The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 20
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 20.06

20.06 Method of reorganization.—The executive branch of state government shall be reorganized by transferring the specified agencies, programs, and functions to other specified departments, commissions, or offices. Such a transfer does not affect the validity of any judicial or administrative proceeding pending on the day of the transfer, and any agency or department to which are transferred the powers, duties, and functions relating to the pending proceeding must be substituted as a party in interest for the proceeding. The transfers provided herein are intended to supplement but not supplant the requirements of s. 6, Art. III of the State Constitution. The definitions provided in s. 20.03 apply to this section, and the types of transfers are defined as follows:

(1) TYPE ONE TRANSFER.—A type one transfer is the transferring intact of an existing agency or department so that the agency or department becomes a unit of another agency or a department. Any agency or department transferred to another agency or department by a type one transfer will exercise its powers, duties, and functions as prescribed by law, subject to review and approval by, and under the direct supervision of, the head of the agency or department to which the transfer is made, unless otherwise provided by law. Any agency or department transferred by a type one transfer has all its statutory powers, duties, and functions, and its records, personnel, property, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, or other funds transferred to the agency or department to which it is transferred. The transfer of segregated funds must be made in such manner that the relation between program and revenue source as provided by law is retained. Unless otherwise provided by law, the administrative rules of any agency or department involved in the transfer which are in effect immediately before the transfer remain in effect until specifically changed in the manner provided by law.

(2) TYPE TWO TRANSFER.—A type two transfer is the merging into another agency or department of an existing agency or department or a program, activity, or function thereof or, if certain identifiable units or subunits, programs, activities, or functions are removed from the existing agency or department, or are abolished, it is the merging into an agency or department of the existing agency or department with the certain identifiable units or subunits, programs, activities, or functions removed therefrom or abolished.

(a) Any agency or department or a program, activity, or function thereof transferred by a type two transfer has all its statutory powers, duties, and functions, and its records, personnel, property, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, or other funds, except those transferred elsewhere or abolished, transferred to the agency or department to which it is transferred, unless otherwise provided by law. The transfer of segregated funds must be made in such a manner that the relation between program and revenue source as provided by law is retained.

(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the head of the agency or department to which an existing agency or department or a program, activity, or function thereof is transferred is authorized to establish units or subunits to which the agency or department is assigned, and to assign administrative authority for identifiable programs, activities, or functions, to the extent authorized in this chapter.

(c) Unless otherwise provided by law, the administrative rules of any agency or department involved in the transfer which are in effect immediately before the transfer remain in effect until specifically changed in the manner provided by law.

History.—s. 6, ch. 69-106; s. 1, ch. 79-36; s. 12, ch. 94-235.

F.S. 20.06 on Google Scholar

F.S. 20.06 on Casetext

Amendments to 20.06

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 20.06

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 20.06.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

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

. . . Penal Code § 20.06) (“A person commits an offense if, during a period that is 10 or more days in duration . . .

ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS, v. ALABAMA, v., 231 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (M.D. Ala. 2017)

. . . All three districts were severely underpopulated in 2010 — by 17.64, 20.06, and 21.37 percentage points . . .

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

. . . each owned property adjoining the railroad corridor on which the railroad operated between milepost 20.06 . . .

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

. . . Penal Code § 20.06. . . . Penal Code §§ 20.05, 20.06, 71.02(a). . . .

HEBEI JIHENG CHEMICALS CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 161 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2016)

. . . isocyanurates ... in the [PRC],” and that Jiheng’s total estimated countervailable subsidy rate was 20.06 . . .

M. D. v. ABBOTT,, 152 F. Supp. 3d 684 (S.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . In May 20.06, both children were placed in a therapeutic foster home. Id. at DFPS # 3449. . . .

MOSSER, v. DENBURY RESOURCES, INC. LLC,, 112 F. Supp. 3d 906 (D.N.D. 2015)

. . . Martin, The Law of Pooling and Unitization, § 20.06 (3d ed. LexisNexis Matthew Bender 2014). . . .

I. GOLDBERG, P. A. v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., 143 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Coverage Disputes, § 20.06], at 1615-161 (16th ed.) (collecting cases). . . .

TOTO, INC. v. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT,, 60 F. Supp. 3d 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . . ¶ 20.06), contractual interpretation at summary judgment takes place in two stages. . . .

FISHER v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., 49 F. Supp. 3d 637 (D.N.D. 2014)

. . . Kramer & Martin, The Law of Pooling and Unitization, § 20.06[1]. . . . Kramer & Martin, supra, at § 20.06[1]. . . .

ENTER GRB, LLC, v. STULL RANCHES, LLC,, 763 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2014)

. . . Martin, The Law of Pooling and Unitization § 20.06[1] (3d ed.2013). . . .

E. SHAUNFIELD, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., 991 F. Supp. 2d 786 (N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Bus. & Comm.Code § 20.06(d), (e) Section 20.06 of the Tex. Bus. & Comm. . . . Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 20.06(a) (West 2003); Gore v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. . . . Code Ann. § 20.06(d). . . . Id. § 20.06(e). . . . Bus. & Comm.Code § 20.06(d), (e) 1. . . .

WATERS, v. LOCKETT,, 956 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . Randolph were convicted of most counts of the indictment, and petitioner was sentenced, on December 20, 20.06 . . .

v., 140 T.C. 294 (T.C. 2013)

. . . outdoor storage 11 Feb. 00 2,711,500 8.00 348.480 7.78 S88 Industrial development 12 June 04 2,140,000 20.06 . . .

CPS MEDMANAGEMENT LLC f k a LLC, v. BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, L. P. CPS LLC, v., 940 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D.N.J. 2013)

. . . About six months into the Agreement term, on October 27, 20.06, the parties entered into Amendment No . . .

GRAHAM, v. HARIDOPOLOS,, 108 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2013)

. . . and existing contracts of the Board of Regents are transferred by a type two transfer, pursuant to s. 20.06 . . .

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

. . . This section must be read together with section 20.06, which reads: “Upon the occurrence and continuation . . .

R. BROWN, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 81 So. 3d 646 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 20.06, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

In IMPERIAL BEVERAGE GROUP, LLC,, 457 B.R. 490 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . day of the next following month.” 1 Collier Guide to Chapter 11: Key Topics and Selected Industries ¶ 20.06 . . . and necessary expense of preserving the debt- or’s estate. 1 Collier Guide to Chapter 11, supra, ¶ 20.06 . . .

TERRY, d b a v. UNITED STATES,, 96 Fed. Cl. 156 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

. . . fees that were “too high compared to the Region and Conus fee averages,” which were 18.14 percent and 20.06 . . .

TERRY, d b a v. UNITED STATES,, 96 Fed. Cl. 131 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

. . . fees that were “too high compared to the Region and Conus fee averages,” which were 18.14 percent and 20.06 . . .

UNITED STATES v. WILSON,, 605 F.3d 985 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

. . . May 2, 20.06 AM Trial Tr. at 18-19 (Michael Abney). . . .

PENGILLY MASONRY, INC. v. ASPEN INSURANCE UK LIMITED,, 674 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . The Policy Between February 28, 20.06 and February 28, 2007, Aspen insured Pengilly under a general liability . . .

V FERRER, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN S ASSOCIATION ILA AFL- CIO,, 671 F. Supp. 2d 276 (D.P.R. 2009)

. . . It included a $20.06 interest assessment. 24. . . .

GREER, v. HONDA MANUFACTURING OF ALABAMA, LLC,, 280 F. App'x 808 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . HMA Equipment Service Associates currently have a starting hourly rate of $20.06 and overtime is paid . . .

TROPLAND, LLC v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY,, 553 F. Supp. 2d 669 (E.D. La. 2008)

. . . the increased square footage and correct building construction “would have revealed a deviation of -20.06% . . . Theisman ran an ITV using the correct data, it yielded a deviation of -20.06%, which the Court notes . . .

E. EWBANK, v. CHOICEPOINT INC. v., 551 F. Supp. 2d 563 (N.D. Tex. 2008)

. . . . & Com.Code § 20.06 Ewbank has also alleged a vague claim under Tex. Bus. & Com.Code § 20.06. . . . Bus. & Com.Code § 20.06(a). . . . Id. at § 20.06(d). . . .

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

. . . Pennell, supra, at H 20.06[2]. . . .

OSHER, v. JNI CORPORATION,, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (S.D. Cal. 2004)

. . . revenues and lowered its projections for fiscal year 2001, causing JNI’s stock price to drop further to $20.06 . . .

OSHER, v. JNI CORPORATION,, 302 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (S.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . revenues and lowered its projections for fiscal year 2001, causing JNI’s stock price to drop further to $20.06 . . .

In A. KREGER, LLC, v. A. J., 296 B.R. 202 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2003)

. . . The real estate is also listed on the Debtor’s Schedule A as Parcel 33 and is a portion of the 20.06 . . .

OSHER, v. JNI CORPORATION,, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (S.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . revenues and lowered its projections for fiscal year 2001, causing JNI’s stock price to drop further to $20.06 . . .

BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, v. PROFESSIONAL THERAPY SERVICES, INC. d b a, 873 F. Supp. 1280 (W.D. Ark. 1995)

. . . Coliman at § 20.06. . . .

In M. PRUDHOMME, 152 B.R. 81 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1992)

. . . In order to appear before this Court, they were required to comply with Uniform District Court Rule 20.06 . . .

P. BROWN W. v. UNITED STATES, 976 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir. 1992)

. . . parties to pursue such alternative and inconsistent claims. 2A & 3A Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 8.32, 20.06 . . .

W. COOPER, v. TEXACO, INC. L. In L. STRAUSS,, 961 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1992)

. . . Local Rule 20.06 provides that visiting attorneys may participate in Eastern District cases if certain . . .

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL BANK,, 926 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1991)

. . . Callman, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies § 20.06, at 27, § 20.61, at 498 (4th . . .

U. S. CONCORD, INC. v. HARRIS GRAPHICS CORPORATION,, 757 F. Supp. 1053 (N.D. Cal. 1991)

. . . Lindahl, Modern Tort Law: Liability & Litigation § 20.06 (Rev. ed. 1990). . . .

In BELL BECKWITH, A. McGRAW, v. R. BETZ, Jr., 112 B.R. 858 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1990)

. . . Cavitch, Business Organizations § 20.06[2] at 20-43 (1989); 68 C.J.S. Partnership § 13 at 423. . . . Cavitch, Business Organizations § 20.06[2] at 20-43 (1989); 1 R. . . . Cavitch, Business Organizations § 20.06[2] at 20-43 (1989). . . .

In MELBOURNE, a k a MILBOURNE, a k a v. MID- PENN CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY,, 108 B.R. 522 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1989)

. . . payments Total to be Paid 8/16/84 $1024.58 13.22(L) + 37.72(D) 24 $ 292.48 23.76 24 $1392 11/29/84 549.78 20.06 . . . Disability Insurance Charge Disability Insurance Rebate 8/16/84 $ 13.22 $ 10.18 $ 37.22 $ 29.04 11/29/84 20.06 . . .

L. TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES,, 18 Cl. Ct. 713 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . IRS sent plaintiff the excess $20.06 as a cash refund. . . .

INTERNATIONAL KENNEL CLUB OF CHICAGO, INC. v. MIGHTY STAR, INC. a DCN, 846 F.2d 1079 (7th Cir. 1988)

. . . Cf. 3A Callman Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 20.06 (4th ed. 1983) (“When equitable . . .

WHELEN ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. v. TOMAR ELECTRONICS, INC., 672 F. Supp. 659 (D. Conn. 1987)

. . . Callman, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies, Section 20.06 (4th ed. 1983). . . . .

CHASE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, v. CHASE MANHATTAN FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., 681 F. Supp. 771 (S.D. Fla. 1987)

. . . of actual confusion is greater when the products involved are low value items. 3A Callman, supra, § 20.06 . . .

J. RANA, v. UNITED STATES W., 812 F.2d 887 (4th Cir. 1987)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Text § 20.06, at 391 (1972), and properly so. . . .

H. MANKO, v. UNITED STATES, 636 F. Supp. 1419 (W.D. Mo. 1986)

. . . Pension Contribution Year Computation of Earnings Earnings 1983 9.45% x 218 $20.60 1984 9.2% x 218 20.06 . . .

BEER NUTS, INC. v. CLOVER CLUB FOODS COMPANY,, 605 F. Supp. 855 (D. Utah 1985)

. . . Callmann, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks, and Monopolies § 20.06 (1983). . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 23.37 21.91 24.40 15.90 13.74 28.51 12.42 31.14 23.59 21.88 24.08 18.39 20.39 17.51 34.59 18.77 18.01 20.06 . . .

M. TUVESON, v. FLORIDA GOVERNOR S COUNCIL ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, INC. a, 734 F.2d 730 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 20.06(4). . . .

PETROU FISHERIES, INC. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 727 F.2d 542 (5th Cir. 1984)

. . . the shippers were rebilled at what is termed the column commodity rate for fish-meal, approximately $20.06 . . .

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. A. DITMORE, M. D. P. C. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. A. DITMORE, M. D., 729 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1984)

. . . See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 19.02 at 19-36 to 42, and ¶ 20.06 at 20-36 to 43. . . .

TRUSTEES OF MASONIC HALL AND ASYLUM FUND, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AFL- CIO,, 699 F.2d 626 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958). . . .

INTERCON RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, LTD. v. DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., 696 F.2d 53 (7th Cir. 1982)

. . . Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1655, at 280 (1972); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice H 20.06 . . .

I. ETELSON, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,, 684 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06, at 92-94 (1958); Fuchs, supra note 7, at 870. . . .

MYRON, Co- d b a Co. v. Dr. A. CHICOINE Dr. A. CHICOINE, v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,, 678 F.2d 727 (7th Cir. 1982)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958); Fuchs, Prerequisites to Judicial Review of Administrative . . .

M. WOODSON, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 656 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958, 1976 Supp. & 1980 Supp.) & cases cited therein. . . .

HUDSON, v. FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION,, 654 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . Blount, 461 F.2d 1133 (5th Cir. 1972); see Davis, supra, at § 20.06. Thus, whatever relief Mr. . . .

UNITED STATES v. YONKERS BOARD OF EDUCATION, 518 F. Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . City of Philadelphia, 454 F.Supp. 652, 661 (E.D.Pa.1978); 3A Moore's Federal Practice § 20.06 at 20—46 . . .

D. LEWIS, v. REAGAN,, 516 F. Supp. 548 (D.D.C. 1981)

. . . A check from the well operator shows a deduction of $6.17 for WPT from a gross royalty payment of $20.06 . . .

BRICKER v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 514 F. Supp. 1236 (S.D. Tex. 1981)

. . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 20; 7 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1657 (1972); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 20.06 . . .

DUNCANSON- HARRELSON COMPANY v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, S., 644 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1981)

. . . See also 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 20.06 at 91-97 (1958). . . .

NEW ORLEANS LOWER COAST RAILROAD CO. v. INTERNATIONAL PROTEINS CORPORATION, INTERNATIONAL PROTEINS CORP. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,, 514 F. Supp. 46 (E.D. La. 1981)

. . . This rate amounted to $19.57 per net ton plus a 2.5% surcharge, a total of approximately $20.06 per net . . .

In DUNCAN, DUNCAN, v. FIRST HERITAGE BANK OF LOUDON COUNTY,, 10 B.R. 13 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1980)

. . . giving in exchange a promissory note in the amount of $240.72, payable in monthly installments of $20.06 . . .

GONZALEZ, v. P. LEONARD, F. Jr. U. S. U. S., 497 F. Supp. 1058 (D. Conn. 1980)

. . . generally views requests to join additional defendants with favor, see 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 20.06 . . .

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, v. NORTH AMERICAN COAL CORP. M., 626 F.2d 1137 (3d Cir. 1980)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, §§ 20.06 (1958 and 1976 Supp.). . . .

SEACOAST ANTI- POLLUTION LEAGUE v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, 598 F.2d 1221 (1st Cir. 1979)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958; 1970 Supp.). . . . .

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

. . . Similarly, § 20.06(a) allows the village board to refuse a license to an applicant if in the board’s . . .

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

. . . P.I.K.2d § 20.06 is also a formulation of this distinction: In making the apportionment of percentage . . .

Dr. M. NAYAK, Se, N. v. R. VANCE, D., 463 F. Supp. 244 (D.S.C. 1978)

. . . Aragon, 329 U.S. 143,155, 67 S.Ct. 245, 91 L.Ed. 136 (1946); 3 Davis Administrative Law Treatise, sec. 20.06 . . .

AMERICAN ELECTRIC CONTRACTING CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES, 579 F.2d 602 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958; 1970 Supp.). . . .

AMERICAN ELECTRIC CONTRACTING CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 217 Ct. Cl. 338 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958, 1970 Supp.). . . .

BANGOR AND AROOSTOOK RAILROAD COMPANY, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, MAINE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES W. MESERVE H. v. UNITED STATES, 574 F.2d 1096 (1st Cir. 1978)

. . . United States, 387 F.2d 502, 504-06 (1st Cir. 1967); Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958 . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES v. FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION, 342 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1977)

. . . A type one transfer is defined by Section 20.06, subsection (1), Florida Statutes, as follows: “(1) Type . . . Section 20.06, subsection (1), Florida Statutes, authorizes the transferee department to review the exercise . . . Article IV, Section 9, Florida Constitution; Section 20.06(1), Florida Statutes (1976). . . .

J. H. WILLIAMS, v. E. HOWARD, 329 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1976)

. . . duties and functions, as provided by law, are hereby transferred by a type four transfer pursuant to s. 20.06 . . .

SCHELL, v. L. WAINWRIGHT,, 322 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1975)

. . . its quasi-judieial duties and fuñe-tions, as provided by law, by a type four transfer pursuant to s. 20.06 . . .

ARKANSAS POWER LIGHT COMPANY, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,, 517 F.2d 1223 (D.C. Cir. 1975)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958). . . .

LAKE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION v. UNITED STATES, 399 F. Supp. 386 (N.D. Ohio 1975)

. . . Dávis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958). This rule, however, is not inflexible. . . .

OAK TREE FARM DAIRY, INC. v. L. BUTZ,, 390 F. Supp. 852 (E.D.N.Y. 1975)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Text § 20.06 (3d ed. 1972). . . .

WASHINGTON UTILITIES TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Co. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 513 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir. 1975)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06, at 92 (1958). See also McKart v. . . .

P. REED v. W. MESERVE W., 487 F.2d 646 (1st Cir. 1973)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958; Supp.1970). . . .

C. DANIEL, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 259 So. 2d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . new Department of Transportation, the defendant in the case at bar, under the provisions of Sections 20.06 . . .

CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES, 453 F.2d 759 (Ct. Cl. 1972)

. . . In his authoritative treatise on Administrative Law, Vol. 3, sec. 20.06, Professor Davis has not dealt . . . Aragon, 329 U.S. 143, 67 S.Ct. 245, 91 L.Ed. 136 (1946)]. 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 . . .

CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 197 Ct. Cl. 72 (Ct. Cl. 1972)

. . . In bis authoritative treatise on Administrative 1/aw, Yol. 3, sec. 20.06, Professor Davis bas not dealt . . . Aragon, 329 U.S. 143 (1946)]. 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958). . . .

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 § 20.06. . . . See, Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958). . . .

O. DICKINSON, Jr. v. B. STONE,, 251 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1971)

. . . . § 20.06(3), F.S.A.), the Division of Electronic Data Processing established by Chapter 23, Part II, . . .

UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ- PARRA,, 438 F.2d 694 (5th Cir. 1971)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958) ; Note, Judicial Review of Final Deportation Orders . . .

STATE A. PETTIGREW v. R. KIRK, 243 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1970)

. . . A reading of F.S. section 20.06(3), F.S.A., discloses the Department of Business Regulations has such . . .

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

. . . . § 20.06(1), F.S.A. wherein it is provided that such agency shall henceforth “exercise its powers, duties . . .

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. UNION CARBIDE CARIBE INC., 423 F.2d 231 (1st Cir. 1970)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958). . . .

S. COTHERMAN, F. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,, 417 F.2d 587 (5th Cir. 1969)

. . . United States, 1 Cir. 1967, 387 F.2d 502, 504-505; Davis, Administrative Law § 20.06 (1958); cf. . . .

BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF TAYLOR COUNTY, FLORIDA, v. H. FINCH,, 414 F.2d 1068 (5th Cir. 1969)

. . . See 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, Section 20.06 (1958 ed), p. 96: “The problem of the Tucker . . .

NEW YORK STATE BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION, v. UNITED STATES, 414 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1969)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law §§ 20.04, 20.06 (1958). . . .

GREAT FALLS COMMUNITY TV CABLE CO. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION T. V., 416 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1969)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958). . . . Davis, supra, § 20.06, at 92. . . .

McKART v. UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1969)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §20.06 (1958). . . .

GLAZIERS LOCAL NO. a w AFL- CIO, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. GLAZIERS LOCAL NO. a w AFL- CIO,, 408 F.2d 197 (D.C. Cir. 1969)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law § 20.06, 20.08 (1958). . United States v. . . .

L. B. WILSON, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,, 397 F.2d 717 (D.C. Cir. 1968)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.06 (1958); L. . . . See generally 3 Davis, supra note 2, at §, 20.06-.07; Jaffe, supra, note 2, 450-458. . . . .

IMPORT ASSOCIATES OF AMERICA s, v. UNITED STATES, 285 F. Supp. 187 (Cust. Ct. 1968)

. . . 47051, Fork 650.41 18.14 1 cent each + 803195 19.72 17.5% ad val. 19.42 or 19.54 66/47082, Fork 650.41 20.06 . . .

s, v., 60 Cust. Ct. 491 (Cust. Ct. 1968)

. . . 803195 Fork 650.41 18.14 19.72 1 cent each + 17.5% ad val. 19.42 or 19.54 66/47082, 892285 Fork 650.41 20.06 . . .

W. GUENTHER, v. MOREHEAD, Sr. Jr. A. d b a, 272 F. Supp. 721 (S.D. Iowa 1967)

. . . See also 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, Section 20.06 (1958 ed.). In Manual Enterprises v. . . .

LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY, a A. Sr. A. Jr. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,, 371 F.2d 277 (7th Cir. 1966)

. . . Commission, 355 U.S. 411, 413-414, 78 S.Ct. 377, 2 L.Ed.2d 370; 3 Davis Administrative Law Treatise, § 20.06 . . .