The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 22
EMERGENCY CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 22.05

22.05 Enabling authority for emergency interim successors for local offices.—With respect to local offices, for which the legislative bodies of cities, towns, villages, townships, and counties may enact resolutions or ordinances relative to the manner in which vacancies will be filled or temporary appointments to office made, such legislative bodies are hereby authorized to enact resolutions or ordinances providing for emergency interim successors to offices of the aforementioned governmental units. Such resolutions and ordinances shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of ss. 22.01-22.10.

History.—s. 5, ch. 59-447.

F.S. 22.05 on Google Scholar

F.S. 22.05 on Casetext

Amendments to 22.05

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 22.05

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 22.05.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

WAL- MART STORES, INCORPORATED L. L. C. s v. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, 935 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Code §§ 22.04, 22.05, 22.06, 22.16 ) that govern the issuances of permits that allow for the retail sale . . . Code § 22.05, the consanguinity exception to the five-permit limit. . . . Walmart now seeks to withdraw its challenges to §§ 22.04 and 22.05, and has requested that we vacate . . . Accordingly, we do not address Walmart's challenges to §§ 22.04 and 22.05. . . . consider in the first instance whether the judgment in favor of Walmart with respect to §§ 22.04 and 22.05 . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INC. LLC, s v. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, Jr. M., 313 F. Supp. 3d 751 (W.D. Tex. 2018)

. . . Code §§ 22.04, 22.05, 22.06, 22.16, governing the issuance of package store permits, which allow the . . . Id. § 22.05. . . . Code. § 22.05. . . . Code. § 22.05. . . . is inconsistent with the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) Section 22.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERROLD,, 883 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2018)

. . . See Perlaza-Ortiz , 869 F.3d at 378 (holding Texas Penal Code § 22.05(b) to be indivisible despite the . . .

UNITED STATES v. HAMMONS,, 286 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (D.N.M. 2017)

. . . . § 22.05. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ONICK,, 702 F. App'x 231 (5th Cir. 2017)

. . . s prior convictions, his Texas conviction for deadly conduct by discharging a firearm under section 22.05 . . . Dixon; 265 Fed.Appx. 383, 385 (5th Cir. 2008), we held that TPC section 22.05(b)(2) does not constitute . . . On appeal, we determined that section 22.05(b) was not divisible. Id. at 380. . . . Thus, expressly relying upon our prior holding in Dixon that a conviction under TPC section 22.05(b)( . . . And, as previously noted, in Dixon, we held that TPC section 22.05(b)(2) does not constitute a crime . . .

UNITED STATES v. PERLAZA- ORTIZ,, 869 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2017)

. . . crime-of-violence sentencing enhancement predicated upon his' prior conviction under Texas Penal Code § 22.05 . . . (b) (“Section 22.05(b)”). . . . Because the government fails to prove Section 22.05(b). divisible, Section 22.05(b) may not be used here . . . Penal Code § 22.05(b) (West 2017). . . . statute and deemed § 22.05(b)(1) a crime of violence. . . .

CLEVELAND ASSETS, LLC, v. UNITED STATES, 132 Fed. Cl. 264 (Fed. Cl. 2017)

. . . The average was $22.05. Id. VI. . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INCORPORATED L. L. C. s v. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION,, 834 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2016)

. . . Code §§ 22.04, 22.05. . . .

ESTRADA- RODRIGUEZ, v. E. LYNCH,, 825 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2016)

. . . in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury’ in violation of section 22.05 . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. LYNCH, U. S., 823 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2016)

. . . after an immigration judge concluded that his conviction for deadly conduct under Texas Penal Code § 22.05 . . .

SEGOVIA- RIVAS, v. LYNCH, U. S., 643 F. App'x 367 (5th Cir. 2016)

. . . for “Attempted Deadly Conduct — Discharge of a Firearm” in violation of Texas Penal Code §§ 15.01 and 22.05 . . . Count Three of the Indictment, to which Segovia-Rivas pled guilty, tracked the language of section 22.05 . . . Penal Code § 22.05. . . .

ALMANZA, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC. a a a De S. A. De C. V. a De S. A. P. I. De C. V. ABC S. A. De C. V. a U. S., 162 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (S.D. Ga. 2016)

. . . sold a ticket to Davi-son with the confirmation code JPSK8Q and assessed a fee in an amount equal to $22.05 . . .

GANESH, v. LYNCH, U. S., 623 F. App'x 692 (5th Cir. 2015)

. . . In July 2012, he was charged with one count of deadly conduct in violation of Section 22.05(b)(2) of . . . First, his conviction was not a COV because a violation of § 22.05(b)(2) does not, “by its nature, involve . . . Second, § 22.05(b)(2) has too low a mens rea requirement. . . . The IJ held that Ganesh had committed a COV under § 16(b) because a violation of § 22.05(b)(2) involves . . . But Ganesh’s offense of conviction has a mens rea of knowledge; the perpetrator under Section 22.05(b . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INC. v. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION,, 110 F. Supp. 3d 719 (W.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . . § 22.05. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ- PEREZ,, 589 F. App'x 282 (5th Cir. 2015)

. . . enhancement under § 2L1.2 based on a prior Texas conviction for “deadly conduct” under Texas Penal Code § 22.05 . . . application of the enhancement in that case, we distinguished our prior holding in Alfa-ro, noting that § 22.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ESTRELLA, a. k. a., 758 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 22.05(b)(2), which outlaws discharging a firearm at or in the direction of a habitation, building . . .

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, J. v. MERSCORP, INC., 16 F. Supp. 3d 542 (E.D. Pa. 2014)

. . . See, Ladner, at § 22.05(b). See also, Easton Theatres, Inc. v. . . .

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BAY AREA ROOFERS HEALTH WELFARE TRUST FUND, v. WESTECH ROOFING,, 42 F. Supp. 3d 1220 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . At a daily rate of $2.45/day, interest for that period is $22.05. . . .

CABAN, v. EMPLOYEES SECURITY FUND OF THE ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES PENSION PLAN, 16 F. Supp. 3d 167 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . determined that Caban earned an additional credit in 1998 and attributed a pension credit rate of $22.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MORALES- ARELLANO,, 537 F. App'x 545 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . Morales-Arellano was convicted of an offense under § 22.05(b)(2) of the Texas Penal Code, and such an . . .

UNITED STATES v. CABRERA,, 478 F. App'x 204 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . Penal Code §§ 22.02 (aggravated assault), 22.05 (deadly conduct). . . . Under our precedents, section 22.05 of the Texas Penal Code is not, in its entirety, a “crime of violence . . . Hernandez-Rodriguez, 467 F.3d 492, 495 (5th Cir.2006) (concluding that 22.05(b)(1) is a crime of violence . . . aggravated assault pled guilty to attempted deadly conduct, that a generic conviction under section 22.05 . . . Penal Code § 22.05(a) (lacking a “necessary” force element by requiring only “reckless[ ] ... conduct . . .

CUMMINGS, v. UNITED STATES, 866 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D. Mass. 2011)

. . . on that portion of the value of the property that is not exempt hereunder.” 760 Mass.Code Regs. see. 22.05 . . . Massachusetts law, may not have taxes assessed on the exempted portions of its value. 760 Mass.Code Regs. sec. 22.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MENDEZ CARRANZA,, 440 F. App'x 291 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) based on his prior conviction of deadly conduct under Texas Penal Code Annotated § 22.05 . . . discharging a firearm at or in the direction of a habitation in violation of Texas Penal Code Annotated § 22.05 . . . Hernandez-Rodriguez, 467 F.3d 492, 495 (5th Cir.2006), we held that a conviction of deadly conduct under § 22.05 . . . We have not addressed whether a § 22.05(b)(2) conviction is an aggravated felony under § 1326(b)(2) and . . . Therefore, Mendez Carranza has not shown that the district court plainly erred in finding that his § 22.05 . . .

INTERNATIONAL PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, v. ROGER BURNS PAINTING LLC,, 783 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . on the unpaid contributions; (C) liquidated damages at the contract rate under Article XXII, Section 22.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GINN,, 407 F. App'x 820 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . The Government argued that this conduct fit best under Texas Penal Code § 22.05, deadly conduct, which . . . firearm at or in the direction of an individual is an element of the offense of deadly conduct under § 22.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. FORD,, 613 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 22.05(b)(1). . . .

UNITED STATES v. RAMON SILVA,, 608 F.3d 663 (10th Cir. 2010)

. . . Penal Code § 22.05(b)(1)) (emphasis in original). . . .

WILLIS, v. D. BENDER, M. D., 596 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2010)

. . . Louisell & Harold Williams, Medical Malpractice § 22.05[3],[4][B] (2009). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. PEREZ,, 585 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 22.05(b) & (e) (Vernon 2004). . . . Penal Code Ann. § 22.05(b) & (e) (Vernon 2004) is “plausible in light of the record as a whole.” . . . Penal Code § 22.05(b) & (e) (Vernon 2004) to warrant the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6). . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ,, 568 F.3d 827 (10th Cir. 2009)

. . . We agree that Hernandez’s conviction under Texas Penal Code § 22.05(b)(1) for firing a gun at or in the . . . We disagree, and conclude that Hernandez’s conviction under Texas Penal Code § 22.05(b)(1) constitutes . . . Penal Code Ann. § 22.05. Hernandez has two prior convictions in violation of this statute. . . . In that case, the court concluded that Texas Penal Code § 22.05(b)(1) constituted a crime of violence . . . Here, conversely, any argument that a violation of § 22.05(b)(1) does not, at the least, necessarily . . .

UNITED STATES v. MILES,, 319 F. App'x 266 (4th Cir. 2009)

. . . Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 938 (2d ed.2001) . 100 plants = 10,000 grams = 22.05 pounds . . . .

UNITED STATES v. NEAL,, 310 F. App'x 663 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . Penal Code § 22.05 was a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). . . . Penal Code § 22.05(b)(1) for shooting a firearm in the direction of Oneshia Walker. . . . An offense under § 22.05(b)(1) constitutes a crime of violence under § 2K2.1(a)(2). . . .

AVILA, v. B. MUKASEY, U. S., 300 F. App'x 332 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . In his petition, Avila argues that deadly conduct under Tex Penal Code § 22.05 is not a crime of violence . . .

GARREAUX, v. UNITED STATES U. S. U. S., 544 F. Supp. 2d 885 (D.S.D. 2008)

. . . Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, § 22.05 (1982 ed.). . . . Cohen at § 22.05. [¶ 15] In 1934, the government passed the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”), 48 Stat . . . Cohen at § 22.05 (citing Op. Sol. . . . Cohen at § 22.05. . . . Cohen at § 22.05. [¶ 18] After the application of the Housing Act in Indian Country, the Mutual Help . . .

UNITED STATES v. DIXON,, 265 F. App'x 383 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . Tex Penal Code § 22.05. . . . See Hernandez-Rodriguez, 467 F.3d at 494; § 22.05(b)(1). . . . Hernandez-Rodriguez does not hold that a generic conviction under § 22.05 is a crime of violence. . . . is not possible from the documents available in this case to identify the specific subsection of § 22.05 . . . We conclude that a generic conviction for violating § 22.05 is not a crime of violence under § 4B1.2( . . .

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. HARDING GLASS COMPANY, INC., 500 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007)

. . . The company proposed to reduce the glaziers’ pay rate from $22.05 per hour to $13.73 per hour, while . . . litigation the issue of whether Tritone’s back pay should be based on the full contract rate for a glazier, $22.05 . . . back pay, the Board agreed with the ALJ that Tritone was entitled to the contractual glazier rate of $22.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ- RODRIGUEZ,, 467 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2006)

. . . He contends that the district court erred in finding that his conviction under Texas Penal Code § 22.05 . . . Penal Code Ann. § 22.05 (Vernon 2003). . . . Prior to 1994, § 22.05(b) created the presumption of recklessness currently found at § 22.05(c). . . . The revised version of § 22.05(b) requires that the defendant have actually discharged the firearm. . . . Penal Code Ann. § 22.05 (Vernon 2003). . . . .

L. PETERSEN, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,, 180 F. App'x 153 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . Igarashi was entitled to 22.05 percent of Mr. Petersen’s annuity. . . . Igarashi was not entitled to COLAs and that OPM owed him $264.99, based on a 22.50 percent rate, not the 22.05 . . .

MILLER, v. DRETKE,, 420 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2005)

. . . charged and convicted by a jury for the offense of deadly conduct in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.05 . . . Penal Code Ann. § 22.05(b)(2) (Vernon 2003) (“A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges . . .

In NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION, v. R., 326 B.R. 519 (Bankr. D. Del. 2005)

. . . They are as follows: Court reporting — $8,256.93 Telecommunications — Phone 22.05 copies 647.05 Courier . . .

U. S. PHILIPS CORPORATION, v. PRINCO CORPORATION USA, v. U. S. N. V., 361 F. Supp. 2d 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . the position-information signal the average frequency of the FM-modulated signal is exactly equal to 22.05 . . . The FM-modulated signal has an “average” frequency of 22.05 kHz. . . . Because of these variations, the clock signal is frequency modulated, with an average frequency of 22.05 . . . It argues that the defendants admit that the non-FM-modulated wobble signal is periodic at 22.05 kHz, . . . would encompass Defendants’ discs, which have a regularly repeating frequency modulation centered on 22.05 . . .

LAURENCE WOLF CAPITAL MANAGEMENT TRUST, v. CITY OF FERNDALE,, 61 F. App'x 204 (6th Cir. 2003)

. . . Further, under Section 22.05 of the Ordinance, a person may request a variance from the ordinance requirements . . . putting a wireless facility in a C-4 zoning district would require a variance approval under Section 22.05 . . .

TOKYO ELECTRON ARIZONA, INC. v. DISCREET INDUSTRIES CORP., 215 F.R.D. 60 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Weber 29.8 $175.74 $ 5,237 Matthew Kelleher 2.5 $105 $ 262.50 Christopher Faron 22.05 $105 $ 2315.25 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SHELTON,, 325 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . respect to Shelton’s offense, this Court has concluded that the Texas offenses of reckless conduct (§ 22.05 . . . engaging] in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury’ ” in violation of § 22.05 . . . In pertinent part, § 22.05(a) provides that: “A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in . . .

M. KEENAN v. TEJEDA, a M. v. C., 290 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . Pen.Code § 22.05(a); Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 2.05. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. WHITE,, 258 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2001)

. . . Defendant, ROBERT WHITE, was convicted of the offense of reckless conduct, in violation of Section 22.05 . . . Section 22.05(a), Texas Penal Code, as it existed on August 1, 1994, provided, in part: ‘A person commits . . . Nor does section 22.05(a) require that there be any “attempted use of physical force.” . . . Certainly, to convict under section 22.05(a)— or to invoke the section 22.05(b) presumption — the trier . . . This instruction must be given respecting the § 22.05(b) presumption. Handley v. . . .

CONSOLIDATED CIGAR CORPORATION Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. REILLY, R. J. R. J. v. F. Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. R. J. Co. L. J. Co. USA R. J. Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. R. J. Co. L. J. Co. USA v. F. R. J. L. J. Co. USA v. F. Co. L. J. Co. USA RJ. v. F., 218 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2000)

. . . . §§ 22.04, 22.05. . . . See 940 C.M.R. §§ 22.04-22.05. . . . . §§ 22.04(2), 22.05(2), although that area may be used for any federal, state, or local warning so long . . . Most important, there is simply no basis in the language or history of § 22.05 to support the narrow . . . Although appropriate intrastate application of these or similar restrictions may be permissible, § 22.05 . . .

LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. R. J. Co. Co. v. REILLY, Co. L. J. Co. USA v., 84 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D. Mass. 2000)

. . . . §§ 22.04-22.05. . . . See 940 C.M.R. §§ 22.04(2), 22.05(2). The Warnings do not apply to hand-rolled cigars. . . . cigars” without including the warnings comprising 20% of the area of the advertisement. 940 C.M.R. § 22.05 . . . to the Court expressing the position that the general warning requirement set forth in 940 C.M.R. § 22.05 . . . Internet advertising, while the Regulations specifying size and format requirements in 940 C.M.R. § 22.05 . . .

In WEST TEXAS MARKETING CORPORATION, C. KELLOGG, v. UNITED STATES, 54 F.3d 1194 (5th Cir. 1995)

. . . Fkeier et al„ Colliers on Bankruptcy ¶ 22.05, at 22-40 (Lawrence P. . . .

In WEST TEXAS MARKETING CORPORATION, C. KELLOGG, v. UNITED STATES, 54 F.3d 1194 (5th Cir. 1995)

. . . Freier et al., Colliers on Bankruptcy ¶ 22.05, at 22-40 (Lawrence P. . . .

ASHLEY, Jr. K. III, v. R. D. COLUMBIA ASSOCIATES, L. P. a R. D. COLUMBIA ASSOCIATES, L. P. v. NORTH AMERICAN ROOFING SYSTEMS, INC., 54 F.3d 498 (8th Cir. 1995)

. . . Approved Instructions — Civil (MAI) § 22.05 (4th Ed.1991). . . .

KEMPE v. DOMETIC CORPORATION, A, 866 F. Supp. 817 (D. Del. 1994)

. . . Mosher, 2 Liquor Liability Law § 22.05 (Matthew Bender 1994) (dilution of alcohol in the blood by intravenous . . .

UNITED STATES PAUL, v. PARSONS, BRINKERHOFF, QUADE DOUGLAS, INC. P. B. K. B. B., 860 F. Supp. 370 (S.D. Tex. 1994)

. . . design plans for the project, which he believed were dangerous, would have constituted a violation of § 22.05 . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIATION SURVIVORS, v. J. DERWINSKI,, 782 F. Supp. 1392 (N.D. Cal. 1992)

. . . Ex. 305, M21-1, Section 22.05(e)(3). . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIATION SURVIVORS, v. J. DERWINSKI,, 778 F. Supp. 1096 (N.D. Cal. 1991)

. . . Ex. 305, M21-1, Section 22.05(e)(3). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CITY OF NORTH ADAMS, MA,, 777 F. Supp. 61 (D. Mass. 1991)

. . . did not contain a claim for violations of the state’s coliform bacteria MCL regulation, 310 C.M.R. 22.05 . . . did not contain a claim for violations of the state’s coliform bacteria MCL regulation, 310 C.M.R. 22.05 . . .

CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION OF NEW ENGLAND, INC. v. K. REILLY, 743 F. Supp. 933 (D. Mass. 1990)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, secs. 22.05-22.07 [1958] ). See Data Processing Service v. . . .

HARLEY- DAVIDSON MOTOR CO. INC. ITT v. BANK OF NEW ENGLAND- OLD COLONY, N. A., 111 B.R. 611 (1st Cir. 1990)

. . . Nickles, Common Law and Equity Under the Uniform Commercial Code, ¶ 22.05[2], at 22-57 to 22-60 (1985 . . . Nickles, supra p. 26, ¶ 22.05[2], at 22-57 to 22-62.) . . .

HARLEY- DAVIDSON MOTOR CO. INC. ITT v. BANK OF NEW ENGLAND- OLD COLONY, N. A., 897 F.2d 611 (1st Cir. 1990)

. . . Nickles, supra p. 26, ¶ 22.05[2], at 22-57 to 22-62.) . . .

v., 91 T.C. 793 (T.C. 1988)

. . . Willis, Partnership Taxation, par. 22.05 (3d ed. 1985). We also find that Rev. . . .

KATZSON BROS. INC. a v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 839 F.2d 1396 (10th Cir. 1988)

. . . . § 22.05(b)(1)®, (ii) (1985). Mr. . . . See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 22.05(b)(l)(iv)(A) (service upon a state or a local government shall be accomplished . . .

SIMS, v. L. DUGGER,, 519 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . offered no written statement as to why he had not taken Jessie Meeks’ statement, as required by Rule 33-22.05 . . . Rule 33-22.05(4)(b), Fla.Admin.Code, provides as follows: (b) The investigating officer is responsible . . .

CENTERRE BANK, N. A. v. NEW HOLLAND DIVISION OF SPERRY CORPORATION,, 832 F.2d 1415 (7th Cir. 1987)

. . . Nickles, Common Law and Equity Under the Uniform Commercial Code ¶ 22.05[1][b], at 22-55 (1985) [hereinafter . . .

BUNDY, Jr. v. A. WILSON, COLPITT, v. CUNNINGHAM,, 815 F.2d 125 (1st Cir. 1987)

. . . . § 22.05.-010(b) (1982). . . . ALASKA STAT. § 22.05.-010(d) (1982). . . .

RAMOS, v. D. LAMM,, 632 F. Supp. 376 (D. Colo. 1986)

. . . . - 39.90 22.05 10.15 72.10 ACLU Law Clerks - 19.05 - 3.35 22.40 (National Prison Project) Peggy Ann . . .

LAWLISS v. WHALER S PLAZA, INC., 16 Fla. Supp. 2d 36 (Monroe Cty. Ct. 1986)

. . . telephone; $673.50 carpeting; $54.54 paint; $630.00 October rent; $67.53 electric connection fee; $22.05 . . .

P. v., 84 T.C. 1244 (T.C. 1985)

. . . 735.85 465.31 12,874.88 609.56 16.47 4/ 1/82-4/15/82 558.05 364.79 9,849.33 477.87 12.92 4/16/82-4/30/82 22.05 . . .

REDMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 10 Fla. Supp. 2d 162 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1985)

. . . the employee to follow through with writing a formal disciplinary report as provided in section 33-22.05 . . . . * * * 33-22.05 Preparation of Disciplinary Reports, Delivery of Charges, and Investigation. * * ‡ ( . . . Florida Administrative Code, which relates to the reporting of disciplinary infractions, or in' Rule 33-22.05 . . .

HOPPER FURS, INC. v. EMERY AIR FREIGHT CORPORATION,, 749 F.2d 1261 (8th Cir. 1984)

. . . The liability of Emery shall be limited to $10.00 per pound of $22.05 per kilogram of cargo damaged or . . . shipment to Emery, the shipper made a declaration of value for carriage in excess of $10.00 per pound or $22.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GLENEAGLES INVESTMENT CO. INC., 571 F. Supp. 935 (M.D. Pa. 1983)

. . . Loree Associates is a limited partnership owned 57.95% by individual members of the Pagnotti family, 22.05% . . .

WHITE EARTH BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, v. N. ALEXANDER, C. H. Ed UNITED STATES v. STATE OF MINNESOTA,, 518 F. Supp. 527 (D. Minn. 1981)

. . . See Conservation Code, supra at §§ 22.05, 32.03. . . .

SPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY, v. MOSTEE CORPORATION, MOSTEE CORPORATION, v. SPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY,, 488 F. Supp. 842 (N.D. Tex. 1980)

. . . June 14, 1979, the public offering took place and Sprague acquired 235,000 shares from Mostek for $22.05 . . .

SIERRA CLUB v. ADAMS, Jr. U. S. M., 578 F.2d 389 (D.C. Cir. 1978)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 22.05-.07 (1958)); accord, Warth v. . . .

DOGGETT, Jr. v. RITTER FINANCE COMPANY, INC. OF LOUISA, DOGGETT, Jr. v. RITTER FINANCE COMPANY, INC. OF LOUISA,, 528 F.2d 860 (4th Cir. 1975)

. . . figure $10.03 had been inserted, while in another box headed “Disability Insurance Charge” the figures $22.05 . . . stated that the cost of the life insurance was $10.03, that the cost of the disability insurance was $22.05 . . . There was a computation showing a deduction of the $10.03 and the $22.05 premiums from the amount financed . . .

S. DOGGETT, Jr. v. RITTER FINANCE COMPANY OF LOUISA,, 384 F. Supp. 150 (W.D. Va. 1974)

. . . Less : Life Insurance Premium..... 10.03 Less: Disability Insurance Premium ...................... 22.05 . . .

In KNOX, v. W. LINES,, 463 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1972)

. . . . § 66(6) ; 2 Collier on Bankruptcy 22.05, 38.09. . . . .

SIERRA CLUB v. MORTON, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,, 405 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1972)

. . . Davis, Adminstrative Law Treatise §§22.05-22.07 (1958). See, e. g., Environmental Defense Fund v. . . .

GLOBAL VAN LINES, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 197 Ct. Cl. 575 (Ct. Cl. 1972)

. . . The charge for the delivery from SIT was in the amount of $22.05, based on the rate for this service . . .

F. JACOBS, v. M. TENNEY, 316 F. Supp. 151 (D. Del. 1970)

. . . ’s Class A stock and 91.67% of the company’s Class B stock, which together aggregated approximately 22.05% . . .

CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR HUDSON VALLEY, v. VOLPE, J. S. F. U. S. J. CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR HUDSON VALLEY, v. J. McMORRAN,, 425 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1970)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law § 22.05 (1958). . . . .

OSCAR GRUSS SON, v. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. BUCHMANN,, 46 F.R.D. 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1969)

. . . Coleman— November 21, 1966, March 28, 1967 ................. 22.05 18. . . .

INVESTMENT COMPANY INSTITUTE v. B. CAMP,, 274 F. Supp. 624 (D.D.C. 1967)

. . . L.Rev. 1265 (1961), 75 Harv.L.Rev. 255 (1961), and Davis, 3 Administrative Law Treatise §§ 22.04, 22.05 . . .

TRANSCONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM, INC. D. C. S. P. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, TRANSCONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD,, 383 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1967)

. . . C. 135, 191 F.2d 462 (1951); see generally, 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.05 (1958). . . .

ROAD REVIEW LEAGUE, TOWN OF BEDFORD v. S. BOYD, D., 270 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

. . . See 3 Davis, Administrative Law § 22.05 at 225 (1958). . . .

M. BERMAN M. v. NATIONAL ACCEPTANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a H. v. T. GILLILAND,, 239 F. Supp. 767 (W.D. Tex. 1965)

. . . although such action is ordinarily taken only under unusual circumstances.” 2 Collier Bankruptcy, § 22.05 . . .

UNITED STATES B. KIRBY, v. SOUTHERN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., 211 F. Supp. 537 (W.D. Mo. 1962)

. . . Paragraph 22.05 of Collier on Bankruptcy, 14th Ed. . . .

v., 38 T.C. 37 (T.C. 1962)

. . . gift tax against petitioner for the taxable years 1953, 1954, and 1955 in the amounts of $61,130.90, $22.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. S. LIEBERMAN,, 199 F. Supp. 418 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)

. . . (2)); General Orders in Bankruptcy, 12(1), 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53; 2 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶22.05 . . .

HOLLEY, J. v. THE MANFRED STANSFIELD, G. M. B. H. REEDEREI BLUMENFELD, G. M. B. H. v. C. JETT, C. JETT G. M. B. H. v. ELIZABETH RIVER TERMINALS, INC., 186 F. Supp. 805 (E.D. Va. 1960)

. . . voluntarily but in accordance with the Act, the total sum of $4,476.15 covering a period of 203 weeks at $22.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. WESSEL DUVAL CO. THE EDWARD RUTLEDGE, 123 F. Supp. 318 (S.D.N.Y. 1954)

. . . Nature of bottom — soft mud 22.05 — Line parted and vessel lost approximately 100 fathoms of same. . . .

WHITE RIVER BURIAL ASS N v. THOMPSON,, 81 F. Supp. 18 (E.D. Ark. 1948)

. . . Year Deficiency 25% Penalty Interest. 1934 $ 12.0U $ 3.00 $ 9.00 1935 12.00 3.00 8.28 1936 35.00 8.75 22.05 . . .

DONNELLY GARMENT CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DONNELLY GARMENT WORKERS UNION, 151 F.2d 854 (8th Cir. 1945)

. . . The 150,000 Union workers employed in this industry are enjoying a 5-day, 35-hour working week and a $22.05 . . .

DONNELLY GARMENT CO. v. DUBINSKY SMITH, 55 F. Supp. 587 (W.D. Mo. 1944)

. . . The 150,000 Union workers employed in this industry are enjoying a 5 day, 35 hour working week and a $22.05 . . .

In ADVOCATE, 140 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1944)

. . . Bank, 9 Cir., 121 F.2d 822, 826; Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed.), § 22.05. . . .

DIONYSIA E. TSERIONI AND POLYTIME ANTONOPULO, DAUGHTERS OF GEORGE D. PAPAVASILOPULO, DECEASED ANGELICA PAPAVASILOPULO, WIDOW OF JOHN D. PAPAVASILOPULO, AND DIONYSIUS PAPAVASILOPULO AND EUSTADIO PAPAVASILOPULO, SONS OF SAID JOHN D. PAPAVASILOPULO AND DIONYSIUS N. TAMVAKIS, A SON OF ATHENA TAMVAKIS v. THE UNITED STATES, 94 Ct. Cl. 142 (Ct. Cl. 1941)

. . . 9- 9-12 8.62 163521_ 6-25-07 4-11-10 737.70 312925— 12-18-06 12- 2-12 301.65 52569. 2-25-09 4-11-10 22.05 . . . Date Amount 247396-June 25,1934. $11.40 247567-_do. 22.05 247569-.do. 2,410.50 247850-June 26, 1934-16,616.39 . . .

DAIRYMEN S MILK CO. OF PITTSBURGH v. McCORMICK CO., 114 F.2d 736 (3d Cir. 1940)

. . . . $3,600.00 '5% of cost of extra footers.... 249.16 5% of extra cost on brick. 22.05 Agreed price of . . .

DONNELLY GARMENT CO. v. INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION DONNELLY GARMENT WORKERS UNION, 23 F. Supp. 998 (W.D. Mo. 1938)

. . . The 150,000 workers employed in this industry are enjoying a 5-day, 35-hour working week and a $22.05 . . .

THE SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS v. THE UNITED STATES, 84 Ct. Cl. 16 (Ct. Cl. 1936)

. . . Upon the figures thus employed the school children constituted 22.05% of the total Indian population . . .

FREDERICK v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO., 281 F. 305 (4th Cir. 1922)

. . . 1920, for future delivery, at 22y2 cents per pound, less 2 per cent, if paid for in seven days, or 22.05 . . .

SUPREME LODGE, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS v. MIMS, 241 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1916)

. . . On January 20, 1911, he tendered $22.05 for the months of January, February and March of that year, the . . .