Cases from cite.case.law:

IN INTEREST OF D. P. III, a M. M. v. K. P., 228 So. 3d 718 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .”); § 27.40(2)(a) (“Private counsel shall be appointed to represent persons in those cases in which . . .

MORRIS, v. STATE, 217 So. 3d 114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . testified, appellant asked to absent himself from court to write an “advisory,” pursuant to section 27.40 . . .

RIVERA, v. MCCOY CORPORATION,, 240 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (D.N.M. 2017)

. . . ); (Doc. 119 at 2). 43.Plaintiffs hourly rate was $18.27, which means Plaintiffs overtime wage was $27.40 . . . Plaintiff worked 58 hours a week, resulting in 18 hours of unpaid overtime per week for 13 weeks. $27.40 . . .

COLE v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE,, 108 F. Supp. 3d 593 (W.D. Tenn. 2015)

. . . officers removed Plaintiff from the area and discovered that he was presently armed with a GLOCK Model 27.40 . . .

PLUMBERS PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, v. ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL N. V., 89 F. Supp. 3d 602 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Immediately following the July 29 announcement, the price of Orthofix shares declined from $27.40 per . . . Following this announcement, the price of Orthofix shares declined from $27.40 to $22.71 per share on . . .

COLE v. CITY OF MEMPHIS,, 97 F. Supp. 3d 947 (W.D. Tenn. 2015)

. . . officers removed Plaintiff from the area and discovered that he was presently armed with a GLOCK Model 27.40 . . .

P. ABDOOL, v. BONDI,, 141 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2014)

. . . See §§ 27.40, 27.511, 27.701, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . See § 27.40(2)(b), Fla. . . . See §§ 27.40(3)(a), 27.511(3)(a), 27.701, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . regional counsel has a conflict, in which case the court shall appoint private counsel pursuant to s. 27.40 . . .

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION FKA v. W. COREY, D. D R. H. G. O. G. Jr. D. FKA v. W. D. D R. H. G. O. G. Jr. D., 730 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . California; Dry Mill; Wet DGS; 80% 47.44 30 77.44 _NG; 20% Biomass_ Brazilian sugarcane using average 27.40 . . .

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

. . . Section 27.40(1) mandates that “the court shall appoint a public defender to represent indigent persons . . . .” § 27.40(1), Fla. . . .

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

. . . . § 27.40(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . withdraw, the court shall appoint one or more attorneys to represent the accused, as provided in s. 27.40 . . . Section 27.40(3), Florida Statutes (2008), provides for the maintenance of a registry of attorneys in . . . Id. § 27.40(3)(a). The attorneys from the registry are appointed in rotating order. . . . . § 27.40(3)(b). . See ch. 2003-402, § 19, Laws of Fla. . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, 84 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2011)

. . . See § 27.40(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . Section 27.40(7)(a) provides: A private attorney appointed by the court from the registry to represent . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, 75 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 2011)

. . . See § 27.40(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . Section 27.40(7)(a) provides: A private attorney appointed by the court from the registry to represent . . .

UNITED STATES v. DOBSON, a k a, 380 F. App'x 170 (3d Cir. 2010)

. . . DOB-SON ... knowingly disposed of a firearm and ammunition, namely a black Glock model 27.40 caliber . . .

JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION, v. J. HARP, IV,, 24 So. 3d 779 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See also § 27.40, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION, a v. M. LENAMON,, 19 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . for costs,” and (3) maintaining a registry of attorneys available for appointment pursuant to section 27.40 . . .

HAGOPIAN, v. JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION,, 18 So. 3d 625 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . . § 27.40(2); Crist, 978 So.2d at 138. . . . objections to compensation inconsistent with the parameters of Chapter 27[,] particularly sections 27.40 . . .

JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION, v. GROVER,, 12 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 27.40(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 6 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . regional counsel has a conflict, in which case the court shall appoint private counsel pursuant to s. 27.40 . . . regional counsel has a conflict, in which case the court shall appoint private counsel pursuant to s. 27.40 . . .

JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION, v. BERRY F., 5 So. 3d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . fees incurred by attorneys appointed to “handle cases where the defendant is indigent”); see also § 27.40 . . .

DEEN, v. WILSON, R., 1 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 27.40(1), Florida Statutes (2008), states that the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional . . . When the general provision of section 27.40 is read in pari materia with the more specific statute, section . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEYS IN CAPITAL CASES, 993 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2008)

. . . of former section 925.037, Florida Statutes (2004), and the replacement of that statute with section 27.40 . . .

JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION, v. A. PETERSON,, 989 So. 2d 663 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 27.40(1) (“Counsel shall be appointed to represent any individual in a criminal or civil proceeding . . .

GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT, S. P. C. C. v. GARFIELD, N. A. J., 537 F. Supp. 2d 359 (D. Conn. 2008)

. . . received 23.17 percent of the vote, but Progressive Candidate Theodore Roosevelt also ran and received 27.40 . . . Taft split the vote with Progressive Candidate Theodore Roosevelt, who also ran and garnered 27.40 percent . . .

J. CRIST, Jr. v. FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, INC., 978 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 27.40, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . the OCCCRC has a conflict, the Act requires the court to appoint private counsel from the registry. § 27.40 . . . Consistent with this intent, the Legislature amended section 27.40, which details the process by which . . . indigent persons are appointed counsel, as follows: 27.40 Court-appointed counsel; eir- ■ cuit registries . . . See § 27.40(3), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

In WORLDCOM, INC., 368 B.R. 308 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Reneau’s affidavit, wherein he discusses his belief as to why $27.40 is the “base monthly price,” the . . . Reneau’s affidavit concludes: “Thus, the ‘Unlimited Service’ rate of $27.40 was to be the base monthly . . . Reneau provided sufficient argument and facts as to why he believed $27.40 was the “base monthly price . . . Reneau, that the “base monthly price” was actually intended to be the unlimited service rate of $27.40 . . . If a reconciliation payment had to be made, EffectNet argues that Intermedia would be charged $27.40 . . .

VISION CHURCH, UNITED METHODIST, C. v. VILLAGE OF LONG GROVE,, 468 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2006)

. . . It purchased a 27.40-acre vacant plot in unincorporated Lake County, Illinois, in September 2000, “with . . .

ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION, USA v. CITY OF ATLANTA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, USA a GANSAT d. b. a. v., 442 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2006)

. . . The 1997 plan proposed a rent of $32.40 per month for the use of Department-owned news-racks and $27.40 . . .

C. D. BARNES ASSOCIATES, INC. v. GRAND HAVEN HIDEAWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LLC,, 406 F. Supp. 2d 801 (W.D. Mich. 2005)

. . . . § 27.40(a). . . . that “State laws affording priority to liens recorded after the mortgage are preempted.” 24 C.F.R. § 27.40 . . .

In MIGIANO, d b a, 242 B.R. 759 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . for Brad Culverhouse, Esquire is $3,125.00 plus aggregate reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $27.40 . . . due to Applicant, in the amount of $1,765.17, together with the allowed reimbursement of expenses of $27.40 . . . /10/98 $12.00 —Pro-rated travel: Fort Pierce to West Palm Beach, for various hearings $15.40 Total $27.40 . . . assess the debtor a “flat charge” for expenses, when at best, Applicant is only entitled to request $27.40 . . . Accordingly, the Court allows reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $27.40. . . .

KNAPP SHOES, INC. v. SYLVANIA SHOE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,, 72 F.3d 190 (1st Cir. 1995)

. . . 668 18.75 12,525.00 2814 53 ^ r-T 598 22.10 13,215.80 2815 51 Ü1 CO t-T 62 22.10 1,370.20 2816 26 354 27.40 . . .

J. TAYLOR M. v. CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA DRUG AND ALCOHOL SERVICES CORPORATION L., 890 F. Supp. 360 (M.D. Pa. 1995)

. . . pay — $1,826.26 (1/12 of $21,915.14) Interest from 11/1/91 to 12/31/91 @ 9% .09 x 2/12 x $1,826.26 $ 27.40 . . .

In C. SIGRIST M. CHEMICAL BANK, v. C. SIGRIST M. In J. HUGHEY, MANUFACTURERS TRADERS TRUST CO. v. J. HUGHEY,, 163 B.R. 940 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . See also 1 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice, sec. 27.40 and 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Cir., ¶ 523.08 . . .

In GOOD SHIP APPLEDORE, LTD. H. HOWISON, v. KEY BANK OF SOUTHERN MAINE,, 122 B.R. 821 (Bankr. D. Me. 1990)

. . . Date Posted Payee Amount 234 9/24 D B & T 308.48 232 9/25 Renys 27.40 229 9/25 NAT Wilson 500.00 226 . . .

BROWN, By v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS,, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989)

. . . Linn 0.30 17.80 1.7 98.3 Lowman Hill 6.50 25.60 25.4 74.6 Lundgren 2.80 21.55 13.0 87.0 McCarter 3.00 27.40 . . .

W. SELLERS, v. UNITED STATES J. D. S. Mr. A. D. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. H., 881 F.2d 1061 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . .2d 946 (5th Cir.1982) (no abuse of discretion in requirement that prisoner pay $8 fee where he had $27.40 . . .

In EYE CONTACT, INC., 97 B.R. 990 (Bank. W.D. Wis. 1989)

. . . Stoudt arrived at the $1,746.60 figure by adding the $27.40 per day ($2,500.00 divided by 91.25 days . . . Stoudt accrued $27.40 in bonus wages for each day of her employment, Ms. . . . Wage priority claim of $575.40: (21 days x $27.40/day). . . .

ARMADA SUPPLY INCORPORATED, v. WRIGHT, s Co. No. CS S. A. S. A. E E S. A. S. A. S. A. S. A. S. A. S. A. S. A. E a E S. A. C. A. S. S. A. S. A. E. a S. A. S. A. S. A. S. A. S. A. S. A. GB- S. A. S. A. S. A. S. A. S. A. I. S. A. S. A. S. A. SDB, 858 F.2d 842 (2d Cir. 1988)

. . . Sun later agreed to buy only 49,000 barrels at $27.40 per barrel. . . .

ARMADA SUPPLY INCORPORATED, v. WRIGHT,, 665 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . Armada and Sun renegotiated the price and on December 16 agreed upon $27.40 per barrel. . . . In any event, on December 16 Sun agreed to a new price for the whole cargo of $27.40 per barrel. . . . to Sun ($30.55 per barrel) and the revised price, arrived at after discovery of the contamination ($27.40 . . . the dollar figure representing the deterioration of the 49,175 barrels delivered to Sun is $30.55— $27.40 . . .

In KOCH OIL, S. A. TRANSOCEAN GULF OIL COMPANY,, 751 F.2d 551 (2d Cir. 1985)

. . . crude at $29.30 a barrel, and Gulf agreed to sell Koch the same number of barrels of Kuwait crude at $27.40 . . .

COLLIER, v. TATUM,, 722 F.2d 653 (11th Cir. 1983)

. . . 946 (5th Cir.1982) (no abuse of discretion in requirement that prisoner pay $8.00 fee, where he had $27.40 . . .

SMITH, Jr. v. MARTINEZ W. J. Jr., 706 F.2d 572 (5th Cir. 1983)

. . . requiring the prisoner to pay $8.00 to cover filing and service fees, where (although he had only $27.40 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., 681 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1982)

. . . Although Williams had only $27.40 in his inmate trust account when the district court reviewed his request . . .

In ARTERBURN, ARTERBURN, v. ARTERBURN,, 15 B.R. 189 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1981)

. . . over hold-harmless agreements is confined to the parties to the agreement.” 1 Norton, Bankruptcy, § 27.40 . . . Nitz, 568 F.2d 148 (C.A. 10 1977). 1 Norton, supra, § 27.40, p. 38. . . .

GALLEGOS, v. STOKES, d b a A, 593 F.2d 372 (10th Cir. 1979)

. . . The annual percentage interest rate was stated as 27.40% and the total finance charge as $321.56. . . .

YOUNGER, v. GLAMORGAN PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, a, 418 F. Supp. 743 (W.D. Va. 1976)

. . . 253 salary of claimant $6,357.81 salary of white counterparts $6,628.88 claimant's daily rate of pay $27.40 . . .

RODWAY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 514 F.2d 809 (D.C. Cir. 1975)

. . . 20 years ............................... 8.50 36.80 Women, 20-35 years ........................ 6.30 27.40 . . .

ASTRO SCIENCE CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES, 471 F.2d 624 (Ct. Cl. 1973)

. . . Wachtel, Government contracts § 27.40 [7] (1972). Plaintiff has not met this burden. . . .

ASTRO SCIENCE CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 200 Ct. Cl. 354 (Ct. Cl. 1973)

. . . Waohtel, Government Oon-tracts •§ 27.40[7] (1972). Plaintiff has not met this burden. . . .

E. Jr. S. v., 51 T.C. 799 (T.C. 1969)

. . . In addition to the cost of hiring a maid and bartender, petitioners spent $27.40 for rental of card tables . . .

C. J. v., 60 Cust. Ct. 938 (Cust. Ct. 1968)

. . . . 534, A.R.D. 223: * * * In the * * * [Acme Steel case, supra], however, it was stipulated that the 27.40 . . .

C. J. v., 58 Cust. Ct. 834 (Cust. Ct. 1967)

. . . The merchandise was appraised at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 percent, on the basis of constructed . . . In the latter case, however, it was stipulated that the 27.40 percent increase over the entered value . . .

v., 58 Cust. Ct. 821 (Cust. Ct. 1967)

. . . dispute was that of general expenses * * * that the appraised value at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 . . .

C. J. v., 56 Cust. Ct. 653 (Cust. Ct. 1966)

. . . The merchandise was appraised at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 percent, on the basis of constructed . . .

C. J. v., 55 Cust. Ct. 586 (Cust. Ct. 1965)

. . . The merchandise was appraised at the entered values, plus 27.40 per centum Canadian dollars, packed, . . .

v., 51 C.C.P.A. 81 (C.C.P.A. 1964)

. . . The merchandise in issue was appraised at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 per centum Canadian dollars . . . expenses, as defined in said section 402(d) 2; that the appraised value at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 . . . The trial judge, as did the Appellate Term, noted that the 27.40 per centum of the invoiced and entered . . .

UNITED STATES v. ACME STEEL COMPANY, 216 F. Supp. 448 (Cust. Ct. 1963)

. . . It was appraised at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 per centum Canadian dollars, packed, con-cededly . . . expenses, as defined in said section 402(d) (2); that the appraised value at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 . . . Aside from the stipulated fact that the appraiser’s addition of 27.40 per centum to the entered unit . . . Act of 1930, as amended by said Customs Simplification Act of 1956, at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 . . .

v., 50 Cust. Ct. 529 (Cust. Ct. 1963)

. . . It was appraised at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 per centum Canadian dollars, packed, concededly . . . expenses, as defined in said section 402(d) (2); that the appraised value at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 . . . Aside from the stipulated fact that the appraiser’s addition of 27.40 per centum to the entered unit . . . Act of 1930, as amended by said Customs Simplification Act of 1956, at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 . . .

v., 48 Cust. Ct. 497 (Cust. Ct. 1962)

. . . The appraisement was made in Canadian dollars at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 per centum, packed . . . On appraisement, the appraiser added 27.40 per centum of the invoiced and entered prices to such prices . . . dispute is the item of general expenses under section 402(d) (2) of the amended tariff act, and that the 27.40 . . . merchandise to the United States. (4) That said merchandise was appraised at the entered unit values, plus 27.40 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON,, 174 F. Supp. 1 (E.D.N.Y. 1959)

. . . (Parcel 216 — 49 acres; 218 — • 17.70 acres and 223 — 27.40 acres) They are parts of larger parcels in . . .

Co. v., 44 C.C.P.A. 83 (C.C.P.A. 1957)

. . . Appellant’s arguments were answered by the Customs Court as follows: * * * Sections 27.39 and 27.40 of . . .

N. M. Co. v., 36 Cust. Ct. 294 (Cust. Ct. 1956)

. . . . * * * Sections 27.39 and 27.40 of the Customs Manual of 1943, in effect at the time of this importation . . .

Co. v., 36 Cust. Ct. 214 (Cust. Ct. 1956)

. . . Sections 27.39 and 27.40 of the Customs Manual of 1943, in effect at the time of this importation, provide . . .

ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF ALABAMA, v. WILLINGHAM, 77 F. Supp. 990 (N.D. Ala. 1948)

. . . 209.16 10.61. 251.73 85.82 4.35 114.29 164.34 76.29 94.01 4.77 162.35 69.99 30.58 97.39 4.94 218.49 27.40 . . .

s, v. B., 130 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1937)

. . . net loss of $1535.32, while from April 1st, 1936, through November, 1936, showed a net loss of only $27.40 . . .