D. Minn. 1983)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d ed. 1983). . . .

F. SCHNABEL, v. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY, AFL- CIO,, 563 F. Supp. 1030 (E.D. Pa. 1983)

. . . Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1483 (1971 & Supp.1982); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[ . . .

BARKSDALE, II, v. T. KING,, 699 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1983)

. . . course claims asserted solely against the non-answering defendants, ...” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice H 15.07 . . .

GILA RIVER PIMA- MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY, v. UNITED STATES, 2 Cl. Ct. 12 (Cl. Ct. 1982)

. . . of improvements ($1 for clearing, $3.62 for fencing, and $2.50 for water) to obtain a net price of $15.07 . . . Plaintiffs’ appraiser found a net per acre price of $15.07 by the market comparison method, and a net . . .

TRAVIS, F. v. KING, P. E. K. S. A. M. D. W. V. HAWAII COUNTY COMMITTEE, Sr. v. KING,, 552 F. Supp. 554 (D. Haw. 1982)

. . . Percent Deviation from Statewide Average Basic Island Unit 46,451 15,484 - 3.90 Hawaii CO 37,079 18,540 + 15.07 . . . Voters Per Sen. 46,451 15,484 - 3.90 Hawaii CO h-1 37,079 18,540 + 15.07 Maui

HAGEE, v. CITY OF EVANSTON,, 95 F.R.D. 344 (N.D. Ill. 1982)

. . . “frustrate the desire for certainty in the termination of litigation.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07 . . .

CUNARD LINE LIMITED, v. D. ABNEY, Co-, 540 F. Supp. 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] at 45-46. . . . .

TEXAS ENERGY RESERVE CORPORATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY W. Jr. RFB PETROLEUM, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,, 535 F. Supp. 615 (D. Del. 1982)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[3] (2d ed. 1980) (most courts follow Rule 21 rather than Rule . . .

THE FLORIDA COMPANIES v. CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS, 1 Fla. Supp. 2d 152 (Pinellas Cty. Cir. Ct. 1981)

. . . Stat. 15.07; Fla. Stat. 27.37(6); Fla. Stat. 39.12(3); Fla. Stat. 39.411; Fla. Stat. 45.241; Fla. . . .

In MORGAN,, 668 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1981)

. . . See also 1A Collier on Bankruptcy 115.05-15.07 (14th ed. 1978). . . .

In MORGAN,, 668 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1981)

. . . See also 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 15.05-15.07 (14th ed. 1978). . . .

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK,, 528 F. Supp. 1245 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . Defendants’ motions to dismiss are not considered responsive pleadings. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. POOL,, 660 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . .) §§ 15.06, 15.07. The court’s instruction cannot be stretched into an adjudication of guilt. . . .

McCRORY CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES, 651 F.2d 828 (2d Cir. 1981)

. . . Eustice, supra, 15.07, at 5-34. . . .

WILLIAMS v. WILKERSON,, 90 F.R.D. 168 (E.D. Va. 1981)

. . . Moore Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] (2d Edition 1980); C. Wright & A. . . .

SUMMIT OFFICE PARK, INC. a v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, 639 F.2d 1278 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . See generally 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2] at 15-54, ¶ 15.07[3], ¶ 15.08[5] (2 ed. 1980); 6 . . . See generally 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[3], at 15-58 (2 ed. 1980); 6 C. Wright & A. . . .

MOVE ORGANIZATION v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 89 F.R.D. 521 (E.D. Pa. 1981)

. . . Township of Bass River, 82 F.R.D. 122, 124-25 (D.N.J.1979); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2], at . . .

T. J. STEVENSON CO. INC. a v. BAGS OF FLOUR, ADM MILLING CO. INC. v. T. J. STEVENSON CO. INC. MV NEDON,, 629 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . .”); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra '' 15.07[3]. . . . .

v., 74 T.C. 1456 (T.C. 1980)

. . . Bowhay, Income Taxation of Natural Resources, par. 15.07, p. 1507 (1980). Exxon Corp. . . .

v., 74 T.C. 1481 (T.C. 1980)

. . . Bowhay, Income Taxation of Natural Resources, par. 15.07, p. 1507 (1980). . . .

In V. EDGAR H. J. ROY, v. ELLIS SARASOTA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a O. O., 617 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . But see 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2], at 15-56 (2d ed. 1979) (“The right to amend a pleading . . .

In V. EDGAR H. J. ROY, v. ELLIS SARASOTA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a O. O., 617 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . But see 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07[2], at 15-56 (2d ed. 1979) (“The right to amend a pleading . . .

E. MITCHELL, v. PENTON INDUSTRIAL PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., 486 F. Supp. 22 (N.D. Ohio 1979)

. . . and plaintiff therefore was entitled to amend as a matter of course. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice Í, 15.07 . . .

E. MANNING, v. GREENSVILLE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,, 470 F. Supp. 662 (E.D. Va. 1979)

. . . that a motion for summary judgment is not a “responsive pleading,” see 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.07 . . .

BIESENBACH, B. v. H. GUENTHER, Jr. A. T. E., 588 F.2d 400 (3d Cir. 1978)

. . . Appellants could have sought leave to amend if they had so moved, 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶15.07[2 . . .