The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 201
EXCISE TAX ON DOCUMENTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 201.11

201.11 Administration of law by Department of Revenue.—

(1) The administration of this chapter shall be vested in the Department of Revenue, which has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to enforce the provisions of this chapter and shall administer and enforce the taxes levied and imposed by this chapter. The Department of Revenue may enter upon the premises of any taxpayer, and examine or cause to be examined by any agent or representative designated by it for that purpose, any books, papers, records, or memoranda bearing upon the amount of taxes payable, and secure other information directly or indirectly concerned in the enforcement of this chapter. Any person, subject to this tax, who shall by any practice or evasion make it difficult to enforce the provisions of this chapter by inspection, or any person, agent or officer, who shall, after demand by the department or any agent or representative designated by it for that purpose, refuse to allow full inspection of the premises or any part thereof, or any books, records, documents, or other instruments in any way relating to the liability of the taxpayer for the tax herein imposed, or shall hinder or in anywise delay or prevent such inspection, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2) The county comptroller or, if there be none, then the clerk of the circuit court, shall serve ex officio, and the Department of Revenue may appoint others, as agents for the collection of the tax imposed by this chapter. The department may adopt rules and regulations requiring the agents to meet certain standards, including, without limitation, a demonstrated volume of business or a geographical distribution. All agents shall be subject to audit and shall post a bond as may be required by the Department of Revenue. The Department of Revenue may purchase a blanket bond; however, all costs associated with such a bond shall be allocated by department regulation to those agents so bonded. An agent shall be compensated 0.5 percent of the tax collected as collection costs in the form of a deduction from the amount of the tax due and remitted by the agent, and the department shall allow the said deduction to the agent paying and remitting the tax in the manner as provided for by the department. However, no deduction or allowance shall be granted when there is a manifest failure to maintain proper records or make proper reports.

History.—s. 2, ch. 15787, 1931; CGL 1936 Supp. 1279(112), 7473(5); ss. 21, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 104, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 71-344; s. 2, ch. 74-325; s. 1, ch. 76-199; s. 1050, ch. 95-147; s. 10, ch. 96-395; s. 16, ch. 98-200.

F.S. 201.11 on Google Scholar

F.S. 201.11 on Casetext

Amendments to 201.11

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 201.11

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

S201.11 - OBSTRUCT CRIMINAL INVEST - REFUSE INSPECTION OF RECORDS EXCISE TAX DOC - M: S

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

NATURAL ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. IANCU,, 904 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

. . . Although the Board did not explicitly address this argument, the PTO responds that NAI reads MPEP § 201.11 . . . Nonetheless, we have reviewed MPEP § 201.11 and find that nothing in its text limits the scope of waiver . . . Indeed, § 201.11 does not contemplate all possible consequences of waiving a benefit claim in a particular . . . Although outdated, we refer to MPEP § 201.11 to remain consistent with Appellant's briefs. . . . The subject matter of § 201.11, however, now exists in MPEP § 211. . . .

DROPLETS, INC. v. E TRADE BANK, E TRADE E TRADE LLC, TD TD v., 887 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

. . . MPEP § 201.11 III.C. . . .

CLARK, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 697 F. App'x 49 (2d Cir. 2017)

. . . P, App. 2, Rules 201.10, 201.11; cf. . . .

IMPERIAL SUGAR COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES, C y, 181 F. Supp. 3d 1284 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2016)

. . . . § 201.11(a)). . . .

IMMERSION CORPORATION, v. HTC CORPORATION, HTC, 826 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

. . . of Patent Examining Procedure defined “co-pending” by simply echoing section 120’s language, MPEP § 201.11 . . . MPEP § 201.11 (3d ed. 1961) (emphases added). . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. HESTER,, 618 F. App'x 659 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 201.11(d)(6). We AFFIRM Hester’s sentence. . . .

NIKOOIE, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A., 183 So. 3d 424 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . of the document, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, as well, has no obligation to collect the tax, §§ 201.11 . . . taxes, the Clerk merely is the on-site agent to receive funds for the Florida Department of Revenue. §§ 201.11 . . .

MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC, CV S. A. R. L. v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, LLC, U. S., 741 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . For example, section 201.11 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“M.P.E.P.”), which provides . . . See, e.g., M.P.E.P. § 201.11 (8th ed. rev.5, Aug. 2006) (“The relationship between the applications is . . .

BERRY, v. COASTAL INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, INC., 968 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . . § 14-201.11. . . . Stat. § 14-201.11. Compl. ¶¶ 78-92. . . . Stat. § 14-201.11, and subjected him to a hostile and abusive work environment. Compl. ¶¶ 78-86. . . .

NICOLAI, v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY,, 928 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 201.11. . . .

SANTARUS, INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . examiner reviews the priority claims, as instructed by the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure §§ 201.08, 201.11 . . .

CAROTEK, INC. v. KOBAYASHI VENTURES, LLC v. LLC, 875 F. Supp. 2d 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . § 1.53(d) (using the term “prior application” to refer to the application to be abandoned); MPEP § 201.11 . . . Innovation, 420 F.3d at 1367; MPEP § 201.11 (“If the specific reference is only contained in the application . . .

D. DANIELS, v. J. ASTRUE,, 854 F. Supp. 2d 513 (N.D. Ill. 2012)

. . . Rule 201.11. . . . assessing Claimant’s transferability of skills, the ALJ incorrectly cited the Medical-Vocational Rule 201.11 . . .

FIGUEROA, v. J. ASTRUE,, 848 F. Supp. 2d 894 (N.D. Ill. 2012)

. . . P, App. 2, § 201.11. Mr. . . .

CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, v. ROBERTS, 72 So. 3d 294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Section 201.11, USBAC, establishes the criteria for when a building and/or structure is considered “unsafe . . .

AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. DELPHI CORPORATION,, 776 F. Supp. 2d 469 (E.D. Mich. 2011)

. . . . § 201.11(I)(B) (“Only the claims of the continuation-in-part application that are disclosed in the . . .

KYLE, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 609 F.3d 847 (6th Cir. 2010)

. . . The ALJ held, accordingly, that Kyle was not disabled under the framework of Medical-Vocational Rule 201.11 . . . Likewise, Rule 201.11 sets forth that an individual closely approaching advanced age (ages 50-55) with . . . Rule 201.11 applies to individuals closely approaching advanced age, 50-55. . . . .

HAMILTON, v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 368 F. App'x 724 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . P, App. 2, §§ 201.11 (transferable skills), 202.10 (light work). . . .

UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON,, 358 F. App'x 527 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . . §§ 201.1(c), 201.11(d); see also United States v. Martin, 438 F.3d 621, 625, 633 (6th Cir.2006). . . .

RING PLUS, INC. v. CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC,, 637 F. Supp. 2d 423 (E.D. Tex. 2009)

. . . See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 201.11(I)(A)-(B) (8th ed., rev. 7, July 2008) (regarding . . .

ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. SPIRE BIOMEDICAL, INC., 635 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D. Mass. 2009)

. . . MPEP § 201.11. . . . MPEP § 201.11. . . . MPEP § 201.11. . . . .

MOAEC, INC. v. MUSICIP CORPORATION, L. L. C. J. L. L. C. L. L. C., 568 F. Supp. 2d 978 (W.D. Wis. 2008)

. . . Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, § 201.11(II)(B) (8th ed. 2006). . . . MPEP, § 201.11 (3d ed. 1961) (“If the first application issues as a patent, it is sufficient for the . . . In accordance with the PTO’s Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 201.11, plaintiffs May 15, 2001 patent . . .

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, v. PRINTING SOLUTIONS, L. L. C., 525 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Under MPEP § 201.11, the specific reference can be either in the first sentence of the speci-fieation . . . Under MPEP § 201.11, “[w]hen the nonprovisional application is entitled to an earlier U.S. effective . . . MPEP provision requires only that the applicant use a statement “such as” the one provided in Section 201.11 . . . MPEP § 201.11. . . .

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. eSPEED, INC., 581 F. Supp. 2d 915 (N.D. Ill. 2008)

. . . MPEP § 201.11. It does not require the applicant to justify its entitlement to that date. Id. . . .

Do v., 31 Ct. Int'l Trade 1592 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . . § 201.11 (2005) and the notice of institution published in the Federal Register, we hereby submit our . . . The citation to 19 C.F.R. § 201.11 (2005), apparently made in error, is to a regulation of the United . . .

DOFASCO INC. Do v. UNITED STATES,, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

COLEMAN, v. NEWBURGH ENLARGED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 503 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 201.11(a)(3), before an impartial hearing officer (“IHO”) appointed by the local board of education . . . requested and shall result in a determination within 10 school days after the hearing.”); 8 NY.C.R.R. § 201.11 . . . [to] a hearing,” § 1415(k)(3)(A); see 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 201.11(a)(3), conducted on an “expedited” basis, . . . § 1415(k)(4)(B); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 201.11(c). . . .

NORTHWEST BYPASS GROUP, v. U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,, 488 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.N.H. 2007)

. . . See 1-201 Weinstein’s FedeRal Evidence § 201.11[2]; compare Cofield, v. Alabama Public Serv. . . .

MOORE, v. MATTHEWS,, 445 F. Supp. 2d 516 (D. Md. 2006)

. . . See also McLaughlin, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 201.11 [1]; Carpenter v. . . .

AVOCENT HUNTSVILLE CORP. v. CLEARCUBE TECHNOLOGY, INC., 443 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (N.D. Ala. 2006)

. . . Of Commerce, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure §§ 201.06, 201.07, 201.08, 201.11 (7th ed.1998, rev . . .

K. NILSSEN GEO v. OSRAM SYLVANIA, INC., 440 F. Supp. 2d 884 (N.D. Ill. 2006)

. . . MPEP § 201.11.” . . . MPEP § 201.11. “Abandonment” refers to “express abandonment.” MPEP § 201.11. . . . MPEP § 201.11. . . . Section 201.11 of the MPEP provides: Any claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed . . . MPEP § 201.11, citing Studiengesellschaft Kohle M.B.H. v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. LAZENBY, v., 439 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 201.11(d)(4). The government agreed that Lazenby qualified for “safety valve” relief. . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. GALVAN,, 407 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . Galvan did not qualify for a downward adjustment under § 201.11(b)(2). . . .

SIMMONS, INC. v. BOMBARDIER INC., 328 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Utah 2004)

. . . Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 201.11(6th ed., rev. 2 1996) (emphasis added). . 35 U.S.C. § 120 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HOUSEL, Sr., 82 F. App'x 18 (10th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 201.11(d) n.(A)-(D) (1998); see also § 2Dl.ll(e) n.(A) (2003) (providing same result). . . .

FLETCHER, v. PRICE CHOPPER FOODS OF TRUMANN, INC., 220 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2000)

. . . a food establishment if the food employee is diagnosed with an infectious agent specified under ¶ 2-201.11 . . .

R. RUSHING v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,, 185 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 201.11 (standard for locomotive operation under stationary conditions); id. § 201.12 (standard for . . .

M. HADDOCK, v. S. APFEL,, 183 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 1999)

. . . Haddock was not disabled in light of this expert vocational testimony and Rule 201.11 from the medical-vocational . . .

M. HADDOCK, v. S. APFEL,, 196 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1999)

. . . Haddock was not disabled in light of this expert vocational testimony and Rule 201.11 from the medical-vocational . . .

WORLDSPAN, L. P. v. SABRE GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 1998)

. . . See also James William Moore et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice, §§ 201.11 et seq. (3rd ed.1998); Charles . . .

APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. v. ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS AMERICA, INC. d b a ASM N. V., 98 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

. . . Transco, 38 F.3d at 557 n. 6, 32 USPQ2d at 1082 n. 6 (quoting the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 201.11 . . .

F. PIGNATO E. v. GREAT WESTERN BANK,, 664 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . . § 201.11(2), Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

FIELD, v. S. CHATER,, 920 F. Supp. 240 (D. Me. 1995)

. . . See Grid Rule 201.11. . . .

TRANSCO PRODUCTS INC. v. PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING, INC., 38 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

. . . See MPEP § 201.11. . . . See MPEP § 201.11. . . . MPEP § 201.11. See P.J. . . .

GOLDEN VALLEY MICROWAVE FOODS, INC. v. WEAVER POPCORN COMPANY, INC., 837 F. Supp. 1444 (N.D. Ind. 1992)

. . . . §§ 201.11 and 2004 (Item 14). . DX 17. . DX 99. . . .

PULLIAM, v. SULLIVAN, M. D., 769 F. Supp. 1471 (N.D. Ill. 1991)

. . . Based on an exertional capacity for light work, Pulliam’s age, education and work experience, Rules 201.11 . . .

MBL USA v. Co. MBL USA v. Co., 14 Ct. Int'l Trade 161 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990)

. . . .* * * Under 19 CFR 201.11(a),* * * a party filing an appearance before the ITC is required to state . . .

MBL USA CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES, MBL USA CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES,, 733 F. Supp. 379 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990)

. . . Under 19 CFR 201.11(a), ... a party filing an appearance before the ITC is required to state its intent . . .

McADAMS, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 726 F. Supp. 579 (D.N.J. 1989)

. . . during the February to December 1984 period, the Appeals Council relied upon the framework of Rule 201.11 . . . Rule 201.11, in contrast to the AU’s finding, is based upon an individual with transferable work skills . . .

CROUCHET, Sr. v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 885 F.2d 202 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . , Crouchet contends that he is disabled pursuant to the medical-vocational rules, specifically Rule 201.11 . . .

ALLEN, H. v. BOWEN, R., 881 F.2d 37 (3d Cir. 1989)

. . . Rule 201.11 of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Table 1. Allen appeals. . . .

PYLES, v. R. BOWEN,, 849 F.2d 846 (4th Cir. 1988)

. . . Id., Rule 201.11. . . .

H. PAULSON, v. R. BOWEN,, 836 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1988)

. . . determination of Paulson’s disability status turns upon which of the three grid rules—201.09, 201.10, or 201.11 . . . See Grid Rule 201.11. . . .

FLORIDA EXPORT TOBACCO CO. INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 510 So. 2d 936 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . .-05, 199.03, 201.11, 208.49, 212.15, Florida Statutes (1961). . . . .

MULLINS, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 836 F.2d 980 (6th Cir. 1987)

. . . P, app. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.11, and Table 2, Rules 202.11, 202.12. C. . . . P, app. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.11. . See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. . . .

M. CLEATON, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, L. GWALTNEY, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, V. TAYLOR, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 815 F.2d 295 (4th Cir. 1987)

. . . The AU therefore applied Grid Rules 201.03 and 201.11 of Table No. 1 and denied the claim. 20 C.F.R. . . .

A. SITERLET, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 823 F.2d 918 (6th Cir. 1987)

. . . appellant had transferable work skills and concluded that appellant was not disabled pursuant to Rule 201.11 . . . contention that he lacked “transferable skills” which would permit a finding of non-disability based on Rule 201.11 . . . transferable to other semi-skilled work, all of which clearly supports the AU’s finding that use of Rule 201.11 . . .

D. MARTIN, Sr. v. R. BOWEN,, 652 F. Supp. 1270 (D. Kan. 1987)

. . . The AU's findings cite Rule 201.11. . . .

HARTNETT, v. M. HECKLER,, 625 F. Supp. 1405 (N.D. Ill. 1986)

. . . as Hartnett then points out (Mem. 12-13): However, assuming that claimant has transferable skills, § 201.11 . . .

P. PEREZ, v. M. HECKLER,, 777 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1985)

. . . CAPABILITY LIMITED TO SEDENTARY WORK AS A RESULT OF SEVERE MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE IMPAIRMENT(S) Rule 201.11 . . . P, app. 2, rule 201.11 (1985). . . .

STAMPS, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 633 F. Supp. 101 (E.D. Mich. 1985)

. . . P, app. 2, table 1, rule 201.11. . . .

L. SHINER, v. M. HECKLER,, 608 F. Supp. 481 (D. Mass. 1985)

. . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rule 201.11, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . . Rule 201.11, Table I. . . .

WILLEY, v. M. HECKLER,, 607 F. Supp. 576 (D. Me. 1985)

. . . Claimant’s past work was semi-skilled and that he had transferable skills, the AU applied Vocational Rule 201.11 . . . Part 404 App. 2, § 201.11, which directed a finding of not disabled. . . .

L. MAWHINNEY, v. HECKLER,, 600 F. Supp. 783 (D. Me. 1985)

. . . Part 404, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Rules 201.11 and 202.-12, that the claimant was able to perform a number . . .

E. MARTIN, v. M. HECKLER,, 748 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1984)

. . . In particular, it applied Table No. 1, Rule 201.11, which provides that a person is not disabled if he . . .

In FARMERS RANCHERS LIVESTOCK AUCTION, INC. In DAVIS, DAVIS v. UNITED STATES FARMERS RANCHERS LIVESTOCK AUCTION, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 46 B.R. 781 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1984)

. . . . § 201.11 [9 C.F.R. § 201.11] Officers, agents and employees of registrants whose registrations have . . .

GOMEZ v. M. HECKLER, U. S., 594 F. Supp. 692 (E.D. Pa. 1984)

. . . Part 404, Appendix 2, § 201.03, 201.11, the AU then concluded that plaintiff was not disabled from engaging . . .

J. PODEDWORNY, v. HARRIS,, 745 F.2d 210 (3d Cir. 1984)

. . . ir.. ... . , Not Disabled skills transferable In view of his findings of fact, the AU applied Rule 201.11 . . . Indeed, the answer to this hypothetical question formed the basis of the AU’s application of Rule 201.11 . . .

A. JOHNSON, v. M. HECKLER,, 741 F.2d 948 (7th Cir. 1984)

. . . Appendix 2, Rules 201.10, 201.11. . . .

FERRARIS, v. M. HECKLER,, 728 F.2d 582 (2d Cir. 1984)

. . . The ALJ then relied on Rule 201.11 of the Grid Regulations, 20 C.F.R. . . . A finding as to transferable skills is necessary before the Secretary can apply Rule 201.11. . . .

WALLACE, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 722 F.2d 1150 (3d Cir. 1983)

. . . See Rule 201.11 and 201.12, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart P. . . .

MORRIS, v. HECKLER,, 576 F. Supp. 1018 (N.D. Ill. 1983)

. . . semi-skilled work, Rule 201.10 of Table 1 provides she is disabled if her skills are not transferable and Rule 201.11 . . .

C. WINN, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 711 F.2d 946 (10th Cir. 1983)

. . . Rule 201.11, Table No. 1, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, on the basis of residual functional . . . Skilled or semiskilled— skills not transferable. do. 201.11 do. do. . . .

CHICO, v. SCHWEIKER,, 710 F.2d 947 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . The disability examiner further indicated that the rationale for denial of benefits was Rule 201.11 of . . .

STEINHOFF, v. R. HARRIS,, 698 F.2d 270 (6th Cir. 1983)

. . . See Rules 201.03, 201.07, 201.11, 201.15, 201.-20, 201.22, 201.26, 201.29. . . .

OLSEN COMPANY, a v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, A. S. S., 546 F. Supp. 272 (D. Utah 1982)

. . . . §§ 201.11-16. . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, v. COPYRIGHT ROYALTY TRIBUNAL, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, v. COPYRIGHT ROYALTY TRIBUNAL, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, v. COPYRIGHT ROYALTY TRIBUNAL CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, v. COPYRIGHT ROYALTY TRIBUNAL, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, v. COPYRIGHT ROYALTY TRIBUNAL,, 675 F.2d 367 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

. . . . §§ 201.11, 201.17, most systems apparently do not comply. Tr. 5/5/80, J. . . .

ECHEVARRIA, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES OF UNITED STATES,, 528 F. Supp. 977 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . He would still be considered “not disabled,” see Subpart P, App. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.11, since his work . . .

DECKER, v. HARRIS,, 647 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1981)

. . . disability would depend upon whether his skills were “transferable” or not; compare rules 201.10 and 201.11 . . .

STEADMAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 450 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1981)

. . . by an impartial administrative law judge, other duly-appointed officer, or a Commission member, §§ 201.11 . . .

STEINHOFF, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 502 F. Supp. 1313 (E.D. Mich. 1980)

. . . approaching advanced age” or as a “younger individual age 45-49.” 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, App. 2, Rules 201.11 . . .

CAPOFERRI v. R. HARRIS,, 501 F. Supp. 32 (E.D. Pa. 1980)

. . . ALJ made the following findings of fact in determining the plaintiff’s profile corresponded to Rule 201.11 . . . Rule 201.11 directed a finding of “Not Disabled.” . . .

J. PHILLIPS, v. HARRIS, G. MULLINS, v. HARRIS,, 488 F. Supp. 1161 (W.D. Va. 1980)

. . . Given these factors, the Law Judge applied Rule 201.11 of Appendix II, which “required” a finding that . . . Compare Rule 201.10 with Rule 201.11. . . . .

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. SILVER SPRINGS SHORES, INC. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. YOUNG AMERICAN BUILDERS,, 376 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1979)

. . . . § 201.11, Fla.Stat. (1975). . . .

PASCO TERMINALS, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 477 F. Supp. 201 (Cust. Ct. 1979)

. . . See 19 C.F.R. 201.9, 201.11(c) (1972). . . . See 19 C.F.R. 201.11, 201.12(b) (1972). . . .

v., 83 Cust. Ct. 65 (Cust. Ct. 1979)

. . . See 19 CFR 201.9, 201.11(c) (1972). . . . See 19 CFR 201.11, 201.12(b) (1972). . . .

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, a v. CITY OF DOVER, a, 450 F. Supp. 966 (D. Del. 1978)

. . . So far as the language of sections 201.11, 201.12 and 201.13 is concerned, the scope of the regulations . . . Sections 201.11-13 together provide that “no carrier shall operate any locomotive (stationary or moving . . . F.2d 1310 (1977), arguing that it supports its view that the noise standards specified in sections 201.11 . . . stationary) and railway cars in marshalling yards was preempted by the federal regulation sections 201.11 . . . Not only do sections 201.11, 201.12 and 201.13 apply to locomotives and rail cars but also to sound produced . . .

GUARDIAN FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, v. R. HARRIS,, 441 F. Supp. 789 (D.D.C. 1977)

. . . . § 201.11. . . . also assign to the United States “[t]he note and any security held or judgment taken.” 24 C.F.R. § 201.11 . . . Id. § 201.11(g). . . . the note or any security held or judgment taken must be assigned in its entirety . . . ” 24 C.F.R. § 201.11 . . .

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, v. M. COSTLE,, 562 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

. . . . §§ 201.11, 201.12, 201.13. . 42 U.S.C. § 4916. . Id. . . . . See J.A. at 18, 24-25. . 40 C.F.R. § 201.11. . Id. at § 201.12. . Id. at § 201.13. . . . .

RETAIL, WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, LOCAL v. Dr. T. DUNLOP,, 405 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. Ga. 1975)

. . . exception request did not meet the requirements for exception under tandem relationships (6 C.F.R. 201.11 . . . (a)(1), recodified at 6 C.F.R. 201.12), essential employees (6 C.F.R. 201.11(a)(2), recodified at 6 C.F.R . . . arbitrary; furthermore, plaintiff contended that it was entitled to the wage increases under 6 C.F.R. 201.11 . . . relationship but granted the 7 percent increase on the basis of the criteria set forth under section 201.11 . . . already in effect, then A&P would enjoy windfall profits in contravention of the intent of section 201.11 . . .

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL v. H. BOLDT,, 388 F. Supp. 491 (S.D. Ohio 1975)

. . . . § 201.11, and those to be utilized in reviewing deferred increases, set out at 6 C.F.R. § 201.17. . . . The exceptions contained in 6 C.F.R. § 201.11 dictate that one of the following situations must be found . . .

NATIONAL NUTRITIONAL FOODS ASSOCIATION v. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, 504 F.2d 761 (2d Cir. 1974)

. . . . § 201.12 (codification of SEC Rule XII(a)), 201.11(e) (1973); 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.26, 102.41 (1972) ; . . .

AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL- CIO v. COST OF LIVING COUNCIL, 497 F.2d 1360 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . the maximum permissible annual aggregate increase (7%) permitted for exception pursuant to Sections 201.11 . . .

SYLGAB STEEL WIRE CORPORATION, v. IMOCO- GATEWAY CORPORATION,, 357 F. Supp. 657 (N.D. Ill. 1973)

. . . See § 201.11, MPEP; and Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act, at page 33 of Comm., 35 U. . . .

REA EXPRESS, INC. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES, AFL- CIO,, 358 F. Supp. 760 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)

. . . . § 201.11 (1972). . . .

JENNINGS v. P. SHULTZ,, 355 F. Supp. 1198 (D.D.C. 1973)

. . . . § 201.11 (a)(9)). . . .

MUELLER BRASS CO. v. READING INDUSTRIES, INC., 352 F. Supp. 1357 (E.D. Pa. 1972)

. . . alternatives, the route of a newly filed “continuing application” under § 120 as explained by MPEP § 201.11 . . . See MPEP § 201.11. . . . See Sections 201.07 and 201.11 of the Manual of Patent Examining Practice (MPEP) a publication which, . . .

LOCAL NURSING HOME, HOSPITAL, SENIOR CITIZENS HOTEL UNION, v. HIALEAH CONVALESCENT HOME, INC. a, 348 F. Supp. 405 (S.D. Fla. 1972)

. . . But in holding that prior approval was required, the court relied on Pay Board regulation § 201.11 which . . . Unlike Pay Board regulation § 201.11, which applies to contracts negotiated after November 14, 1971, . . .

JENNINGS AFL- CIO, v. B. CONNALLY,, 347 F. Supp. 409 (D.D.C. 1972)

. . . Pay Board Regulations, §§ 201.10, 201.11, 36 Fed.Reg. 21790 (Nov. 13, 1971), 36 Fed.Reg. 25427 (Dec. . . .

UNITED STATES v. GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY,, 342 F. Supp. 272 (D. Md. 1972)

. . . On March 28, 1972, the Pay Board granted exception status as provided for in § 201.11(a) (1) of the Pay . . . However, the Pay Board applied a 7% overall limitation as mandated by § 201.11(b) of the same regulations . . . Effective November 14, 1971, Pay Board regulation § 201.11 provided: “In reviewing new contracts and . . . As has been noted above, the adoption of the regulations (here Pay Board regulations §§ 201.10 and 201.11 . . . In support of its claim, the union cites Pay Board regulations effective November 14, 1971, § 201.11: . . .