The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 20
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 20.02

20.02 Declaration of policy.—

(1) The State Constitution contemplates the separation of powers within state government among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. The legislative branch has the broad purpose of determining policies and programs and reviewing program performance. The executive branch has the purpose of executing the programs and policies adopted by the Legislature and of making policy recommendations to the Legislature. The judicial branch has the purpose of determining the constitutional propriety of the policies and programs and of adjudicating any conflicts arising from the interpretation or application of the laws.

(2) Within constitutional limitations, the agencies that compose the executive branch must be consolidated into no more than 25 departments, exclusive of those specifically provided for or authorized in the State Constitution, consistent with executive capacity to administer effectively at all levels. The agencies in the executive branch should be integrated into one of the departments of the executive branch to achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness as intended by s. 6, Art. IV of the State Constitution.

(3) The administration of any executive branch department or entity placed under the direct supervision of an officer or board appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the Governor shall remain at all times under the constitutional executive authority of the Governor, in accordance with ss. 1(a) and 6, Art. IV of the State Constitution, and such officer or board generally remains subject to oversight, direction, and supervision by the Governor.

(4) Structural reorganization must be a continuing process through careful executive and legislative appraisal of the placement of proposed new programs and the coordination of existing programs in response to public needs.

(5) The responsibility within the executive branch of government for the implementation of programs and policies must be clearly fixed and ascertainable.

(6) Departments must be organized along functional or program lines.

(7) The management and coordination of state services must be improved and overlapping activities eliminated.

(8) When a reorganization of state government abolishes positions, the individuals affected, when otherwise qualified, must be given priority consideration for any new positions created by reorganization or for other vacant positions in state government.

History.—s. 2, ch. 69-106; s. 1, ch. 94-235; s. 4, ch. 2012-116.

F.S. 20.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 20.02 on Casetext

Amendments to 20.02

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 20.02

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 20.02.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

UNITED STATES, v. DAVIS, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (U.S. 2019)

. . . . § 20.02(c)(2)(A) (2019) ("substantial risk of serious bodily injury"). See, e.g. , Ind. . . .

IN RE AEROGROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. LLC, v. THL, 601 B.R. 571 (Bankr. Del. 2019)

. . . THL's valuation of other assets which is discussed below) as follows: 82.76% of the Sale Proceeds (or $ 20.02 . . . amount that exceeds the Sale Proceeds, so THL argues that the Sales Proceeds should be allocated $ 20.02 . . .

LEEBER REALTY LLC v. TRUSTCO BANK,, 316 F. Supp. 3d 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . . ¶ 78 (quoting Lease § 20.02(b) ).) . . . November 14, 2017, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a written notice invoking the Landlord's remedies under § 20.02 . . . (Lease § 20.02(b).) Defendant argues that this clause amounts to an unenforceable penalty. (Def.' . . .

TEXAS ADVANCED OPTOELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. F K A, 888 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 20.02 (2011). . . .

TEXAS ADVANCED OPTOELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. f k a, 895 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 20.02 (2011). . . .

GIARDIELLO, v. MARCUS, ERRICO, EMMER BROOKS, P. C., 261 F. Supp. 3d 86 (D. Mass. 2017)

. . . He purchased the Unit in 20.02, when he initially resided there with his son, Bruno Jr. Id. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MID- AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., 247 F. Supp. 3d 30 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . Accessibility Code 120-3-20.02(3). . . .

BARTON P. AFL- CIO CLC, v. CONSTELLIUM ROLLED PRODUCTS- RAVENSWOOD, LLC LLC, 851 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2017)

. . . example, the 2005 Cap Letter, by significantly reducing the employer contribution on behalf of post-20.02 . . .

PRISM TECHNOLOGIES LLC, v. SPRINT SPECTRUM L. P. PCS,, 849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 20.02[2] (2017). . . .

ROBINSON, v. V S DETROIT GALVANIZING, LLC,, 195 F. Supp. 3d 916 (E.D. Mich. 2016)

. . . B, Art. 20.02, Pg ID 113.) . . .

ROWE, v. GARY, WILLIAMS, PARENTI, WATSON GARY, P. L. L. C., 181 F. Supp. 3d 1161 (N.D. Ga. 2016)

. . . In late-November/early-December 20.02, Rowe met with Heslin in New York to discuss a $20 million settlement . . .

DiFEDERICO, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., 130 F. Supp. 3d 986 (D. Md. 2015)

. . . Paragraph 20.02.A of the franchise agreement specifies that it “does not create any ‘fiduciary relationship . . . As noted above, the franchise agreement at ¶ 20.02.A specifically negates any agency relationship: "[ . . .

PACE v. TIMMERMANN S RANCH AND SADDLE SHOP INC., 795 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2015)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02(6)(a) (3d ed. 1997 & Supp. 2007) (“Rule 18, governing . . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02(2)(a)(i) (3d ed. 1997 & Supp. 2014) ("The defendant has . . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02(2)(b)(i) (3d ed. 1997 & Supp. 2013) ("On the other hand . . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02(1)(b) (3d ed. 1997 & Supp. 2014) (footnote omitted) (citations . . .

HUGHES, v. JUDD,, 108 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Section 20.02(a) of the FMJS permits the. development and application to juveniles of a use of force . . . Sections 20.02(j) and (k) of the FMJS authorize certified correctional officers trained in the use .of . . .

IN RE, NELSON, s s v. s, 521 B.R. 733 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2014)

. . . In re Moffett, 356 F.3d 518 (4th Cir.2004); compare In re Kalter, 292 F.3d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir.20.02 . . .

IN RE J. CUPIT, v. J., 514 B.R. 42 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2014)

. . . Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 20.02 cmt. 3, at 234. . . . Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 20.02 cmt. 3, at 237-38. . . . Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 20.02 cmt. 3, at 237. 2. . . . See Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 20.02 cmt. 3, at 237. . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. MIX, 25 F. Supp. 3d 914 (E.D. La. 2014)

. . . Venske, 296 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir.20.02), where the affidavit of a private investigator alleging bailiffs . . .

SENNETT, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,, 39 F. Supp. 3d 72 (D.D.C. 2014)

. . . Norton, 309 F.3d 26, 32 (D.C.Cir.20.02) (quoting Dep’t of State v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ARMENDARIZ- PEREZ,, 543 F. App'x 876 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . Docket” carries a notation that the offense was "Burglary of a Habitation with intent to commit theft § 20.02 . . .

P. AUSIKAITIS, ON BEHALF OF MASIMO CORPORATION, v. KIANI, a, 962 F. Supp. 2d 661 (D. Del. 2013)

. . . ¶ 10, 52, 53) The stock price dropped another 10.3% on October 26, 2011, to a near-historic low of $20.02 . . . (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 54-59) This decrease in stock price from $30.06 to $20.02 per share allegedly placed the . . .

NORTH PORT FIREFIGHTERS PENSION- LOCAL OPTION PLAN, v. FUSHI COPPERWELD, INC., 929 F. Supp. 2d 740 (M.D. Tenn. 2013)

. . . At that time, Fushi’s stock price closed at $20.02 per share. . . .

In JOEY S STEAKHOUSE, LLC, s F. v. LLC, P., 474 B.R. 167 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . See also 4 Moore's Federal Practice, § 20.02 [2] [a] [iii] (stating that Rule 20 should be subject to . . .

GREENBELT VENTURES, LLC, LLC, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,, 481 F. App'x 833 (4th Cir. 2012)

. . . Citing Section 20.02 of the JDA, which prohibits WMATA from “unreasonably” withholding consent to an . . . Moreover, the fact that Section 20.02 prevents WMATA from “unreasonably” withholding consent suggests . . .

EMORY, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., 821 F. Supp. 2d 200 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . n. 21 (citing Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, sections 20.01 and 20.02 . . . misrepresentation”); see also Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia §§ 20.01, 20.02 . . .

NIXON, MJ, a v. C. GUZZETTA, M. D., 272 F.R.D. 260 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 20.02[1][b], [2][a][i] (3d ed. 2010) (Rule 20 “may be used . . .

AMERICAN LEGACY FOUNDATION, RP, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, 623 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2010)

. . . Coverage Disputes, § 20.02[h][3] (15th ed.) . . . Coverage Disputes, § 20.02[i], at 1525-26 (15th ed.) (citing cases). . . .

In T. SZOSTEK, s s T. v. Of, 433 B.R. 611 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . the 1963 version of § 151.052 provides: " ‘Every retailer shall add the sales tax imposed by Article 20.02 . . . At issue was Article 20.02(A), which provided “Method of Collection and Rate of Limited Sales Tax. . . . using the following bracket system formula on each retail sale: ...” 371 S.W.2d at 557 (quoting Art. 20.02 . . . The court held: We construe Article 20.02 as levying a two per cent limited sales tax — a transaction . . . tax to be collected in accordance with the rates enumerated in the bracket system formula of Article 20.02 . . .

L. COLLINS v. CENTER FOR SIOUXLAND,, 267 F.R.D. 255 (N.D. Iowa 2010)

. . . Joinder is proper only if both of these requirements are satisfied. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. P REZ- MEL NDEZ, v. R, 599 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2010)

. . . expert stated that the shipment was cocaine hydrochloride, 70.4 percent pure, with a net weight of 20.02 . . .

J. LEBLANC, Jr. L. v. UNITED STATES,, 90 Fed. Cl. 186 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . See Keener, 76 Fed.Cl. at 460; Willis, supra, at ¶ 20.02[4][c]. . . . of any settlement agreement [was] not converted into a nonpartnei’ship item”); Willis, supra, at ¶ 20.02 . . . Willis, supra, at ¶ 20.02[4][a][iv]. . . . .

BILTMORE ASSOCIATES, LLC, v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a a a LLC, v. a a a, 572 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . Newman, 2 Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 20.02[g], at 1384 (14th ed.2008). . . . .

BILTMORE ASSOCIATES, LLC, v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a a a LLC, v. a a a, 572 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . Newman, 2 Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 20.02[g], at 1384 (14th ed.2008). .See, e.g., Nat . . .

WESTMONT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, v. TOWNSHIP OF HADDON, W. C., 625 F. Supp. 2d 178 (D.N.J. 2009)

. . . A) — Redevelopment Plan 8 (providing that the Russell Cast property is Block 20.02, Lots 1 through 4 . . .

WELLS FARGO BANK, v. GILLELAND,, 621 F. Supp. 2d 545 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02[l][b] (3d ed. 2009). . . .

ROSADO, v. JOHNSON, 589 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . Freer, 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02[2][a][ii] (3d ed. 2005). . . .

E. CATOGAS v. CYBERONICS, INC. P. L. B. A. W., 292 F. App'x 311 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . filing of the FY06 10-K, the stock price closed at $20.97, $0.95 higher than its previous close of $20.02 . . .

In NEW CENTURY HOLDINGS, INC. a J. v. a N. A. a k a A. J. E. M., 387 B.R. 95 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008)

. . . Id. at § 20.02[A], at 747. . . . Id. at § 20.02[A], at 721. One type of deferred compensation plan is known as a top hat plan. . . . Cartano, at § 20.02[A], at 735. . . .

LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, v. FAMILY SERVICE, INC. v., 561 F. Supp. 2d 232 (D.R.I. 2008)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 19.04[1]; § 20.02[l][e]. . . . See Moore’s at § 20.02[5][a] (“If plaintiff joins parties in violation of diversity of citizenship precepts . . .

C. G. PRATI, v. UNITED STATES, 81 Fed. Cl. 422 (Fed. Cl. 2008)

. . . Postlewaite, Partnership Taxation [Hereinafter “Pennell”] ¶ 20.02[4][c] (6th ed.1999) (and eases cited . . .

LETNER, v. CITY OF OLIVER SPRINGS,, 545 F. Supp. 2d 717 (E.D. Tenn. 2008)

. . . His overtime rate of pay was $20.02 per hour. 11. . . . At Officer Letner’s overtime rate of $20.02 per hour at that time, the total owed for that period is . . .

AMEZQUITA, v. BENEFICIAL TEXAS, INC,, 264 F. App'x 379 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . that Amezquita locked Rangel in the break room—effectively accused her of violating Texas Penal Code § 20.02 . . . Penal Code Ann. § 20.02(a). . . .

GINGERICH, v. UNITED STATES,, 78 Fed. Cl. 164 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

. . . Postlewaite, Partnership Taxation ¶ 20.02[4][c] (6th ed.1999))). . . .

ROTHE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE U. S., 499 F. Supp. 2d 775 (W.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . the Appendix as part of the evidence that was before Congress when it reenacted the 1207 Program in 20.02 . . .

WOLFCHILD, v. UNITED STATES,, 77 Fed. Cl. 22 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

. . . Practice (“Moore’s") § 20.02[2][a] at 20-13; see System Fuels, Inc. v. . . . plaintiff must make a motion to amend to effect[uate] joinder” of additional plaintiffs. 4 Moore’s § 20.02 . . . if the change in structure [of the suit] would prejudice the interests of a litigant.” 4 Moore’s § 20.02 . . . Instead, in appropriate circumstances, a nonparty may seek to intervene.” 4 Moore’s § 20.02[2][c] at . . .

C. KEENER, P. D. v. UNITED STATES,, 76 Fed. Cl. 455 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

. . . See Pennell, supra, at ¶20.02[4][e]. . . .

MURPHY, v. BUTLER,, 512 F. Supp. 2d 975 (S.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . Penal Code § 20.02. . . .

In SILICON GRAPHICS, INC. v. Co., 363 B.R. 690 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Cartano, Taxation of Compensation & Benefits, § 20.02[A], at 721 (2004)(hereinafter “Car-tano”)). . . .

UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ- RAMIREZ,, 477 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 20.02 (Vernon 2003) (elevating the offense to a felony if the victim is recklessly exposed to a substantial . . .

UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO- SALVADOR,, 207 F. App'x 409 (5th Cir. 2006)

. . . . §§ 20.01 & 20.02 (Vernon 1995). . . .

In IT GROUP, INC. L. L. G. P. A. W. W. C. C. R. R. W. H. C. C. III N. C. G. R. E. M. v. IT IT II, LP, J. J. IT, 342 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2006)

. . . Id. at § 20.02[A], at 710. . . . Cartano, at § 20.02[A], at 721. . . .

In IT GROUP, INC. L. L. G. P. A. W. W. C. C. R. R. W. H. C. C. III N. C. G. R. E. M. v. IT IT II, LP, J. J. IT, 448 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2006)

. . . Id. at § 20.02[A], at 710. . . . Cartano, at § 20.02[A], at 721. . . .

UNITED STATES v. H. RIVA, III,, 440 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 20.02 (Vernon 2002). . . . On the other hand, to establish the third degree felony under Texas Penal Code § 20.02(c)(2)(A), the . . . Pen.Code Ann. § 20.02(a) (Vernon 2002). " 'Restrain' means to restrict a person's movements without consent . . . Unlike the cases Appellant cites, we are persuaded that any violation of Texas Penal Code 20.02(c)(1) . . . . § 20.02 (Vernon 2002). . . . Texas Pen.Code ANN. § 20.02 (Vernon 2002). . . .

In S. MILLER,, 335 B.R. 335 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2005)

. . . See F.R.C.P. 20; see also I Moore’s Federal Practice, Civil § 20.02(a)(i) (“The permissive party join-der . . .

CICHOWSKI v. D. HOLLENBECK S. C. M I L., 397 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (W.D. Wis. 2005)

. . . Plaintiffs contend that on several occasions during the course of the two lawsuits, beginning in 20.02 . . .

JIANG, v. R. GONZALES,, 425 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2005)

. . . See Homeland Security Act of 20.02, Pub.L. No. 107-296. . . .

MEDIA GENERAL OPERATIONS, INCORPORATED, d b a v. BUCHANAN, ABC, CBS USA WBAL- TV, WYFF- TV, WXII- TV,, 417 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2005)

. . . The United States intervened and on August 9, 20.02, moved to dismiss the petition. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ- RODRIGUEZ,, 135 F. App'x 661 (5th Cir. 2005)

. . . . §§ 20.01 & 20.02 (Vernon 1999). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BRUCE,, 396 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2005)

. . . court’s finding that the Sergeant’s testimony was “forthright and consistent;” (District Court 6/7/20.02 . . .

In SELHEIMER CO. v. P. III, P. III, v. F., 319 B.R. 384 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2005)

. . . parties, its utility is limited to plaintiffs and defendants raising counter and crossclaims. 4 Moore’s § 20.02 . . . Id. § 20.02[6][b]. It therefore is not ordered on the court’s own initiative. . . .

SMITH, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ST. LOUIS REGION,, 225 F.R.D. 233 (E.D. Mo. 2004)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02[2][a][ii] (3d ed.2004). . . . Joinder is proper only if both of these requirements are satisfied. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02 . . .

SHIELDS v. L. TWISS, 389 F.3d 142 (5th Cir. 2004)

. . . Ann. art. 20.02 (Vernon Supp.2004); In re 5 Byrd Enters., 980 S.W.2d 542, 543 (TexApp. . . . Ann. art. 20.02(d); In re 5 Byrd Enters., 980 S.W.2d at 543. . . .

R M JEWELRY, LLC, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY JEWELERS, INC., 221 F.R.D. 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 20.02 (3d ed.1999). . . . See Moore, § 20.02. . . .

PULINARIO, v. GOORD,, 291 F. Supp. 2d 154 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Ann. 20.02(4) (same); Montana Code Ann. § 45-14-206(2) (same); N.J. Stat. . . .

LINGO CORPORATION, v. TOPIX, INC. d b a El-, 218 F.R.D. 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 20.02[2][a][ii] (3d ed.2002) (“Occasionally, ... a plaintiff will fail . . .

UNITED STATES v. MENDOZA- REYES,, 331 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . Code §§ 9.41.040(1)(a), 9.41.010(12), 9A.20.02, 9A.04.040. . . .

FIELDING v. MTL INSURANCE COMPANY, 261 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E.D. La. 2003)

. . . The claim forms were submitted on October 12, 20.02. . . .

DALLAS, v. HALEY,, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (M.D. Ala. 2002)

. . . Dallas is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 17, 20.02. . . .

NAVAJO NATION, a v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION, a, 230 F. Supp. 2d 998 (D. Ariz. 2002)

. . . McConnell, 201 F.Supp.2d 618, 644 (D.S.C. 20.02). . . . .

A COLLAZO, Co- De- GAR- OMB B Mu Co- De- C De- La- A. De- D. Co- De- v. M. CALDERON In C Pe a Of In EQB EQB A Z W,, 212 F.R.D. 437 (D.P.R. 2002)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02(l)(a) (3d ed.1997). It is not self-executing, however. . . . Id., at § 20.02(2)(a)(ii). . . .

H. ADAIR v. R. ENGLAND, v. R., 217 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . percent) were liturgical Christians, 338 (or 39.58 percent) were non-liturgical Christians, and 171 (or 20.02 . . .

ANTALAN, v. DEGUSSA- HULS CORP., 202 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Ala. 2002)

. . . As defense counsel aptly put it during the May 16, 20.02 hearing: the record reads like a “greatest hit . . .

SINGH v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., 200 F. Supp. 2d 193 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02[a][ii] (3d ed. 2000) (“Occasionally ... a plaintiff will . . .

LUMMUS GLOBAL AMAZONAS, S. A. v. AGUAYTIA ENERGY DEL PERU, S. R. LTDA., 256 F. Supp. 2d 594 (S.D. Tex. 2002)

. . . LGA specifically argues that IGV taxes are consequential damages, excluded by Section 20.02 of the Agreement . . . Section 20.02 provides: Waiver of Certain Damages. . . . LGA argues that these categories of IGV taxes are consequential damages, precluded by Section 20.02. . . .

In NUCLEAR IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC. P. C. NPF X, v. P. C. N. A. H. M. D. FACC, P. C. LLP, M. D. LLC, M. M. D. c o J. Jr. A., 277 B.R. 59 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2002)

. . . Coquillette, et al., 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d, §§ 20.02[1][a], 20.05[1] (1999). . . .

SIDHU, v. ELECTO COMPANY, INC., 279 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2002)

. . . return to work upon tendering a doctor’s note, which is the subject of the current action, is found in § 20.02 . . .

AYERS, v. THE MAPLE PRESS COMPANY AFFILIATED COMPANIES,, 168 F. Supp. 2d 349 (M.D. Pa. 2001)

. . . Plan at § 20.02. . . . Plan at § 20.02. . . . Plan at § 20.02. . . . whether Defendants's communications fulfilled the requirements of the Plan itself, specifically, § 20.02 . . . procedures and plaintiff's right to review of relevant documents. (6/15/98 EOB; 29 U.S.C. § 1133; Plan at § 20.02 . . .

WENT, v. LAFARGE CORPORATION,, 136 F. Supp. 2d 741 (N.D. Ohio 2001)

. . . (CBA ¶20.02.) . . .

NEWPORT NEWS INDUSTRIAL, v. DYNAMIC TESTING, INC., 130 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Va. 2001)

. . . (reprinted in Callman, Unfair Competition Trademarks and Monopolies, § 20.02 (4ed.1984)). . . .

ABDALLAH, H. Jr. v. COCA- COLA COMPANY,, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (N.D. Ga. 2001)

. . . would receive options valued at $720 (24% of $3,000), or 36 options based on a Black-Scholes value of $20.02 . . .

CREEKMORE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, A., 116 F. Supp. 2d 767 (E.D. Tex. 2000)

. . . . § 20.02 (Vernon 1999). . . . .

SUNPOINT SECURITIES, INC. v. K. PORTA, 192 F.R.D. 716 (M.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02[1][d]. . . . See Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02[1][d]. . . . Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02[6][b]. . . . Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02[6][b]. . . . Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02[6][b]. . . .

E. REYNOLDS, v. FERGUSON, D. a, 73 F. Supp. 2d 841 (W.D. Mich. 1999)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02[2][a][ii] n. 29 (3d. ed.1998). . . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.02[1][a] n. 11-12 & accompanying text (3d. ed.1998). . . .

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. NOVOA,, 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 20.02 Fla. Stat.; Arthur J. England, Jr., and L. . . .

FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENSE BOARD v. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK, 527 U.S. 627 (U.S. 1999)

. . . Chisum, Patents §20.02[1][a], n. 9 (1998). In any event, 28 U. S. . . .

In BEEMAN,, 224 B.R. 420 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1998)

. . . During the summer of 1996, Beeman sold his home and 20.02 acres to his wife. . . .

BURK, v. WASHINGTON,, 713 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1998)

. . . the ability to take authoritative action to fulfill the charge of faithfully enforcing the laws”); § 20.02 . . .

PROCTER GAMBLE COMPANY, v. PARAGON TRADE BRANDS, INC., 989 F. Supp. 547 (D. Del. 1997)

. . . the relative contribution of the patented feature to the success of the product. 7 Chi-sum, Patents § 20.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. CASCIANO,, 124 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 1997)

. . . Sand, et al., 1 Modern Federal Jury Instructions ¶ 20.02 at 20-27 (instructing jury “as a matter of law . . .

TOWNSHIP OF CENTER, BUTLER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA E. J. v. FIRST MERCURY SYNDICATE, INC., 117 F.3d 115 (3d Cir. 1997)

. . . Newman, Handbook On Insurance Coverage Disputes § 20.02(g) at 778 (7th ed.1994). . . .

In BLACKBURN. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, AS RECEIVER OF GUARANTEE SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BLACKBURN, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, AS RECEIVER OF ATLANTIC GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BLACKBURN,, 209 B.R. 4 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . . §§ 20.02, 20.13, 624.316, 624.418, Fla.Stat. . . .

CITY OF ROME, v. A. GLANTON, v. RUTELLI,, 958 F. Supp. 1026 (E.D. Pa. 1997)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice, § 20.02(2)(b)(i) (3d ed.1997). . . . .

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, v. ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF FLORIDA, INC., 678 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1996)

. . . The legislature has set forth a policy concerning this issue as follows: 20.02 Declaration of policy. . . . of the State Constitution. (5) Departments should he organized along junctional or program lines. § 20.02 . . .

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

. . . , 302 1111 19.02 Attempt to murder IPC 307 1113 15.01, 19.02 Wrongful confinement IPC 343, 346 1201 20.02 . . . IPC 364-A 1201 20.02, 20.03, 20.04 Kidnapping or abduction with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine . . . persons IPC 365 1201 20.02, 20.03, 20.04 Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees IPC 427 . . .

LENHART, v. THOMAS,, 944 F. Supp. 525 (S.D. Tex. 1996)

. . . . § 20.02(b) (Vernon Supp.1996) provides as follows: A grand juror ... who discloses anything transpiring . . . Petitioner also argues that Article 20.02(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is by its terms . . .

FIDELITY MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK, No., 71 F.3d 1306 (7th Cir. 1995)

. . . Werner & Robert Kratovil, Real Estate Law § 20.02, p. 290 (10th ed. 1993). . . .

R. A. SCARDELLETTI, v. A. BOBO,, 897 F. Supp. 913 (D. Md. 1995)

. . . Agreement § 20.02, as amended by art. XVII (September 21, 1987). . . . .

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, v. AMOCO CHEMICALS CORPORATION,, 915 F. Supp. 1333 (D. Del. 1995)

. . . Rosen, 1992 WL 123178 (E.D.N.Y.1992); Chisum, 5 Patents § 20.02[3] at 20-159. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HODGE,, 894 F. Supp. 648 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . Sand et al., Modem Federal Jury Instmctions: Cnminal, ¶ 20.02, at 20-26.1 (1994); see also Rojas v. . . .

S. BURKA A. v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 56 F.3d 1509 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

. . . agreements contained in said Lease, including, but not limited to mortgages complying with Section 20.02 . . . Section 20.02 gave the Lessee, now Spring Valley, the right “to negotiate and obtain construction and . . . See id. § 20.02, at 29 in J.A. at 152. . . .

RHODES, v. BOB FLORENCE CONTRACTOR, INC., 890 F. Supp. 960 (D. Kan. 1995)

. . . a portion of “Medium" work (29.02% of jobs x .30% (percentage of medium jobs Rhodes can perform) = 20.02% . . .