Cases from cite.case.law:

In ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF v., 136 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Under subsection 27.02(1), Florida Statutes (2011), the state attorney is authorized to defend the state . . .

PUBLIC DEFENDER, ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, v. STATE v., 115 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 2013)

. . . concluded that the State did have standing to oppose the motion in the trial court, based on section 27.02 . . . On appeal, the Third District cited the state attorney’s statutory obligation under section 27.02(1) . . . Section 27.02(1), Florida Statutes (2007), provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he state attorney shall . . .

In BP P. L. C. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 852 F. Supp. 2d 767 (S.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . By June 25, 2010, BP’s share price had fallen to $27.02 a share, reflecting a 55.3% drop in the two months . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 78 So. 3d 1305 (Fla. 2012)

. . . (citing § 27.02(1), Fla. Stat. (2004)). . . .

UNITED STATES v. PINTO- MACHORRO,, 408 F. App'x 836 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . Ann. art. 27.02(5) (West 2006). . . .

UNITED STATES v. FERNANDEZ- SANCHEZ,, 396 F. App'x 111 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . Ann. arts. 27.02(5), 42.12 § 5(a); United States v. Cuevas, 75 F.3d 778, 781 n. 8 (1st Cir.1996). . . .

In PROJECT ORANGE ASSOCIATES, LLC,, 431 B.R. 363 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . that termination of the lease would result in the entire Facility reverting to the University: Section 27.02 . . .

C. FOURNIER, v. K. SHINSEKI,, 23 Vet. App. 480 (Vet. App. 2010)

. . . M21-1, ¶ 27.02 (1966). . . . The provisions of M21-1 paragraphs 27.02 and 27.07, which must be l’ead in pari materia with paragraph . . .

In MBIA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 700 F. Supp. 2d 566 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . After the S & P report, MBIA’s stock fell from $28.04 to $27.02 per share. (CAC ¶ 58.) . . . The next day, MBIA’s stock dropped from the December 19, 2007 closing price of $27.02 to $19.95 at the . . .

STATE v. PUBLIC DEFENDER, ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,, 12 So. 3d 798 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 27.02, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part, “[t]he state attorney shall appear in the . . . state all suits, applications, or motions, civil or criminal, in which the state is a party.... ” § 27.02 . . . State’s status as a party to the criminal cases, as well as its statutory obligation under section 27.02 . . .

NANO- PROPRIETARY, INC. a v. CANON, INC. USA, a, 537 F.3d 394 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . Milgrim, Milgrim on Licensing § 27.02 (2008) (“Often a license is of such critical value to an enterprise . . .

In UAL CORPORATION, v. U. S. BNY HSBC USA, 346 B.R. 456 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2006)

. . . (AUA §§ 27.02-27.04.) . . .

VOLVO TRADEMARK HOLDING AKTIEBOLAGET, a a a v. AIS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a CLM a a AIS a CLM Co. a Co. a Co. v. a a, 416 F. Supp. 2d 404 (W.D.N.C. 2006)

. . . 417, 419 (1977) (citing 1A Sutherland, Statutory Construction (4th Ed.) pp. 59, 310, 81; §§ 20.08, 27.02 . . .

In Re ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE ERISA LITIGATION v. SM R v. J. P., 388 F. Supp. 2d 780 (S.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for common law fraud and a violation of § 27.02 . . .

E. FRASURE, Jr. v. J. PRINCIPI,, 18 Vet. App. 379 (Vet. App. 2004)

. . . Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 27.02, at 459 (4th ed.1985)). . . .

REAVES BROKERAGE COMPANY, INC. v. SUNBELT FRUIT VEGETABLE COMPANY, INC. LLC,, 336 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . .- a transactional guide § 27.02[3], at 27-12 (Howard Ruda ed., 1985); see also White & Summers, Uniform . . . See, e.g., Asset-based Financing: a transactional guide § 27.02[11], at 27-20 (explaining that "[t]he . . .

In RODGERS, v. M. M., 333 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2003)

. . . Bergman, Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures, § 27.02(2) (2001). . . .

In RODGERS, v. M. M., 333 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2003)

. . . Bergman, Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures, § 27.02(2) (2001). . . .

BOLDEN, v. STATE, 832 So. 2d 153 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . .; § 27.02, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

DUKE, v. COCKRELL,, 292 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . P. art. 27.02(5)). . Brady v. . . .

H. SCHREIBER, v. R. ROWE,, 814 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 2002)

. . . Compare § 27.02, Fla. . . .

MATTHEW, v. L. JOHNSON,, 201 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2000)

. . . Ann. art. 27.02(5). . . .

C. BARNES, v. STATE, 743 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . anywise interested, in the Supreme Court and district courts of appeal of this state.”) and section 27.02 . . . in which the state is a party, except as provided in chapters 39, 984, and 985.”). §§ 16.01(4) and 27.02 . . . Raft also timely responded to the order, acknowledging sections 16.01(4) and 27.02 but arguing that, . . . Notably, section 27.02 is confined to only the trial courts within the State Attorney’s jurisdiction. . . . Raft’s common law argument is plainly inconsistent with section 16.01(4) and section 27.02. . . .

ULTRA- TEMP CORPORATION, a v. ADVANCED VACUUM SYSTEMS, INC., 27 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D. Mass. 1998)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy’s (sic) on Trademark and Unfair Competition, § 27.02[3], at 27-17 (3d ed.1996 . . .

BROWN, v. ARMSTRONG,, 957 F. Supp. 1293 (D. Mass. 1997)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy’s on Trademark and Unfair Competition, § 27.02[3], at 27-17 (3d ed.1996). . . .

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL- CIO, v. WINSHIP GREEN NURSING CENTER,, 103 F.3d 196 (1st Cir. 1996)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and, Unfair Competition § 27.02[3] (3d ed. 1996) (discussing . . . See Truck Components, 776 F.Supp. at 409; McCarthy on Trademarks, supra, at § 27.02[4] (describing these . . . Cir.1990) (discussing effect of 1988 amendment to Lanham Act); McCarthy on Trademarks, supra, at § 27.02 . . .

GILLETTE COMPANY, v. NORELCO CONSUMER PRODUCTS COMPANY, A, 946 F. Supp. 115 (D. Mass. 1996)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 27.02[4] (3rd ed. 1995). . . .

PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY, v. TOUR I, LTD., 942 F. Supp. 1513 (S.D. Tex. 1996)

. . . general business practices beyond the scope of traditional intellectual property law. 3 McCarthy § 27.02 . . .

AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. WINBACK AND CONSERVE PROGRAM, INC. a G. AT T, 42 F.3d 1421 (3d Cir. 1994)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 27.02[1] at 27-13 (hereinafter “McCarthy . . .

SAGE REALTY CORP. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,, 34 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 1994)

. . . In addition, the district court dismissed INA’s counterclaims pursuant to Section 27.02 of the Lease . . .

GORDON AND BREACH SCIENCE PUBLISHERS S. A. STBS, GMBH, v. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS, 859 F. Supp. 1521 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §§ 27.02[3], [4] (3d ed. 1992) (“McCarthy on . . . See McCarthy on Trademarks §§ 27.02[3], 27.03. . . .

GUARINO, v. SUN COMPANY, INC., 819 F. Supp. 405 (D.N.J. 1993)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 27.02[3], at 27-17 (3d ed. 1992). . . .

A. HAMILTON, A. R. v. BROWN,, 4 Vet. App. 528 (Vet. App. 1993)

. . . . § 27.02, at 459 (1985). . . .

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, ADC III, v. O MELVENY MEYERS,, 969 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1992)

. . . Bloomenthal, Securities Law Handbook, § 27.02 at 1096 (1990-91 ed.). . . .

CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. v. GRODSKY SERVICE, INC. t a S. Co. v. SVA, INC. v. METRAFLEX CO. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. v. SVA, INC. v. METRAFLEX CO., 781 F. Supp. 897 (D. Conn. 1991)

. . . . ¶¶ 27.02[2][d][i], 27.05-27.05[1] (collecting cases). . . .

WHITT S. v. J. DERWINSKI,, 1 Vet. App. 94 (Vet. App. 1990)

. . . Const § 27.02, at 459 (4th ed. 1985) (“courts are not bound to follow a statutory definition where obvious . . .

In T. MOSCOSO VILLARONGA, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP. v. DEBTOR TRUSTEE,, 111 B.R. 13 (Bankr. D.P.R. 1989)

. . . United, n. 17 at 147. . 1 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice, sections 27.02 and 27.04. . . . .

YAZDCHI, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,, 878 F.2d 166 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . That statute, Article 27.02(5), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, provides in part that: The legal effect . . .

HOOVER GROUP INC. v. PROBALA ASSOCIATES, 710 F. Supp. 677 (N.D. Ohio 1989)

. . . Domke, The Law and Practice of Commercial Arbitration, Sec. 27.02 at 413-415 (Rev.Ed.). . . .

Ed RICH, v. C. DOLLAR,, 841 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1988)

. . . . § 27.02 (1985) clearly establishes that it is the States Attorney who is assigned the duty to “... . . .

O KILPATRICK, v. R. OLIFF,, 519 So. 2d 9 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . See § 27.02 Fla.Stat.; Dade County v. Strauss, 246 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1971). . . .

COOK, v. A. LYNAUGH,, 821 F.2d 1072 (5th Cir. 1987)

. . . Code Ann. art. 27.02(5) (Vernon Supp.1987) (“A plea of nolo contendere, the legal effect of which shall . . .

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, v. READING COMPANY W. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, v. ERIE LACKAWANNA, INC. PUISHIS, J. C. v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, 654 F. Supp. 1318 (Reg'l Rail Reorg. Ct. 1987)

. . . . § 27.02 (Sands 4th ed. 1985). See id. § 47.07. . . .

In P. NAVE B. BANK ONE, DAYTON, v. P. NAVE B., 68 B.R. 139 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1986)

. . . . § 27.02[6] at 2762, n. 42(a) (1983). . . .

ESTATE S. BARON, S. S. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 798 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1986)

. . . depreciation, deducted 72.98 percent of that amount ($401,390) on his 1977 joint tax return and the other 27.02 . . .

BILLIE, v. STATE, 473 So. 2d 34 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Felis Concolor Co-ryl), without specific permit from the executive director, as prohibited in F.A.C. 39-27.02 . . .

In TRANSCONTINENTAL ENERGY CORPORATION, A. DAVIS, v. E. JACKSON,, 764 F.2d 1296 (9th Cir. 1985)

. . . Id. 27.02, at 1085 (quoting In re Stuart, 272 F. 938 (6th Cir.1921)). . . .

In TRANSCONTINENTAL ENERGY CORPORATION, A. DAVIS, v. E. JACKSON,, 764 F.2d 1296 (9th Cir. 1985)

. . . . ¶ 27.02, at 1085 (quoting In re Stuart, 272 F. 938 (6th Cir.1921)). . . .

STATE v. BILLIE, 17 Fla. Supp. 2d 68 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985)

. . . Likewise, the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission has by Chapter 39-27.02 and 39-27.03 designated . . .

STATE v. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,, 469 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 1985)

. . . attorney did not have authority derived from article V, section 17, Florida Constitution and section 27.02 . . .

SIERRA CLUB v. P. CLARK,, 755 F.2d 608 (8th Cir. 1985)

. . . Sands, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 27.02, at 310 (4th ed. 1972). . . .

Dr. N. PREMACHANDRA, v. Dr. G. MITTS,, 753 F.2d 635 (8th Cir. 1985)

. . . Sands, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 27.02, at 310 (4th ed. 1972). 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) . . .

S. S. S. v., 83 T.C. 542 (T.C. 1984)

. . . depreciation on the master recording of $401,390 (72.98 percent of $550,000) in 1977 and $148,610 (27.02 . . .

STATE v. DEMARZO,, 453 So. 2d 850 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . In addition, Section 27.02, Florida Statutes (1981), provides that the state attorney represent the state . . .

CARWISE, v. STATE, 449 So. 2d 943 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Section 27.02, Florida Statutes (1983) provides: Duties before Court: The state attorney shall appear . . .

LAURIAT S, INC. d b a s v. RICH- TAUBMAN ASSOCIATES, 582 F. Supp. 828 (D. Conn. 1984)

. . . Lease, Section 27.02, Entire Agreement. . . .

STATE By STATE ATTORNEY FOR TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, v. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a, 448 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . In that order, the court specifically ruled: (1) section 27.02 is merely enabling legislation for article . . . Discussion Appellant essentially argues that section 27.02 when read in conjunction with article Y, section . . . We reach this conclusion after examining article V, section 17 and section 27.02 together, as well as . . . Furthermore, we hold that section 27.02 contrary to appellant’s contention, is not such a specific general . . . Section 27.02 provides: "The state attorney shall appear in the circuit and county courts within his . . .

In BRAMHAM, BRAMHAM, v. NEVADA FIRST THRIFT,, 38 B.R. 459 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1984)

. . . Matter of Towers Magazines, Inc. 27 F.Supp. 693 (M.D.Pa.1939), cited in 2A Collier on Bankruptcy 11 27.02 . . .

WHITE AND WHITE, INC. v. AMERICAN HOSPITAL SUPPLY CORP., 723 F.2d 495 (6th Cir. 1983)

. . . SMSAs: TABLE 6 Defendant’s Market SMSA Share Percentage Cincinnati 30.32 Columbus 39.57 Indianapolis 27.02 . . .

TAK CHEONG HAU, v. A. D. MOYER,, 576 F. Supp. 844 (N.D. Ill. 1983)

. . . and should be given controlling effect. 1A Sands (Southerland), Statutes and Statutory Construction § 27.02 . . .

In KING, CENTRAL FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, v. KING, 23 B.R. 779 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1982)

. . . Central’s objection, provided that Central would receive $108.08 on the arrearage per month, of which $27.02 . . .

A. M. SEAMON v. UPHAM,, 536 F. Supp. 931 (E.D. Tex. 1982)

. . . 11.02, 12, 13.01, 13.02,14,15.01,15.02,16,17.01,17.02,18,19, 21, 22.01, 22.02, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.01, 27.02 . . .

In FULGHUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, H. WALDSCHMIDT, v. H. RANIER, H., 7 B.R. 629 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1980)

. . . Miller, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Guide 27.01-27.02 (1979). . . . Id. at 27.02. . . .

In KING,, 7 B.R. 110 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1980)

. . . The sum of $75.06 will be applied to pay back the principal arrearage, while $27.02 will cover interest . . .

FLORIDA BUSINESSMEN FOR FREE ENTERPRISE, a a Co. a v. STATE OF FLORIDA, a a, 499 F. Supp. 346 (N.D. Fla. 1980)

. . . See, §§ 27.02, 27.03, 30.15, Fla. Stat. (1979); Art. 5, Fla.Const. § 17; Art. 8, Fla.Const. § 1(d). . . .

ADCOX v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., 512 F. Supp. 452 (N.D. Tex. 1980)

. . . plea of nolo contendere is béing used as an admission to prove the fact of guilt contrary to Article 27.02 . . .

ROSE, v. P. D ALESSANDRO,, 364 So. 2d 763 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . to the trial of a criminal case pursuant to its statutory investigatory or pros-ecutorial duties, §§ 27.02 . . .

STATE L. SHEVIN, E. v. T. WEINSTEIN, H., 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Court’s order of March 4, 1977 and is hereby authorized and directed under the authority of Chapter 27.02 . . .

ROBERTS, v. WESTERN AIRLINES, 425 F. Supp. 416 (N.D. Cal. 1976)

. . . , Welfare Regulations for Any Occupation, Trade, or Industry; Alaska General Safety Code, Ch. 27, § 27.02 . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA L. SHEVIN, v. EXXON CORPORATION, 526 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . . § 27.02 (1961) (original criminal proceedings; Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 17.20, 27.10 (1961) (collection of . . .

ELLIS ET AL. v. DYSON, 421 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1975)

. . . Proc., Art. 27.02 (1966), as amended by Tex. Sess. Laws, 60th Leg., c. 659, § 17, p. 1738 (1967). . . .

EAGAN, L. v. M. DeMANIO, a, 294 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1974)

. . . V, § 17, F.S.A.), in whom the Legislature vested the duty to prosecute (Fla.Stat., § 27.02, F.S.A.). . . .

SANTILLAN v. Dr. J. BETO,, 371 F. Supp. 194 (S.D. Tex. 1974)

. . . Article 27.02, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Article 42.12 § 3a, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. . . .

ROBINSON v. D. WARNER, 370 F. Supp. 828 (D.R.I. 1974)

. . . Domke, The Law and Practice of Commercial Arbitration, Sec. 27.02 at 272-73 (1968). . . .

McNAMARA v. HAWKS, 354 F. Supp. 492 (S.D. Fla. 1973)

. . . . § 27.02 (1971), § 32.01 (1971), F.S.A., Article Y, § 9B of the Constitution of the State of Florida . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. ROSENSTENGEL,, 323 F. Supp. 499 (E.D. Mo. 1971)

. . . In Rule 27.02 of the Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, V.A.M.R., we note that in cases . . .

MISTKOT, v. WADE,, 433 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir. 1970)

. . . cause “why the defendant ought not to be tried upon the accusation presented against him”, Article 27.02 . . .

In FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 196 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1967)

. . . (See sec’s 905.16, 905.17, 905.19, 905.22, 27.02, 27.16, 27.21 & 27.22 FS.) . . .

STATE MARTIN, v. B. MICHELL, MARTIN, v. STATE, 188 So. 2d 684 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

. . . . § 27.02. . F.S.A. § 27.03. . F.S.A. § 932.17. . . . .

W. H. MIRACLE, v. A. M. JACOBY, U. S. H. C. U. S., 192 F. Supp. 907 (W.D. Ark. 1961)

. . . The background of this doctrine is discussed in 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, Sec. 27.02. . . .

FLORIDA TRAILER AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY, v. R. DEAL, d b a, 284 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1960)

. . . approval extends to controversies and not merely those involved in pending suits. 2 Collier, Bankruptcy § 27.02 . . .

HOOPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 146 Ct. Cl. 136 (Ct. Cl. 1959)

. . . Thus, the low bid exceeded the estimate by 27.02 percent, which was in excess of the amount under which . . .

DELTA EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION CO. v. UNITED STATES, 113 F. Supp. 459 (Ct. Cl. 1953)

. . . Tractor hauling charge...... 27.02 E. . . .

DELTA EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, AND THE BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TENSAS BASIN LEVEE DISTRICT, STATE OF LOUISIANA, INTERVENOR, 125 Ct. Cl. 632 (Ct. Cl. 1953)

. . . Tractor hauling charge- 27.02 E. . . .

GILES v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RY. CO., 72 F. Supp. 493 (D. Minn. 1947)

. . . and the joint expectation of life of said employee and his widow, according to' the same exhibit, was 27.02 . . .

Al v., 3 T.C. 1184 (T.C. 1944)

. . . See also Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, voL 5, § 27.02, wherein it is said, at page 9: Where . . .

HARRIS v. CROSSETT LUMBER CO., 62 F. Supp. 856 (W.D. Ark. 1943)

. . . period fiom July 19, 1940, to October 24, 1940, a period of 14 weeks, the plaintiffs weekly wage was $27.02 . . . from October 24, 1940, to October 5, 1941, a period of 49 weeks, the weekly wage of plaintiff was $27.02 . . .

CLEVELAND, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO ST. LOUIS RY. CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 64 Ct. Cl. 534 (Ct. Cl. 1928)

. . . numbered 68209 and 68205 to the Auditor for the War Department stated at a net per capita fare of $27.02 . . .