Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 253 So. 3d 1024 (Fla. 2018)

. . . proposes amending standard criminal jury instructions 10.13 (Shooting or Throwing Missiles in Dwelling), 10.14 . . . Turning to instruction 10.14, the title is amended to replace "Forbidden Firearms" with "A [Short-Barreled . . . Discharging firearm in 790.15 10.6 public Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2018. 10.14 . . .

XIPING OPECK FOOD CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 222 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2017)

. . . wholesalers’ aggregate price data, and calculated an estimated average U.S. wholesalers’ market price of USD 10.14 . . . sale prices) and calctdated an estimated average U.S. wholesalers' market price for the POR of USD 10.14 . . .

IN RE ASHINC CORPORATION, ASHINC v. AMMC VII, BDCM II, L. P. CLO MJX LLC L. P. LLC CIT II, L. P. II, L. P. I, L. P. I, L. P. II, L. P. II, L. P., 683 F. App'x 131 (3d Cir. 2017)

. . . Credit Agreement § 10.14. III. Yucaipa raises three primary arguments on appeal. . . .

IN RE ASHINC CORPORATION, ASHINC v. AMMC VII, BDCM II, L. P. CLO MJX LLC L. P. LLC CIT II, L. P. II, L. P. I, L. P. I, L. P. II, L. P. II, L. P., 683 F. App'x 131 (3d Cir. 2017)

. . . Credit Agreement § 10.14. III. Yucaipa raises three primary arguments on appeal. . . .

DASH, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,, 238 F. Supp. 3d 375 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . Id. at ¶ 10.14. • During' several administrative meetings at which he was present, she passed around . . . the Principal discussed with plaintiff her sexual encounters with men in explicit details); id. at ¶ 10.14 . . . never addressed plaintiff by his first name, but called other teachers by their first names); id. at ¶¶ 10.14 . . .

SUNGLORY MARITIME, LTD. v. PHI, INC., 212 F. Supp. 3d 618 (E.D. La. 2016)

. . . Ex. 10.14. . Id.; see also Test, of Dean Michael Cole, Trial Tr., Mar. 17, 2016, at 38:9-11. . . . . Ex. 10.14; see also Test, of Dean Michael Cole, Trial Tr., Mar. 17, 2016, at 39:17-20. . . . .

ST. BERNARD PARISH GOVERNMENT St. v. UNITED STATES,, 126 Fed. Cl. 707 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . Marshall’s $10.14~$10.82 per square foot estimate, even though this amount included depreciation. . . .

BECKER v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N. A. J. P., 172 F. Supp. 3d 777 (E.D. Pa. 2016)

. . . 10.03 (“the Trustee shall apply the balance of the revenues as provided in Section 10.11 hereof’); § 10.14 . . .

UNITED STATES v. WASHINGTON,, 129 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (W.D. Wash. 2015)

. . . . • Reagan and Frachtenberg both described Quileute villagers watching the hunt from shore. 10.14.Other . . .

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, v. NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC., 104 F. Supp. 3d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Analyrics AVM CMV-P CMV-AE /AVM_AVM_AVM_AVM Properties Valued 672 662 496 669 670 Average Appraisal S.92% 10.14% . . .

IN RE DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC. CHEESE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 60 F. Supp. 3d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2014)

. . . Han-man Dep. 212:19-213:10.14. . . .

In CHARGES OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, 769 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

. . . Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct R. 10.14(b). Iowa employs a "convincing preponderance” standard. . . .

AL SHIMARI, v. CACI INTERNATIONAL, INC., 951 F. Supp. 2d 857 (E.D. Va. 2013)

. . . . ¶¶ 10.14.) . . .

PRIME TIME INTERNATIONAL CO. v. J. VILSACK, U. S. v. Co., 930 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . The Act specifies that the assessments cannot exceed $10.14 billion over ten years, 7 U.S.C. § 518f, . . .

In PATRIOT COAL CORPORATION,, 482 B.R. 718 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . No. 78-3 at § 10.14(a)-(b)) and (b) a covenant that obligates the Debtors to comply with applicable environmental . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. TOURTELLOT,, 483 B.R. 72 (M.D.N.C. 2012)

. . . Secretary of Agriculture from the Tobacco Trust Fund over the ten-year transition period may not exceed $10.14 . . .

In LOWER BUCKS HOSPITAL,, 471 B.R. 419 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . . §§ 10.01-10.14; see also id. § 11.07); • limited the Indenture Trustee’s liability to conduct constituting . . .

In INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO PARTNERS, LTD. v., 468 B.R. 582 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Tobacco Growers under FETRA would be capped at $10.14 billion over the ten years. 7 U.S.C. § 518f. . . . In “Step A,” the total amount required to fund the Tobacco Transition Payment Program ($10.14 billion . . . not impacted by the payment or nonpayment of Assessments; that is, Congress committed to paying out $10.14 . . . It appears that CCC is given broad discretion to determine how much of the $10.14 billion to assess or . . . Although the total obligation of all Tobacco Manufacturers was fixed and capped under FE-TRA at $10.14 . . .

MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION FSB, 816 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . Section 10.14(a) of the PSAs identifies MBIA as an express third party beneficiary of the agreement. . . . See id. § 10.14(a). So do the PSAs, standing alone, provide MBIA with the put-back remedy? . . .

KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, U. S. A. INC. v. ALLIED OFFICE PRODUCTS, INC., 724 F. Supp. 2d 861 (S.D. Ohio 2010)

. . . Rather, it starts with a charge of $10.14 on June 3, 2005, followed immediately by three credits, on . . .

In CENTURY ALUMINUM COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION, 749 F. Supp. 2d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . certifications incorporated in the FAC state: Plaintiff Date(s) Purchase Price(s) Stuart Wexler 10/23/08 $10.14 . . .

MINNICK v. CLEARWIRE US, LLC, 683 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (W.D. Wash. 2010)

. . . {See ¶¶ 10.8-10.14.) . . .

LEONHARDT, M. AFL- CIO- CLC, v. ARVINMERITOR, INC., 581 F. Supp. 2d 818 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

. . . consider input from the retiree advisory group contemplated by the Trust Agreement (Docket 46, Ex. 4, § 10.14 . . .

McCLINTON, v. A. McNEIL,, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . (Crim.) 10.14. . . .

RICHLIN v. METRO- GOLDWYN- MAYER PICTURES, INC., 531 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008)

. . . extensions, reversions, resurrections, or other circumstances that prolong the term.’ ” 3 Nimmer § 10.14 . . .

ATLANTECH INC. v. AMERICAN PANEL CORP. APC, 540 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D. Mass. 2008)

. . . pursue these claims because it is a third-party beneficiary to the Asset Purchase Agreement, and Section 10.14 . . .

ROCHE PALO ALTO LLC, v. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED, 551 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D.N.J. 2008)

. . . . § 1.324, and if it is grantable, form paragraph 10.14 set forth below should be used.” . . . Paragraph 10.14 "Treatment of Request Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.48 Petition Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.324, Petition . . .

J. NEESE M. v. JOHANNS, USA,, 518 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2008)

. . . Expenditures could not exceed $10.14 billion. § 518f. . . .

In MIRANT CORPORATION,, 354 B.R. 113 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . Compare Plan dated September 30, 2005, § 5.1(d), to Plan dated December 9, 2005, §§ 5.1(d) and 10.14( . . .

J. NEESE, M. v. JOHANNS, USA, 450 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Va. 2006)

. . . amount that precisely tracked Congress’ estimate, leaving approximately $540 million of the total $10.14 . . . Congress capped the buyout program at $10.14 billion, and it clearly understood and expected that the . . .

FALLON PAIUTE- SHOSHONE TRIBE, a v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Nev. 2006)

. . . . § 10.14(d), (f). . . . Id. at § 10.14(c). . . . Id. at § 10.14(e). . . .

D. DIFELICE, v. US AIRWAYS, INC., 436 F. Supp. 2d 756 (E.D. Va. 2006)

. . . By contrast, Delta reported unit operating costs of 10.14 cents for 2001, and Southwest reported unit . . .

POWER TELEPHONE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. v. SUNTRUST BANKS, INC. N. A., 447 F.3d 923 (6th Cir. 2006)

. . . The integration clause in the Restated Credit Agreement, § 10.14, stated: This Agreement, the other Credit . . .

LIMANTOUR, v. CRAY INCORPORATED, E. J. R. J. W., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (W.D. Wash. 2006)

. . . $12.63), October 6 ($13.30), November 3 ($12.51), December 2, 2003 ($10.01), and January 5, 2004, ($10.14 . . .

CITY OF MOUNDRIDGE, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION,, 429 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2006)

. . . Moundridge, Kansas paid $10.14 in September 2005, $11.0695 in October 2005, $12.2542 in November 2005 . . .

K. CLAIBORNE, v. WISDOM, L. P. L. L. P. P., 414 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 10.14 (allowing certain non-attorneys to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office . . .

SNR SKF USA SKF S. A. v. U. S., 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 1259 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)

. . . 1995, through April 30, 1996, are 8.60 percent for ball bearings and parts thereof from France and 10.14 . . .

In INFONET SERVICES CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (C.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . The Agreements are attached to Infonet's Registration Statement as Exhibits 10.12, 10.13, 10.14, and . . .

In INFONET SERVICES CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (C.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . The Agreements are attached to Infonet’s Registration Statement as Exhibits 10.12, 10.13, 10.14, and . . .

BONNICHSEN C. W. C. Jr. L. W. J. D. v. UNITED STATES U. S. U. S. P. J. E. Jr. R. J. A. N., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (D. Or. 2002)

. . . Claimants do not have to establish cultural affiliation with scientific certainty. 43 CFR § 10.14. . . . particular Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization is established ... ”) (emphasis added); 43 CFR § 10.14 . . . identified from prehistoric or historic times to the present as descending from the earlier group.” 43 CFR § 10.14 . . . See, S Rep No 101-473 at 9 DOI 0581; 43 CFR § 10.14(d). . . . Defendants incorrectly assert that 43 CFR § 10.14 explicitly authorizes coalition claims. . . .

DYNCORP, v. GTE CORPORATION,, 215 F. Supp. 2d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . (Purchase Agreement, § 10.14). Section 9.5 limited potential recoveries. . . . And since Section 10.14 provides that notice shall be given in writing, DynCorp’s amendment shall clearly . . .

In AEROVOX, INC. v. LLC,, 281 B.R. 419 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2002)

. . . this Section 9.2 and in Sections 9.1(b) (Termination Fee), 3.3 (expenses), 10.13 (confidentiality) and 10.14 . . . remedies shall not prejudice or impair the concurrent or subsequent exercise of other rights or remedies. 10.14 . . . First and foremost, in Paragraph 10.14 of the APA, the parties agreed that money damages might not be . . .

WONDERLAND SHOPPING CENTER VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. CDC MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., 274 F.3d 1085 (6th Cir. 2001)

. . . Pertinent to this appeal are the prescriptions contained in § 10.14, entitled “Exhibits Incorporated, . . . Section 10.14 incorporates attached exhibits into the agreement, “with the same effect as if set forth . . . Given its incorporation into the agreement via § 10.14, the note is a part of the agreement and the Court . . .

In L. ENGLAND M. L. M. v. U. S., 264 B.R. 38 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2001)

. . . The only other medical expenses the Court could discover from the proof was in January for $10.14 in . . .

VIGORTONE AG PRODUCTS, INC. v. PM AG PRODUCTS, INC., 217 F. Supp. 2d 858 (N.D. Ill. 2001)

. . . Section 10.14 states: Memorandum; Disclaimer and Projections. . . . Second, PM Ag argues that Section 10.14 forecloses Provimi’s reliance on any alleged oral misrepresentations . . . In contrast, Section 10.14 simply states that PM Ag makes no representation or warranty other than those . . .

SINCO, INC. v. METRO- NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD COMPANY,, 133 F. Supp. 2d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . Article 10.14 of the contract provides: “This Contract is to be construed and enforced pursuant to the . . .

In EINSTEIN NOAH BAGEL CORP., 257 B.R. 499 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2000)

. . . Section 10.14 makes it clear that the parties understood and contemplated that the secured loan agreement . . . Indeed, Section 10.14 requires disgorgement of any amounts received in violation of such a restrictive . . .

FIRST TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE,, 220 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 2000)

. . . Section 10.14 of the Disbursement Agreement reads, “[i]f any action or proceeding is brought by any party . . .

XEROX CORPORATION, a v. HEWLETT- PACKARD COMPANY, a d b a a, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (D. Kan. 1999)

. . . The Notice repeated the concerns expressed in Mayes’s letter, and pursuant to Section 10.14 of the Agreement . . .

JONES, v. NATIONAL DISTILLERS,, 56 F. Supp. 2d 355 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Newberg on Class Actions § 10.14, at 10-36 (3d ed.1992). . . .

APA EXCELSIOR III L. P. III L. P. A. v. PREMIERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. T. G. W. Sr. J. H. Jr., 49 F. Supp. 2d 664 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Section 10.14 of the Merger Agreement provides that the parties to the Agreement consent to jurisdiction . . . Merger Agreement § 10.14. . . . (Merger Agreement § 10.14.) The forum selection clause is not dispos-itive in the present action. . . . Merger Agreement § 10.14. . . .

G. MARINANGELI, v. A. LEHMAN,, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1998)

. . . . § 10.14(b), which states "[(Individuals who are not attorneys are not recognized to practice before . . .

In CENTENNIAL TEXTILES, INC. M. HIRSCH, v. GERSTEN, MBL, 220 B.R. 165 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . 16.79 2,876,907 JUNE 1995 17.36 3,099,963 NOV 1995 15.28 2,996,094 JULY 1995 12.92 1,795,371 DEC 1995 10.14 . . .

BONNICHSEN, C. W. C. L. W. J. D. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U. S. B. II, R. ASATRU FOLK ASSEMBLY, A. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U. S. J. R., 969 F. Supp. 628 (D. Or. 1997)

. . . . § 10.14(a). . . . See, e.g., 43 C.F.R. § 10.14(f). . . . .

BONNICHSEN, C. W. C. L. W. J. D. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U. S. B. II, R. ASATRU FOLK ASSEMBLY, A. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U. S. J. R., 969 F. Supp. 614 (D. Or. 1997)

. . . . §§ 10.6 and 10.14, which do not include the issues that plaintiffs desire to contest. . . .

DAVIS OIL COMPANY v. TS, INC., 962 F. Supp. 872 (E.D. La. 1997)

. . . 129 (West 1989); see also Saúl Litvinoff, Law of Obligations, 5 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise §§ 10.13-10.14 . . .

PETRUZZI S, INC. s IGA v. DARLING- DELAWARE COMPANY, INC., 983 F. Supp. 595 (M.D. Pa. 1996)

. . . claim when such filing is a precondition to sharing in a common recovery.” 2 Newberg on Class Actions § 10.14 . . .

In C. BRITT A., 199 B.R. 1000 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1996)

. . . Britt proposes to pay the secured portion by paying $10.14 for each of 60 months, which also included . . .

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,, 78 F.3d 639 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

. . . Windt, supra § 10.14 at 557-58 & nn. 129-130 (not listing Virginia or Massachusetts in either category . . .

MFS SUN LIFE TRUST- HIGH YIELD SERIES, v. VAN DUSEN AIRPORT SERVICES COMPANY, MTH Co. MTH Co. LDH SLT- II, SLT JDM VII D. S. L. D. A. De- A. D. RICH I. R By v. AIR PARTNERS, INC. MTH Co. MTH Co. LDH SLT- II, SLT JDM VII D. S. L. D. A. A., 910 F. Supp. 913 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . The multiple for VDAS was 11.28, as compared with 11.34 for Combs Gates and 10.14 for Aero Services. . . .

THREE CROWN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, L. P. v. SALOMON BROTHERS, INC. L. P. SP N. V. d b a N. V. C. V. D., 906 F. Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . February 21, 1992, but for Defendants’ manipulation of the Notes; and [3] Category C, which totals $10.14 . . . annual rate of return to apply to Three Crown’s “capital,” he arrived at a lost profits figure of $10.14 . . .

In TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., 185 B.R. 302 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1995)

. . . Compliance with Sections 10.14 and 10.1.5 Sections 10.1.4 and 10.1.5 provide that, as a condition to . . .

JOHN LABATT LIMITED, s USA, v. MOLSON BREWERIES, U. S. A. Co. Co., 898 F. Supp. 471 (E.D. Mich. 1995)

. . . . § 10.14. . . . . § 10.14(c) (1994); (Defendant letter dated 3/31/95, declaration of Ethan Horwitz). . . . agents on equal footing with attorneys in the pursuit of a trademark before the IJSPTO. 37 C.F.R. § 10.14 . . . See 37 C.F.R. § 10.14(e)(d) (1994). The USPTO has not recognized Mr. . . .

LAGO SONS DAIRY, INC. v. H. P. HOOD, INC., 892 F. Supp. 325 (D.N.H. 1995)

. . . (quoting James, Civil PROCEDURE § 10.14 (1965)). . . .

In MATZO FOOD PRODUCTS LITIGATION, 156 F.R.D. 600 (D.N.J. 1994)

. . . Arizona Citrus, 904 F.2d at 1306 (citing 2 Newberg on Class Actions, § 10.14 (2d ed. 1985)). . . .

UNITED STATES v. RESKO, Jr. No. Jr. No., 3 F.3d 684 (3d Cir. 1993)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice & Instructions § 10.14, at 273 (1977) (emphasis in original). . . . .

WHITE, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PDB KMS B B NFL, 836 F. Supp. 1458 (D. Minn. 1993)

. . . agreement provided for a judicial determination of the constitutionality of certain agency procedures)). 10.14 . . .

KLINGER, v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,, 824 F. Supp. 1374 (D. Neb. 1993)

. . . On the other hand, in 1992 support staff ratios were similar (NCW = 9.93 and NSP = 10.14), and total . . .

L. S. MULHOLLAND, v. UNITED STATES,, 28 Fed. Cl. 320 (Fed. Cl. 1993)

. . . 15.77% * 12.32% * 11.77% 11.77% 7 15.85% 12.80% 15.11% * 11.15% 11.77% 11.77% * 8 15.38% 12.09% 14.49% * 10.14% . . .

NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY, a a v. CITY OF CHICAGO,, 788 F. Supp. 994 (N.D. Ill. 1991)

. . . Sections 8.9(5), 9.9(5) and 10.14(5) of the zoning ordinance provide in pertinent part that: No advertising . . . Sections 10.14-1, 10.14-2, 10.14-3 and 9.4-1 require special use permits for “roof signs” exceeding 50 . . . In addition, § 10.14(7) of the zoning ordinance prohibits signs from being placed within 75 feet of property . . .

ZENITH ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES, AOC, 770 F. Supp. 648 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1991)

. . . . _ RCA Taiwan, Ltd. 5.24% Sampo Corp. 10.14% Shinlee Corp. 10.14% Shin-Shirasuna Electric Corp. .56% . . .

v. AOC, 15 Ct. Int'l Trade 394 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1991)

. . . RCA Taiwan, Ltd. 5.24 Sampo Corp. 10.14 Shinlee Corp. 10.14 Shin-Shirasuna Electric Corp. .56 Tatung . . .

In SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION, 745 F. Supp. 79 (D.P.R. 1990)

. . . Schwartz, Lee and Kelly, Guide to Multi-state Litigation § 10.14 at 211 (1985). . . .

CORNERSTONE BIBLE CHURCH, v. CITY OF HASTINGS, MINNESOTA,, 740 F. Supp. 654 (D. Minn. 1990)

. . . . ____ SEC. 10.14.R-4 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCES. Subd. 1. Intent. . . .

SIX MEXICAN WORKERS, v. ARIZONA CITRUS GROWERS d b a, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990)

. . . See 2 Newberg on Class Actions § 10.14 (2d ed. 1985). . . .

In IONOSPHERE CLUBS, INC., 112 B.R. 78 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . Moreover, the Indenture, § 10.14, contains express limitations on suits under the Indenture by Noteholders . . .

SAFE KEY SECURITY v. STACKPOOLE,, 37 Fla. Supp. 2d 183 (Fla. Cty. Ct. 1989)

. . . and replace the coinholders; and $34.00 to remove and replace the locks for a total of $169.00 plus $10.14 . . .

In HEARTLAND CHEMICALS, INC. UNSECURED CREDITORS COMMITTEE, HEARTLAND CHEMICALS, INC. v. BANQUE PARIBAS, a, 103 B.R. 1018 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 1989)

. . . SERVICE OF PROCESS BE MADE BY MAIL OR MESSENGER DIRECTED TO IT AT THE ADDRESS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION 10.14 . . . AGREES TO FORWARD PROMPTLY BY MAIL DIRECTED TO THE BORROWER AT THE ADDRESS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION 10.14 . . .

v., 12 Ct. Int'l Trade 1146 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)

. . . . § 10.14(a), while another regulation, § 10.16(b), provides examples of such operations as follows: . . .

SAMSONITE CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 702 F. Supp. 908 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)

. . . . § 10.14(a), while another regulation, § 10.16(b), provides examples of such operations as follows: . . .

TIMEX CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 691 F. Supp. 1445 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)

. . . . § 10.14(a) (1987) gives a similar example (Example 2) as a product warranting item 807 treatment, the . . .

v., 12 Ct. Int'l Trade 629 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)

. . . . § 10.14(a) (1987) gives a similar example (Example 2) as a product warranting item 807 treatment, the . . .

In RICHARDSON- MERRELL, INC. BENDECTIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 624 F. Supp. 1212 (S.D. Ohio 1985)

. . . 8.8-8.10, 8.12, 8.13, 8.15-8.18, 8.23, 8.24; 9.12, 9.16, 9.18, 9.20; 10.6, 10.7, 10.9-10.11, 10.13, 10.14 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SYSTEMS ARCHITECTS, INC. UNITED STATES v. Y. PAN, UNITED STATES v. S. PAN,, 757 F.2d 373 (1st Cir. 1985)

. . . I Devitt and Black-mar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Chap. 10, § 10.14. . . .

D R DISTRIBUTING CO. INC. v. CHAMBERS CORPORATION, R K, 608 F. Supp. 1290 (E.D. Cal. 1984)

. . . II, §§ 10.2-10.14. . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. HART,, 729 F.2d 662 (10th Cir. 1984)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 10.14, at 273-74 (3d ed. 1977). . . . Devitt & Blackmar, supra, § 10.14, at 274. . . . .

In RICHARDSON- MERRELL, INC., 97 F.R.D. 481 (S.D. Ohio 1983)

. . . 8.8-8.10, 8.12, 8.13, 8.15-8.18, 8.23, 8.24; 9.12, 9.16, 9.18, 9.20; 10.6, 10.7, 10.9-10.11, 10.13, 10.14 . . .

In LANDMARK CAPITAL COMPANY, NORTH CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, v. LANDMARK CAPITAL COMPANY,, 27 B.R. 273 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1983)

. . . million with deferred cash payments in arbitrary amounts over a potential 14 year payoff period, at 10.14% . . . It further urges that the interest rate of 10.14% is in line with prevailing interest rates for purchase . . . However, the court notes that had it become necessary to pass upon the Modified Plan, the 10.14% rate . . . installments of $1.45 million ($5.8 million per year), up to $40 million, over 12 years (or less), at 10.14% . . .

v., 4 Ct. Int'l Trade 182 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1982)

. . . . § 10.14(b). . . . . § 10.14(b). . . . whether the PROMs are “products of the United States” as defined by item 807.00, TSUS, and 19 C.F.R. §§ 10.14 . . . Under the substantial transformation test, as portrayed by the examples cited in 19 C.F.R. § 10.14(b) . . . In this sense, programming is equivalent to the assembly of a circuit board, which in 19 C.F.R. § 10.14 . . .

L. E. MYERS CO. v. UNITED STATES, 673 F.2d 1366 (Ct. Cl. 1982)

. . . .2d 635, 639 (1964); Garbis & Frome, Procedures in Federal Tax Controversies, supra note 4, at 10.13-10.14 . . .

THE L. E. MYERS CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 230 Ct. Cl. 142 (Ct. Cl. 1982)

. . . .2d 635, 639 (1964); Garbis & Frome, Procedures in Federal Tax Controversies, supra note 4, at 10.13-10.14 . . .

CITIES OF BATAVIA, NAPERVILLE, ROCK FALLS, WINNETKA, GENEVA, ROCHELLE AND ST. CHARLES, ILLINOIS, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Co. CITIES OF BATAVIA, NAPERVILLE, ROCK FALLS, WINNETKA, GENEVA, ROCHELLE AND ST. CHARLES, ILLINOIS, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Co., 672 F.2d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

. . . based on four other rate levels of Rate 6 effective in the locked-in period of the wholesale rate are 10.14% . . .

ANAHEIM, RIVERSIDE, BANNING, COLTON, AND AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 669 F.2d 799 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

. . . had maintained their high rating in earlier years even when return on equity ranged between 9.56% and 10.14% . . .

E. CHAPPELL, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,, 511 F. Supp. 842 (D.S.C. 1980)

. . . 0-.06 Total Debt 1,850,433 91.45 1,751,787 89.86 (98.646) (1.59) Stockholders’ 173,030 8.55 197,718 10.14 . . .

YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE v. UNITED STATES, 623 F.2d 159 (Ct. Cl. 1980)

. . . The average size tract was 165.4 acres and the overall weighted sales price was $10.14 per acre, based . . .

THE YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE v. THE UNITED STATES, 224 Ct. Cl. 62 (Ct. Cl. 1980)

. . . The average size tract was 165.4 acres and the overall weighted sales price was $10.14 per acre, based . . .

N. M. v., 62 T.C. 96 (T.C. 1974)

. . . Section 10.14. TIME OF SETTLEMENT FOR PRODUCTS. . . .

BROWN, ALCANTAR BROWN, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 348 F. Supp. 723 (Cust. Ct. 1972)

. . . Royalty Cost 6.19 6.19 6.19 6.19 6.19 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 5*2Z Total Material and Fabrication 10.11 10.14 . . .