CopyCited 61 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25626
...m its definition of “small arms ammunition.” Id. at 195. Although Congress adopted language identical to the Model Act’s “small arms ammunition” exception, the ATF has not adopted the Model Act’s definition of “ammunition”; 27 C.F.R. § 55.11 (1983) does not contain an express exclusion of “military-type ammunition containing explosive bursting charges.” Secondly, a subsequent amendment to § 845(a)(5) casts doubt upon the district court’s conclusion that both §§ 845(a)(4) and (5) were effectively limited to sports-related activities....
...1652, 1660-61 ,
36 L.Ed.2d 318, 329 (1973); K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 7:11 (2d ed. 1979). The Secretary has delegated its rule-making authority under § 847 to the ATF. In defining ammunition, the ATF has indicated that the term shall include “percussion caps.” 27 C.F.R. §
55.11 (1983)....
...same general class” as “percussion caps” and, therefore, falls within the statutory exception for “small arms ammunition.” Counsel did not argue this point in his brief or at oral argument. Indeed, he erroneously maintained that 27 C.F.R. § 55.11 was inapplicable to this case....
...Hawthorne Flying Serv.,
287 F.2d 539, 541 (5th Cir.1961)). Further fact-finding may be desirable in the instant case, first, to determine whether appellant’s “Devastator” ammunition is “in the same general class” or otherwise within the scope of a “percussion cap” under 27 C.F.R. §
55.11 (1983) and, second, to establish an adequate basis upon which to resolve a difficult question of statutory construction....
...vidence of record describing “Devastator” ammunition lends little or no support to the contention that such ammunition is “in the same general class or otherwise within the scope of” the term “percussion cap” as so defined. See 27 C.F.R. § 55.11 (1983).
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1407, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8590
...The Town failed to carry that burden. Hence, we reverse and remand for entry of a writ of mandamus directing the Town of Hastings to pay the full judgment entered against it. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, J., and LOCKETT, J.T., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] See § 55.11, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 72158
...We have reviewed the record and find the points on appeal raised by appellant to be without merit. We, therefore, affirm the judgments of the trial court. The City directs our attention to the parts of the final judgments which include the language "for which let execution issue" and section 55.11, Florida Statutes (1987), which reads: No money judgment or decree against a municipal corporation is a lien on its property nor shall any execution or any writ in the nature of an execution based on the judgment or decree be issued or levied....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33605, 2007 WL 1319438
...deral Rules of Procedure instead of the Rules governing proceedings in State courts. Rule 62(f) entitles a judgment debtor to a stay under State law, only if the judgment creates a lien on the property of the judgment debtor. Because Florida Statute § 55.11 expressly provides that "no money judgment or decree against a municipal corporation is a lien on its property," ISLAMORADA is not entitled to a stay under State law....
