The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 20
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 20.105

20.105 Federal Grants Trust Fund.—

(1) The Federal Grants Trust Fund is created within the Department of State.

(2) The trust fund is established for use as a depository for funds to be used for allowable grant activities funded by restricted program revenues from federal sources. Moneys to be credited to the trust fund shall consist of grants and funding from the Federal Government, interest earnings, and cash advances from other trust funds. Funds shall be expended only pursuant to legislative appropriation or an approved amendment to the department’s operating budget pursuant to the provisions of chapter 216.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2010-17; s. 2, ch. 2013-6.

F.S. 20.105 on Google Scholar

F.S. 20.105 on Casetext

Amendments to 20.105

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 20.105

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 20.105.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

MCMUNN, D. J. v. BABCOCK WILCOX POWER GENERATION GROUP, INC. B W B W, 869 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2017)

. . . unrestricted, areas exceed the limits specified in Appendix B, Table II of 10 CFR 20, contrary to 10 CFR 20.105 . . . unrestricted areas exceed the limits specified in Appendix.B, Table II of 10 CFR 20, contrary -to 10 CFR 20.105 . . . unrestricted areas exceed the limits specified in Appendix B, Table II of 10 CFR 20, contrary to 10 CFR 20.105 . . . This Court held instead that 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.105, 106 established the relevant duty. . . . Two of our major considerations were that (1) §§ 20.105 and 20.106 indicated they should apply to effluent . . .

McMUNN, v. BABCOCK WILCOX POWER GENERATION GROUP, INC. v. P. v. W. v. v. v. v. L. v. v. L. D. v. v. v. v. v. S. v., 131 F. Supp. 3d 352 (W.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . Decl. ¶ 7) is irrelevant because neither § 20.105 nor §■ 20.106 contains such limits and Mr. . . . The dose rate imposed in § 20.105 was also exceeded in the Raychord facility in 1972, and the hourly . . . However, as explained above, § 20.105 does not apply in this case, Mr. . . . Since 1991, 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.105 and 20.106 no longer exist. . . . As explained below, § 20.105 is inapplicable in this case. . Pis.’ App. . . .

v. WALMART STORES, INC. a, 857 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (D. Or. 2012)

. . . . § 20.105, because plaintiff neither acted in bad faith nor brought frivolous claims. . . .

LIND, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 389 F. App'x 593 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . ) appeals the district court’s denial of its request for sanctions, under Oregon Revised Statutes § 20.105 . . . The district court denied Fidelity’s request for § 20.105 sanctions on the ground that the Linds had . . . Prior to 1995, § 20.105 contained a “bad faith” requirement, but that requirement was removed by amendment . . . Section 20.105 now requires a prevailing party to show that the .losing party had “no objectively reasonable . . .

MARTINEZ- DELACRUZ, v. STUART OLSON FARMS, INC., 612 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Or. 2007)

. . . . § 20.105, because plaintiff neither acted in bad faith nor brought frivolous claims. . . .

UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. f k a, 449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006)

. . . . § 101-20.105-3, 52 Fed.Reg. 11263 at 11269 (April 8, 1987). 3339. . . .

ATKINSON v. TAYLOR, C O,, 316 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2003)

. . . and in any outdoor areas under executive branch control in front of air intake ducts. 41 CFR § 101-20.105 . . .

GOOD, v. FLUOR DANIEL CORPORATION, v., 222 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (E.D. Wash. 2002)

. . . . § 20.105 and 20.106, which were in effect when the Three Mile Island accident occurred in 1979, not . . . In 1979, 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.105-.106 (1979) governed permissible levels of radiation and radioactivity in . . . Section 20.105 required that, except as authorized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) no licensee . . . receiving a dose in excess of’ two milli-rems in one hour, or 100 millirems in any week. 10 C.F.R. § 20.105 . . . Against Radiation, 56 Fed.Reg. 23360 (May 21, 1991) (codified at 10 C.F.R. § 20 (2002)). 10 C.F.R. § 20.105 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HUTSON,, 19 F. App'x 466 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . . §§ 20.11(a)(l)-(2), 10.13, 20.103, 20.105. The government proved that Mr. . . .

HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, v. GLICKMAN, U. S., 217 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 20.105, the Secretary of the Interior may issue permits for killing Canada geese and other migratory . . .

V. Jo SIMPSON, v. J. BURROWS, C., 90 F. Supp. 1108 (D. Or. 2000)

. . . Next, defendants seek an award of fees under ORS 20.105 which allows a prevailing defendant to recover . . .

In TMI LITIGATION No. In TMI No. In TMI No., 193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999)

. . . . §§ 20.105, 20.106 (1979). These regulations were in effect at the time of the TMI accident. . . .

F. HALL v. BABCOCK WILCOX COMPANY,, 69 F. Supp. 2d 716 (W.D. Pa. 1999)

. . . . § 20.105. . . . . § 20.105. 10 C.F.R. § 20.105 provides: 10 C.F.R. 20.105: Applications for licenses to possess, use . . . Defendants contend that § 20.105 was irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims because it concerns restrictions . . . Admittedly, Plaintiffs claimed no injuries from violation of § 20.105. . . . Plaintiffs presented no evidence of any connection between their injuries and a violation of § 20.105 . . .

McCAFFERTY, v. CENTERIOR SERVICE COMPANY,, 983 F. Supp. 715 (N.D. Ohio 1997)

. . . . § 20.105 and 20.106, and not ALARA, constitute the standard of care to be applied in these actions. . . . those allegations do not state a PLA claim and would be deemed a pendent state claim. . 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.105 . . .

CORCORAN, v. NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY CORCORAN, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., 935 F. Supp. 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . . §§ 20.105 and 20.106 — provided the standard of care, I find the reasoning underlying that opinion . . .

McLANDRICH, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,, 942 F. Supp. 457 (S.D. Cal. 1996)

. . . Sections 20.105 and 20.106, on the other hand, set out the radiation dose limits for individuals in “ . . . The radiation dose limit in “unrestricted areas” is 0.5 rem per year. 10 C.F.R. § 20.105(a). . . .

In TMI LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS., 927 F. Supp. 834 (M.D. Pa. 1996)

. . . .] §§ 20.105 or 20.106, as measured at the boundary of the facility, not whether each plaintiff was exposed . . . plaintiffs were exposed to this radiation (although not necessarily at the levels prohibited by §§ 20.105 . . . were exposed to this radiation (although not necessarily at the levels prohibited by [10 C.F.R.] §§ 20.105 . . . The lowest level prohibited by sections 20.105 and 20.106 is 0.5 rems (500 mrem). . . . Section 20.105 mandates, among other things, that an NRC licensee’s application be approved where that . . .

In TMI. Co. Co. UE C, 67 F.3d 1103 (3d Cir. 1995)

. . . . §§ 20.105 and 20.106, and not ALARA, constitute the standard of care to be applied in these actions . . . Section 20.105 sets the “[p]ermissible levels of radiation in unrestricted areas,” i.e., outside the . . . The parties dispute whether the § 20.105 standard governing off-site exposure was violated during or . . . While § 20.105 defines the levels of radiation permitted in unrestricted areas, § 20.106 defines the . . . See 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.105, 20.106 (1979). . . .

In TMI LITIGATION CASES CONSOLIDATED II, 904 F. Supp. 379 (M.D. Pa. 1994)

. . . . §§ 20.105 sets forth the permissible dose levels of radiation in unrestricted areas; 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.106 . . . The section limiting radiation, 10 C.F.R. § 20.105, provides: (a) There may be included in any application . . . Second, the facility may observe the radiation limits established in § 20.105(b) (2 mrems per hour or . . . Part (b) of § 20.105 mandates that a nuclear facility cannot release “[r]adiation levels, which, if an . . . (a) The standard of care in the captioned action is that set forth in §§ 20.105 and 20.106. . . .

UPCHURCH, v. USTNET, INC. a, 836 F. Supp. 737 (D. Or. 1993)

. . . Upchurch also requests sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and O.R.S. 20.105(1) contending that UST-Net’s . . . governed by the laws of the state where enforcement is sought. 3.Sanctions Under FedR.Civ.P. 11 and O.R.S. 20.105 . . .

McDONALD S CORPORATION, a v. WILSON, WILSON v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, a, 814 F. Supp. 935 (D. Or. 1993)

. . . — prevailing party in antitrust case allowed “reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal”; ORS 20.105 . . .

EIDMANN, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,, 976 F.2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1992)

. . . . §§ 101-20.105-3 (1991), shows the reasonableness of Mr. Levin’s belief. . . .

McKINNEY, v. ANDERSON H. L. W., 924 F.2d 1500 (9th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 101-20.105-3 (1990) (regulations for controlling smoking in facilities owned by the General Services . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FAMILY SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION, D. C. D. C. VII, v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,, 920 F.2d 45 (D.C. Cir. 1990)

. . . . § 101-20.105-3(a)(2) (1990), and instructs agencies to honor their collective bargaining obligations . . . , 41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105-3(g), but allows an agency, in its discretion, to implement more stringent smoking . . . regulations, 41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105-3(a)(3). . . . Although an agency has discretion to “establish[ ] more stringent guidelines,” 41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105 . . . Ch. 71,” 41 C.F.R. § 1-20.105-3(g). . . .

CLEMMONS, v. BOHANNON,, 918 F.2d 858 (10th Cir. 1990)

. . . . § 101-20.105-3(a) (1989) (regulating smoking in Government Services Administration controlled buildings . . . Id. at § 101-20.105-3(a)(l). . . .

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,, 902 F.2d 998 (D.C. Cir. 1990)

. . . . § 101-20.105-3 (1989) (“the Regulation”). . . . to limit the involuntary exposure of non-smokers to secondhand smoke to a minimum.” 41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105 . . . representatives and are to take fully into consideration the health issues involved. ... 41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105 . . . non-smoking sections which protect the non-smokers against involuntary exposure to smoke. 41 C.F.R. § 101 — 20.105 . . . their representatives and ... tak[ing] fully into consideration the health issues involved.” § 101-20.105 . . .

SIERRA CLUB, v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, 862 F.2d 222 (9th Cir. 1988)

. . . . §§ 20.105-.106. . . .

AVERY, v. POWELL,, 695 F. Supp. 632 (D.N.H. 1988)

. . . . § 101-20.105-3 (1987) (regulations for controlling smoking in GSA-controlled buildings and facilities . . .

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL- CIO, v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,, 840 F.2d 947 (D.C. Cir. 1988)

. . . . § 101-20.105-1 et seq. (cooperation regarding safety programs). . . .

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v. RADIATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., 519 F. Supp. 1266 (D.N.J. 1981)

. . . . § 20.105(b). . . . First, it is alleged that RTI failed to make the surveys necessary to comply with 10 C.F.R. § 20.105. . . .

M. SILKWOOD, G. v. KERR- McGEE CORPORATION, 485 F. Supp. 566 (W.D. Okla. 1979)

. . . . §§ 20.105(b), 20.106(a) (1974). . . .

UNITED STATES v. SHAW UNITED STATES v. M. SNELLINGS III, 467 F. Supp. 86 (W.D. La. 1979)

. . . . §§ 20.24, 20.105(d). . . .

PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, v. QUECHAN TRIBE OF INDIANS,, 424 F. Supp. 969 (S.D. Cal. 1977)

. . . . §§ 20.101-20.105. . . .

C. P. v., 38 T.C. 470 (T.C. 1962)

. . . O.P. 20.105 TRAVEL AND RELOCATION — Field Service Representatives. O.P. 20.100 TRAVEL — Local. . . .