The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 20
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 20.05

20.05 Heads of departments; powers and duties.—

(1) Each head of a department, subject to the allotment of executive power under Article IV of the State Constitution, and except as otherwise provided by law, must:

(a) Plan, direct, coordinate, and execute the powers, duties, and functions vested in that department or vested in a division, bureau, or section of that department; powers and duties assigned or transferred to a division, bureau, or section of the department must not be construed to limit this authority and this responsibility;

(b) Have authority, without being relieved of responsibility, to execute any of the powers, duties, and functions vested in the department or in any administrative unit thereof through administrative units and through assistants and deputies designated by the head of the department from time to time, unless the head of the department is explicitly required by law to perform the same without delegation;

(c) Compile annually a comprehensive program budget reporting all program and fiscal matters related to the operation of his or her department, including each program, subprogram, and activity, and other matters as required by law;

(d) Reimburse the members of advisory bodies, commissions, and boards of trustees for their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties in accordance with s. 112.061;

(e) Subject to the requirements of chapter 120, exercise existing authority to adopt rules pursuant and limited to the powers, duties, and functions transferred to the department;

(f) Exercise authority on behalf of the department to accept gifts, grants, bequests, loans, and endowments for purposes consistent with the powers, duties, and functions of the department. All such funds must be deposited in the State Treasury and appropriated by the Legislature for the purposes for which they were received by the department;

(g) If a department is under the direct supervision of a board, including a board consisting of the Governor and Cabinet, however designated, employ an executive director to serve at its pleasure; and

(h) Make recommendations concerning more effective internal structuring of the department to the Legislature. Unless otherwise required by law, such recommendations must be provided to the Legislature at least 30 days before the first day of the regular session at which they are to be considered, when practicable.

(2) The appointment of a secretary appointed by the Governor to serve as the head of a department must be confirmed by the Senate.

(3) The Governor may assign the Lieutenant Governor, without Senate confirmation, the duty of serving as the head of any one department, the head of which is a secretary appointed by the Governor, notwithstanding any qualifications for appointment as secretary of the department.

(4) Each head of a department may require any officer or employee of the department to give a bond for the faithful performance of his or her duties. The head of a department may determine the amount of the bond and must approve the bond. In determining the amount of the bond, the head of the department may consider the amount of money or property likely to be in custody of the officer or employee at any one time. The premiums for the bonds must be paid out of the funds of the department.

History.—s. 5, ch. 69-106; s. 2, ch. 74-256; s. 8, ch. 77-104; s. 4, ch. 94-235; s. 1314, ch. 95-147; s. 3, ch. 98-34; s. 6, ch. 2012-116.

F.S. 20.05 on Google Scholar

F.S. 20.05 on Casetext

Amendments to 20.05

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 20.05

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 20.05.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SHANGHAI SUNBEAUTY TRADING CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 380 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2019)

. . . See 19 C.F.R § 159.1 (defining "liquidation"); see also 1 US CUSTOMS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE GUIDE § 20.05 . . . See 1 US Customs and International Trade Guide § 20.05 (2d ed. 2019). . . .

WEISHAN HONGDA AQUATIC FOOD CO. LTD. Co. Co. Co. v. UNITED STATES,, 917 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . following surrogate financial ratios: 6.69% for manufacturing overhead, 37.05% for SG&A expenses, and 20.05% . . .

MONDIV, DIV. OF LASSONDE SPECIALTIES INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 329 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2018)

. . . Note to Heading 2004, HTSUS ("The frozen vegetables of this heading are those which fall in heading 20.05 . . .

MARSH, v. J. ALEXANDER S LLC, v. v. v. AMC v. P. F. s v. P. F. s v. P. F. s v. LLC, R. v. s LLC, s,, 869 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21, 34, 126 S.Ct. 514, 163 L.Ed.2d 288 (20.05) (“[Identical words used in different . . .

CRUZ v. ABBOTT, C. In P., 849 F.3d 594 (5th Cir. 2017)

. . . Before the 2015 amendments, the Penal Code provided, Sec. 20.05. SMUGGLING' OF PERSONS. . . . The Penal Code now provides, Sec. 20.05. SMUGGLING OF PERSONS. . . . Act of May 23, 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., ch. 223, § 2, sec. 20.05, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 799, 799. 2. . . . Act of May 28, 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., ch. 333, § 14, sec. 20.05, 2015 Tex. Gen. . . . Penal Code § 20.05). . . . .

RAYMO a H. T. R. v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 129 Fed. Cl. 691 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . Andry’s time by 20.05 hours, Ms. Cumberland’s time by 22.45 hours, and Ms. . . .

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. ARRILLAGA- TORR NS, Jr., 212 F. Supp. 3d 312 (D.P.R. 2016)

. . . Liability Insurance § 22.06[2](c) (2015); Ostrager & Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes, § 20.05 . . . , § 22.07(3)(d), p. 26-44(so noting); Ostrager & Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes, § 20.05 . . .

K. PHIPPS, v. UNITED STATES,, 126 Fed. Cl. 674 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . intended to “exercise the abandonment authority and convert the portion of the Line between Milepost 20.05 . . . BNSF proposed “to abandon its rail line located between Milepost 20.05 in Shenandoah and Milepost 26.0 . . . Certificate or Notice of Interim Trail Use rather than an outright abandonment authorization between milepost 20.05 . . .

CRUZ, v. ABBOTT, In C. In In In In P. In In, 177 F. Supp. 3d 992 (W.D. Tex. 2016)

. . . provisions, section 14 of H.B. 11 proposed a revision to the State’s human smuggling statute — section 20.05 . . . Penal Code Ann. § 20.05 (West 2015)). . . . Penal Code § 20.05. . . . Penal Code § 20.05 was contained in Section 10 of H.B. 11. (See Dkt. # 17-20 at 13.) , . . . . Penal Code §§ 20.05, 20.06, 71.02(a). . . .

BRIDGE, v. NEW HOLLAND LOGANSPORT, INC., 815 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2016)

. . . Blumberg, The Law of Corporate Groups: Substantive Law § 20.05, p. 114 (1987)). . . .

SYSTEM FUELS, INC. LLC, v. UNITED STATES,, 125 Fed. Cl. 331 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . The cask decontamination area is shallower than the cask storage area, as its floor is at EL 20.05’. . . .

GREEN, v. H. COSBY, Jr., 138 F. Supp. 3d 114 (D. Mass. 2015)

. . . either “gave” the statement to the Washington Post in 2014, or “originally published” the statement in 20.05 . . .

LAUMANN, v. NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, v., 117 F. Supp. 3d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Specifically, the average monthly price of the MLB .tv package would decrease from $20.05 to $14.50. . . .

BRENNER v. SCOTT, v., 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 20.05(l)(a). . . .

KINGDOMWARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 754 F.3d 923 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . SDVOSB Goal SDVOSB Attainment 2008 10% 14.8 7% 11.78% 2009 10% 19.98% 7% 16.96% 2010 12% 23.08% 10% 20.05% . . .

KINGDOMWARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 754 F.3d 923 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . SDVOSB Goal SDVOSB Attainment 2008 10% 14.89% 7% 11.78% 2009 10% 19.98% 7% 16.96% 2010 12% 23.08% 10% 20.05% . . .

REDNER S MARKETS, INC. v. JOPPATOWNE G. P. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,, 918 F. Supp. 2d 428 (D. Md. 2013)

. . . Section 20.05 of the Lease provides: The failure by Landlord in the performance or observation of any . . . includes the phrase “Lease Default Notice” in the subject line, “is being issued pursuant to Section 20.05 . . .

EPPS, v. POOLE,, 687 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012)

. . . Indeed, Penal Law § 20.05 states that it is not a defense to accessorial liability that the principal . . .

In CHEEKS, Sr. v., 467 B.R. 136 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2012)

. . . Cartano, Taxation of Compensation & Benefits § 20.05[D], at 731 (2004)). . . .

WHILEY, v. SCOTT,, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2011)

. . . See § 20.05(l)(a), (e), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . Section 20.05, Florida Statutes (2010), provides in pertinent part that “(1) Each head of a department . . . rules pursuant and limited to the powers, duties, and functions transferred to the department;....” § 20.05 . . .

In NEOPHARM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 705 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Ill. 2010)

. . . , the court takes judicial notice that NeoPharm stock closed at $23.30 on Thursday, January 10, at $20.05 . . .

ABC CHARTERS, INC. a a a a a a a a a a a s a v. H. BRONSON, 591 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . Section 20.05(l)(a), Florida Statutes. . . .

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 § 20.05[D], at 731. Accordingly, the Plan remains unfunded despite the use of a rabbi trust. . . .

ENRON FEDERAL SOLUTIONS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 80 Fed. Cl. 382 (Fed. Cl. 2008)

. . . Thomas ed., 1994), or a fee simple defeasible, 2 Thompson on Real Property, Second Thomas Edition § 20.05 . . .

TURNER, v. STATE, 963 So. 2d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . court erred by revoking her probation for failure to report for the months of February through June 20.05 . . .

A. FUENTES- CRUZ, v. R. GONZALES,, 489 F.3d 724 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 20.05 is a crime involving moral turpitude. . . . In April 2004 Fuentes-Cruz was arrested for unlawful transport of individuals under § 20.05, and in August . . . Assuming, ar-guendo, that such a requirement exists, we find this requirement is met in § 20.05 of the . . . Sec. 20.05 states that a person commits an unlawful transport if for pecuniary benefit he transports . . . As § 20.05 requires proof of intent to conceal from law enforcement authorities, the offense of unlawful . . .

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

. . . Id. citing Cartano at § 20.05[D], at 731; Gallione v. . . .

J. BRADLEY, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 463 F. Supp. 2d 577 (W.D. Va. 2006)

. . . diagnoses leading to the June 2005 reports may very well have occurred prior to the ALJ’s April 26, 20.05 . . .

HARGRAVE- THOMAS, v. YUKINS,, 450 F. Supp. 2d 711 (E.D. Mich. 2006)

. . . Editorial, Clemency Request: Facing an injustice, the governor tries to punt, Detroit Free Press, Aug. 1; 20.05 . . .

In REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY- RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, 933 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2006)

. . . On July 7, 20.05, the Chair, Judge Martha Warner, provided a written update to the Chief Justice regarding . . .

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 § 20.05[D], at 731. . . . Id. at § 20.05[D][3], at 735. . . .

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 § 20.05[D], at 731. . . . Id. at § 20.05[D][3], at 735. . . .

LACAVERA, v. W. DUDAS,, 441 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 11 (20.05). . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, v. CITY OF THOMASVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, 401 F. Supp. 2d 489 (M.D.N.C. 2005)

. . . registered voters has increased from 7,611 in 1987, 24.99% of whom were black, to 13,468 in January 2004, 20.05% . . .

ADAMS, Jr. v. TECK COMINCO ALASKA, INC., 232 F.R.D. 341 (D. Alaska 2005)

. . . 1998, and Red Dog Mine Quarterly Environmental Reports for Second Quarter 2002 through First Quarter 20.05 . . .

PRO EDGE L. P. d b a OVA OVA L. C. f k a OVA v. S. GUE, III, DVM,, 377 F. Supp. 2d 694 (N.D. Iowa 2005)

. . . No. 20 (“June 1, 20.05, Order”). . . .

LOCAL OF PACE INTERNATIONAL UNION M. O C. F. W. W. R. v. M. COOPER, RFS RFS U. S. RFS RFS RFS IOM RF RFS U. S. H. RFS N. A., 364 F. Supp. 2d 546 (W.D.N.C. 2005)

. . . On February 2, 20.05, the Trustee moved to disqualify the law firm of Troutman Sanders from representing . . .

UNITED STATES v. DOCK,, 293 F. Supp. 2d 704 (E.D. Tex. 2003)

. . . racketeering acts 30 and 31, the felony underlying the application of § 19.02(b)(3) is a violation of § 20.05 . . . For example, racketeering act 30 alleged that Defendants violated § 20.05 of the Texas Penal Code and . . . Pen.Code § 20.05. . . .

In NORTH STAR MANAGEMENT, LP, LLP, J. v. LLC,, 305 B.R. 312 (Bankr. D.N.D. 2003)

. . . Moreover, the Court notes that even had AEM pursued the issue, section 20.05 of the Management Agreement . . .

RAMOS, v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF PUERTO RICO, INC., 256 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D.P.R. 2003)

. . . .” § 20.05 Larson at 20-15. . . .

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). . . .

SHADLER, v. STATE, 761 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2000)

. . . Code R. 15-1.003-.006, the Department as a whole is subject to section 20.05(1), Florida Statutes (1997 . . .

LAKE CHARLES STEVEDORES, INC. v. PROFESSOR VLADIMIR POPOV MV,, 199 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . these items to the base price for the rice alone ($18.40 c.w.t.) yields an anticipated final price of $20.05 . . . The contract was amended on March 24, 1997 to provide for 4600 (rather than 5000) tons of rice at $20.05 . . .

INSOLIA Sr. a v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED R. J. U. S. A., 186 F.R.D. 547 (W.D. Wis. 1999)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 20.05[1] (3d ed.1999). . . .

PAPA, v. KATY INDUSTRIES, INC. v. GJHSRT,, 166 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 1999)

. . . veil is pierced, when it is pierced, not because the corporate group is integrated, Blumberg, supra, § 20.05 . . .

In PAPPAS, J. O NEIL, Jr. v. M. ROBINSON, T. C., 214 B.R. 84 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice 1 20.05[2] (1997). . . .

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, v. PARRISH MANAGEMENT, INC., 682 So. 2d 159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . comparable to stamping a filing date on a complaint, and therefore, is not delegable under section 20.05 . . .

UNITED DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 88 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

. . . In that case, the existing schedule included a “forward-haul rate” of approximately 20.05 cents per Mcf . . . both the forward-haul and backhaul rates, making them equal to one another at a level above the former 20.05 . . .

J. v., 101 T.C. 412 (T.C. 1993)

. . . and Mitchell’s analysis, are almost 99 percent of the total, this is the equivalent of applying one 20.05 . . .

WESTERN RESOURCES, INC. v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, USA PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, USA, 9 F.3d 1568 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

. . . service was based on Panhandle’s system unit cost per 100 miles, which worked out to approximately 20.05 . . .

In J. WALDVOGEL d b a, 125 B.R. 13 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1991)

. . . Sulmayer, Rush, Lynn, Rochell & Mottern, Collier Handbook for Trustees and Debtors in Possession § 20.05 . . .

ROCHESTER, L. v. UNITED STATES, 18 Cl. Ct. 379 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . Skow claims to have spent 24.05 hours on the compensation action, but can only document 20.05 hours. . . .

MOKONE, v. KELLY,, 680 F. Supp. 679 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . independent (Tr. 4066-68), which, as Magistrate Francis found, is consistent with New York Penal Law § 20.05 . . .

R. LIBERTA, v. R. KELLY,, 839 F.2d 77 (2d Cir. 1988)

. . . Penal Law §§ 20.00, 20.05(3), 130.35; see, e.g., People v. . . .

F. BULCHIS, v. CITY OF EDMONDS,, 671 F. Supp. 1270 (W.D. Wash. 1987)

. . . would be an aesthetic blight upon the neighborhood,” thus violating review criteria in ECDC Chapter 20.05 . . . Then the council “finds that the conditional use permit provisions of Chapter 20.05 properly balance . . .

ISLA PETROLEUM CORPORATION De v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS PHILLIPS PUERTO RICO CORE, INC. v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, TEXACO PUERTO RICO, INC. v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, H Mr. CIA. PETROLERA CARIBE, INC. v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, SHELL COMPANY PUERTO RICO LIMITED v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, ESSO STANDARD OIL CO. P. R. v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, CARIBBEAN GULF REFINING CORPORATION, v. ORTIZ ALVAREZ, TENOCO OIL CO. INC. De El v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, 640 F. Supp. 474 (D.P.R. 1986)

. . . auditors certified that ESSO’s gross profit margin for the three months ended March 31, 1986 amounted to 20.05 . . .

In ZAHNISER, No. XXX- XX- XXXX No. XXX- XX- XXXX, 58 B.R. 530 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1986)

. . . disclosure statement lists the delinquent amount due Harris to be $32,053.88 plus interest accruing at $20.05 . . .

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 20.05(5), Florida Statutes. . . . Section 20.05(l)(b), Florida Statutes. . . .

FOLK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 2 Cl. Ct. 681 (Cl. Ct. 1983)

. . . pounds (the weight per foot of the piles) times 24 pieces, dividing by 100, multiplying the quotient by $20.05 . . .

BUFFALO FORGE COMPANY, II v. OGDEN CORPORATION, R. J. W. W. H. S., 555 F. Supp. 892 (W.D.N.Y. 1983)

. . . $26 valuation was an amount in excess of the book value of Buffalo Forge’s common stock (which was $20.05 . . .

W. BAIRD, v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, 535 F. Supp. 1371 (D. Kan. 1982)

. . . consistently adhered to the ‘phantom party’ concept suggested in PATTERN INSTRUCTIONS FOR KANSAS 2d § 20.05 . . .

KIZAR v. WITTENBERG,, 398 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . She also contends that section 20.05, Florida Statutes (1979), gives her, as Secretary of the Department . . . In Starchk, this court said: Section 20.05, Florida Statutes (1979), provides that each head of a department . . .

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION v. J. HALL, Jr. A. T., 398 So. 2d 978 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . a Secretary with powers ostensibly not unlike the broad powers of other department heads, Sections 20.05 . . .

STARCHK, v. WITTENBERG,, 392 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Section 20.05, Florida Statutes (1979), provides that each head of a department of the executive branch . . .

K. WONG, v. D. CALVIN,, 87 F.R.D. 145 (N.D. Fla. 1980)

. . . See, §§ 20.05(1) and 20.24(2)(c) 1, Fla.Stat. (1977); 15 F.A.C. §§ 1.01(3) and 15-1.05(5). . . .

G. HARVEY v. L. SEEVERS, 626 F.2d 27 (7th Cir. 1980)

. . . Davis, 3 Treatise on Administrative Law, § 20.05 at 86. L. . . .

FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INC. a C. M. D. M. D. M. D. O. M. D. E. M. D. H. M. D. B. M. D. J. Jr. M. D. H. M. D. E. v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION WELFARE, R. a a, 479 F. Supp. 1291 (M.D. Fla. 1979)

. . . O’Reilly, Federal Information Disclosure, § 20.05 (1977). . . .

SUNKIST GROWERS, INC. a v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, A., 464 F. Supp. 302 (C.D. Cal. 1979)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.05 (1958 ed.), discussing Isbrandtsen v. . . .

A. W. LEE, Jr. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 366 So. 2d 116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . “Specific Authority 20.05(5), 120.53(1), 334.-02(6) F.S. . . .

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT v. VILLAGE OF ELM GROVE, 462 F. Supp. 820 (E.D. Wis. 1978)

. . . Section 20.05 requires that the police department and the village clerk investigate all applicants. . . .

STUEVE v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTORS COMPANY, INC. L. T. D., 457 F. Supp. 740 (D. Kan. 1978)

. . . consistently adhered to the “phantom party” concept suggested in PATTERN INSTRUCTIONS FOR KANSAS 2d § 20.05 . . .

BRANIFF AIRWAYS, INC. a v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, CONTINENTAL AIR LINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, ALLEGHENY AIRLINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, OZARK AIR LINES, INC. a v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD,, 581 F.2d 846 (D.C. Cir. 1978)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.05, at 84-85 (1958). . . . .

SHEFFIELD, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, 356 So. 2d 353 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . .-24(1)), who have employed an executive director to serve at its pleasure as provided by § 20.05(7). . . . Specifically, Section 20.05(l)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that each head of a department shall: “ . . . Pursuant to Section 20.05(l)(b), Florida Statutes, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the head of the . . .

NAGUNST, A. v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a J. Jr. B., 76 F.R.D. 631 (D. Kan. 1977)

. . . Committee’s Comment to P.I.K. 20.05 (1975 Supp.) and 3 Vernon’s Kansas Statutes Annotated § 60-258b, . . .

G. GREENWOOD, a v. McDONOUGH POWER EQUIPMENT, INC., 437 F. Supp. 707 (D. Ark. 1977)

. . . Committee’s Comment to P.I.K. 20.05 (1975 Supp.) clearly envisions such a practice: A party to the action . . .

BALDINI v. LOCAL UNION NO. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, E. J. d b a, 435 F. Supp. 264 (N.D. Ind. 1977)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.05 (1958 Supp. 1970).” . . .

O. McDONALD, Jr. v. DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE,, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . .-12, 20.05(5), Fla.Admin.Code Rule 3C-10. . . .

KAWASAKI OF TAMPA, INC. v. D. CALVIN,, 348 So. 2d 897 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Respondents contend that § 20.05, Florida Statutes (1975), grants to the Department authority to adopt . . . such a rule transferring its authority to the director. § 20.05, Florida Statutes (1975), provides in . . .

BEACH, v. M N MODERN HYDRAULIC PRESS CO. MONROE CITY TOOL AND DIE CO. v. MONROE CITY TOOL AND DIE CO., 428 F. Supp. 956 (D. Kan. 1977)

. . . We note also Pattern Instructions for Kansas 20.05 which contemplates directing the jury to attribute . . .

ST. JOSEPH TELEPHONE TELEGRAPH CO., 45 Fla. Supp. 57 (Fla. P.S.C. 1977)

. . . Tyndall Air Force Base local exchange rates for R-l and B-l should be at a level of $8.35 and $20.05, . . .

HERCULES INCORPORATED v. DYNAMIC EXPORT CORPORATION, H., 71 F.R.D. 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 20.05 at 2772-73 (2d ed. 1974). . . .

J. FLEMING, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a, 416 F. Supp. 1258 (E.D. Mich. 1975)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.05 (1958, Supp.1970). . . .

M. RAY, v. UNITED STATES K., 402 F. Supp. 40 (D.S.C. 1975)

. . . thereafter allegedly refused to cancel the note and mortage claiming that there was an additional amount of $20.05 . . . Fifty percent of $17,652.12 is $8,826.06 and 50% of $17,-852.17 (with the $20.05 added) is $8,836.08. . . .

I. v. v., 64 T.C. 927 (T.C. 1975)

. . . Lappin_ 391 423 20.05 21.69 Marion Lappin_ 351 383 18.00 19.64 Trust for the benefit of decedent’s grandchildren . . .

McCULLEY FORD, INC. a v. D. CALVIN,, 308 So. 2d 189 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . F.S. 20.24) The heads of the various departments of government are granted powers and duties by F.S. 20.05 . . .

WILLIAM F. KLINGENSMITH, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 505 F.2d 1257 (Ct. Cl. 1974)

. . . PENETRATION MACADAM” respectively, in turn referred, with respect to the materials requirements, to Article 20.05 . . . Specifications articles specifically referred to in the criticized Paragraph 2, and that Article did (in Section 20.05 . . .

WILLIAM F. KLINGENSMITH, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 205 Ct. Cl. 651 (Ct. Cl. 1974)

MAXWELL v. HIXSON,, 383 F. Supp. 320 (E.D. Tenn. 1974)

. . . Maxwell, with a result that $20.05 was paid into court by her employer upon the garnishment. . . .

In DEARBORN MARINE SERVICE, INC. OIL SCREW CARRYBACK. ARMSTRONG, III, v. CHAMBERS KENNEDY M. LOVE,, 499 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . Harper & James, Law of Torts § 20.05, at 1147 (1956), quoting Pollock, Liability for Consequences, 38 . . . 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 993, 91 S.Ct. 461, 27 L.Ed.2d 441 (1971); Harper & James, Law of Torts § 20.05 . . .

BROOKINS, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, DODGE MAIN DIVISION a, 381 F. Supp. 563 (E.D. Mich. 1974)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.05 (1958, Supp.1970). . . .

ECOLOGY ACTION v. UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,, 492 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1974)

. . . This seems to be the thrust of the discussion in Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.05 (1958 and . . .

WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. a v. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 281 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1973)

. . . (emphasis supplied) Subsection (1) of Section 20.05, Florida Statutes, specifically provides that: “Each . . .

v., 60 T.C. 569 (T.C. 1973)

. . . 1966. 26.00 27.48 19.50 20.13 11.26 11,31 1967.. 26.00 27.12 19.60 20.13 11.26 11.74 1968. 25.60 24.87 20.05 . . . 22.25 11.26 11.74 1969. 26.60 26.13 20.05 22.00 11.26 11.74 Fur lined Knit lined Patch palm • Fur linings . . .

BROWN, ALCANTAR BROWN, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 348 F. Supp. 723 (Cust. Ct. 1972)

. . . Labor 1.12 1.18 1.02 Artist & Composer Royalty Cost 13.92 ’3.75 13.89 Total Materials and Fabrication 20.05 . . .

M. MURRAY v. L. KUNZIG,, 462 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise pt. 3, § 20.05 at 90-91 (1958). . . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise pt. 3, § 20.05, at 90-91 n. 46 (1958). . . .

STATE L. SHEVIN, v. YARBOROUGH,, 257 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1972)

. . . . § 20.05(6), F.S.A., to accept gifts, etc., for the purpose of completing his investigation. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CONSOLIDATED MINES SMELTING CO. LTD. UNITED STATES v. CONSOLIDATED MINES SMELTING CO. LTD., 455 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1971)

. . . See generally 3 Davis, supra, at § 20.05. . . .

MAREMONT CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, M., 431 F.2d 124 (7th Cir. 1970)

. . . Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action, 441 (1965); Davis, 3 Administrative Law Treatise, § 20.05 . . . Davis, 3 Treatise on Administrative Law, § 20.05 at 86 (1958). . . .

BISCAYNE KENNEL CLUB, INC. a v. BOARD OF BUSINESS REGULATION, 239 So. 2d 53 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . . § 20.05(1), F.S.A.). . . .

UNITED STATES v. C. ALEXANDER,, 415 F.2d 1352 (7th Cir. 1969)

. . . Jannsen, 339 F.2d 916, 918 (7th Cir. 1965), and resembles Mathes instruction 20.05 (27 F.R.D. 39, 148 . . .