Cases from cite.case.law:

NORRIS, v. NORRIS,, 28 So. 3d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Forms 12.990(a)-(c)(2); Schmoyer, Final Judgment §§ 10.16, 10.21. . . .

UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS,, 359 F. App'x 70 (10th Cir. 2010)

. . . purposes, the district court adopted the presentence report’s finding that Williams was responsible for 10.16 . . .

PERESYPA, v. JIMINY PEAK MOUNTAIN RESORT, INC., 653 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Mass. 2009)

. . . . § 10.16. . . .

L. HALL, v. ST. MARY S SEMINARY UNIVERSITY,, 608 F. Supp. 2d 679 (D. Md. 2009)

. . . See Rapp, Education Law § 10.16 (2008). . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 962 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2007)

. . . Attempted Felony Murder — Injury Caused by Another; 8.4(a) — Aggravated Battery (Pregnant Victim); 10.16 . . . This instruction was adopted in 1997 [697 So.2d 84] and amended in 2007. 10.16 USING A FIREARM WHILE . . .

STREAMCAST NETWORKS, INC. v. SKYPE TECHNOLOGIES, S. A., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . Kintner, 2-10 Federal Antitrust Law § 10.16 (Matthew Bender 2005) (“In rule of reason cases, and any . . .

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

. . . . § 10.16(b). . . . persuasive, are not binding on either the Native American tribes or any government agency. 43 C.F.R. § 10.16 . . .

FURMINATOR, INC. v. ONTEL PRODUCTS CORP., 429 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (E.D. Mo. 2006)

. . . ./10.16 cm [or other size] deShed-ding edge.” See Def. Ontel Ex. . . .

COLGAN AIR, INC. v. RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY, 404 F. Supp. 2d 893 (E.D. Va. 2005)

. . . Article 10.16 of the Definitive Agreement contained a clause entitled “Entire Agreement” which provided . . .

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 361 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 10.16(b)(3), but treats “painting primarily intended to enhance the appearance of an article or to . . . distinctive features or characteristics” as an operation not incidental to the assembly process. 19 C.F.R. § 10.16 . . . painting process, which it found to be primarily preservative); and (2) by interpreting 19 C.F.R. § 10.16 . . . distinction between decorative and preservative coatings in the regulation, codified at 19 C.F.R. § 10.16 . . . (b)(3) and 10.16(c)(3) (distinguishing between decorative and preservative painting), contravenes the . . .

v., 28 Ct. Int'l Trade 358 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . regulations, as was evident in Haggar Apparel (wherein Customs set forth its interpretation in 19 CFR 10.16 . . .

BORN FREE USA, v. NORTON,, 278 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2003)

. . . Indeed, the example cross-references a separate resolution, Conf. 2.12 (since amended as Conf. 10.16) . . . See Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.). Neither the zoos here nor Mr. . . .

v., 26 Ct. Int'l Trade 1262 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)

. . . . § 10.16 (1999). See Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. United States, No. 99-03-00178, Slip Op. . . . See 19 C.F.R. § 10.16(c)(3) (providing examples of operations not incidental to assembly). . . . See 19 C.F.R. § 10.16(h)(3). . . . (b)(3) and § 10.16(c)(3), the provisions of the regulation addressing “paint.” . . . See HTSUS subheading 9802.00.80; 19 C.F.R. 10.16(c)(3). . . .

APPLERA CORPORATION, MDS MDS v. MICROMASS UK LTD., 204 F. Supp. 2d 724 (D. Del. 2002)

. . . Because 4 inches is approximately 10.16 centimeters, the P x L product of the French application is as . . . high as 10.16 x 10 ~2 torr cm. . . . Because the rods are the same length (4 inches), the highest P x L product disclosed is 10.16 x 10 3 . . .

ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC. v. EXXON CORPORATION,, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . Newberg on Class Actions, § 10.16. . . .

SULKOWSKA, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, A B C, 170 F. Supp. 2d 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . This total reflects 162.92 billable hours by John Cobb ($32,-584.00), 10.16 billable hours by Verna Cobb . . .

v., 24 Ct. Int'l Trade 1057 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)

. . . The regulation at issue reads, in relevant part, as follows: § 10.16 Assembly abroad. . . . The term “painting” in HTSUS 9801.80.00 does not prohibit application of 19 C.F.R. § 10.16 to this case . . . preservative metallic coating * * *” as incidental to the assembly process) with 19 C.F.R. § 10.16(c . . . this case. 19 C.F.R. § 10.16(b) recognizes “application of preservative paint or coating, including . . . new characteristics * * * to the article affected. 19 U.S.C. § 10.16(c)(5). . . .

HAGGAR APPAREL CO. v. UNITED STATES,, 222 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 10.16(c), which we hold to be a reasonable interpretation of the governing statute, we reverse the . . . Pursuant to section 10.16(c)(4), which specifically lists “permapressing” as an example of operations . . . The Court, however, declined to consider whether 19 C.F.R. § 10.16(c) was a reasonable interpretation . . . Customs did not err in applying section 10.16(c) to the goods in question. . . . . § 10.16(c), is reasonable and thus entitled to judicial deference. . . .

LEVI STRAUSS CO. v. UNITED STATES,, 222 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 10.16(c), we reverse the judgment of the Court of International Trade and remand with instructions . . . Customs has promulgated a regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 10.16(c), interpreting the “operations incidental to . . . The court did not consider the effect of 19 C.F.R. § 10.16(c). . . . United States, issued today, we bold that 19 C.F.R. § 10.16(c) is a reasonable interpretation of the . . . See id., slip op. at 8-11 (rejecting argument that § 10.16(c) is contrary to the expressed intent of . . .

D. PRICKETT, v. DeKALB COUNTY,, 92 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (N.D. Ga. 2000)

. . . amount of time firefighters spent responding to all calls during the representative time period was 10.16% . . .

UNITED STATES v. HAGGAR APPAREL CO., 526 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1999)

. . . (same); 19 CFR § 10.16(c) (1998) (listing such operations that do not meet the standard). . . . examples: “Chemical treatment ... to impart new characteristics, such as . .. perma-pressing.” 19 CFR § 10.16 . . . See 19 CFR § 10.16(c) (1998). . . . characteristics, such as shower-proofing, permapressing, sanforizing, dying or bleaching of textiles.” 19 CFR § 10.16 . . . It cites subsection (a) of 19 CFR § 10.11 (1998), which introduces §10.16 and the other classification . . . Chevron framework in general, we also granted certiorari on a second question, asking whether 19 CFR § 10.16 . . . regulation refers to the “[c]hemical treatment of components, . . . such as ... permapressing,” 19 CFR § 10.16 . . .

LEVI STRAUSS COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 156 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 10.16(c)(4) (1998), which provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he following are examples of operations . . .

ESTATE OF RE R. Re Re Re R. Re, M. Re O. Re, v. KORNSTEIN VEISZ WEXLER, J. S., 958 F. Supp. 907 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Plaintiffs rely upon Section 10.16 of Mr. . . . Re should prevail under Section 10.16 of the Bear Stearns’ partnership agreement. . . . Defendants respond by identifying a number of difficulties with any argument based upon Section 10.16 . . . There, plaintiffs refer to Section 10.16 of the Bear Stearns partnership agreement as Mr. . . . Plaintiffs have placed too much stock in Section 10.16, however: the Court cannot conclude that Mr. . . .

In D. DiCAMILLO,, 206 B.R. 64 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1997)

. . . N.J.S.A. 2A:42-10.16. . . . N.J.S.A. 2A:42-10.16. . . .

In P. J. KEATING COMPANY,, 205 B.R. 663 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1997)

. . . Section 10.16 provides: “If a Claim becomes payable by the Consummation Agent after the Effective Date . . .

TAYLOR, v. PERRIN, LANDRY, DURAND, L. USI, 103 F.3d 1232 (5th Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 1692a(6); Le, § 10.16. . . .

T. GREENWAY, v. BUFFALO HILTON HOTEL,, 951 F. Supp. 1039 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . the backpay award of $57,300 in the amount of $3,768 through December 31, 1996 plus an additional $10.16 . . . At 6.07%, interest accrues on this amount at the rate of $10.16 per day. . . . Plaintiff is entitled to an additional $10.16 per day in 1997 up to the date that judgment is entered . . .

CRESCENT FOUNDRY CO. PVT. LTD. R. B. Co. RSI P UMA Co. v. UNITED STATES, Co. Co. U. S. Co., 951 F. Supp. 252 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . are noncoun-tervailable. (2) Commerce assigned eleven companies a common countervailing duty rate of 10.16% . . . To calculate the country-wide 10.16% figure, Commerce weight-averaged the subsidy rates of all fourteen . . .

Co. R. B. Co. RSI P UMA Co. v. Co. Co. U. S. Co., 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1469 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . are noncountervailable. (2) Commerce assigned eleven companies a common countervailing duty rate of 10.16% . . . To calculate the country-wide 10.16% figure, Commerce weight-averaged the subsidy rates of all fourteen . . .

HAGGAR APPAREL COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 938 F. Supp. 868 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . Section 10.16 Defendant contends 19 C.F.R. § 10.16 (1988) governs the application of item 807.00. . . . Subsection 10.16(c) provides: Any significant process, operation, or treatment other than assembly whose . . . Subsection 10.16(c) conflicts with the plain language of item 807.00. . . . Moreover, the Federal Circuit has strongly qualified 19 C.F.R. § 10.16, see Chrysler Corp. v. . . . . § 10.16), or has ignored the regulation altogether, see Mast, 668 F.2d at 506 (developing factors); . . .

Co. v., 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 842 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . Section 10.16: Defendant contends 19 C.F.R. § 10.16 (1988) governs the application of item 807.00. . . . Subsection 10.16(c) provides: Any significant process, operation, or treatment other than assembly whose . . . Subsection 10.16(c) conflicts with the plain language of item 807.00. . . . Moreover, the Federal Circuit has strongly qualified 19 C.F.R. § 10.16, see Chrysler Corp. v. . . . Cir. 1992) (finding the cost comparisons in General Motors “determinative” over 19 C.F.R. § 10.16), or . . .

v., 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 353 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1995)

. . . . § 10.16(c) (1990), examples of dutiable operations considered by Customs not to be “incidental to the . . . Under 19 C.ER. § 10.16(b), preservative painting is an example of a non-dutiable operation, when performed . . .

M. MAXWELL, v. J. BAKER, INC., 879 F. Supp. 1007 (D. Minn. 1995)

. . . Baker as calculated by Maxwell are 9.56% in 1988 and 1989, 10.87% in 1990, 10.16% in 1991, 9.53% in 1992 . . .

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

. . . Newberg, supra, § 10.16 at 10-39; see, e.g., Nelson v. . . .

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

. . . rules in order to afford appropriate relief to plaintiffs and to be acceptable to the defendants”)). 10.16 . . .

MOLINS PLC Jr. v. TEXTRON, INC., 821 F. Supp. 1551 (D. Del. 1992)

. . . Stipulations 9.35, 10.16 and 10.17. . . .

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 976 F.2d 716 (Fed. Cir. 1992)

. . . . § 10.16 (1986), in relevant part, provides: (c) Operations not incidental to the assembly process. . . .

STATE v. BREWSTER,, 601 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Waters, AIDS and Florida Law § 10.16 (1989). . . .

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 770 F. Supp. 641 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1991)

. . . . § 10.16 (1986) which states: (c) Operations not incidental to the assembly process. . . . Pinter who was involved in the drafting of 19 C.F.R. § 10.16. . . .

v., 15 Ct. Int'l Trade 372 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1991)

. . . . § 10.16 (1986) which states: (c) Operations not incidental to the assembly process. . . . coating, including preservative metallic coating, lubricants, or protective encapsulation.” 19 C.F.R. § 10.16 . . . Pinter who was involved in the drafting of 19 C.F.R. § 10.16. . . .

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND OF STATE OF INDIANA, v. W. SULLIVAN,, 936 F.2d 988 (7th Cir. 1991)

. . . Contribution Rates (% of gross payroll) State IESD 13.77 C— t — 1 13.77 r — 1 12.45 to r-H 12.45 rfs* j-H 10.16 . . .

K S PARTNERSHIP, v. CONTINENTAL BANK, N. A., 127 F.R.D. 664 (D. Neb. 1989)

. . . The market price of the stock at the date of exercise was $35.25 or $10.16 per share in excess of the . . .

BA MORTGAGE AND INTERNATIONAL REALTY CORPORATION, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, R. COCO, Sr. v. BA MORTGAGE AND INTERNATIONAL REALTY CORPORATION,, 706 F. Supp. 1364 (N.D. Ill. 1989)

. . . That same agreement’s ¶ 10.16 provides: Whenever provision is made herein for the approval or consent . . .

In BERMAN, ROEMELMEYER, v. D. M. B. CORPORATION M., 95 B.R. 833 (S.D. Fla. 1989)

. . . See Murphy, Creditors’ Rights in Bankruptcy, § 10.16 (“[t]he-loan must not predate the security agreement . . .

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: . . . In fact, 19 C.F.R. § 10.16(c) provides that [a]ny significant process, operation, or treatment other . . .

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: . . . In fact, 19 C.F.R. § 10.16(c) provides that [a]ny significant process, operation, or treatment other . . .

v., 11 Ct. Int'l Trade 554 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987)

. . . . § 10.16(a) as: welding, soldering, riveting, force fitting, gluing, laminating, sewing, or the use . . .

CARTER FOOTWEAR, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 669 F. Supp. 439 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987)

. . . . § 10.16(a) as: welding, soldering, riveting, force fitting, gluing, laminating, sewing, or the use . . .

TISDALE, v. STATE, 498 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . inquest proceedings (see RCW 36.24); and (4) filing of a criminal complaint before a magistrate (see RCW 10.16 . . .

SIX MEXICAN WORKERS, v. ARIZONA CITRUS GROWERS,, 641 F. Supp. 259 (D. Ariz. 1986)

. . . See also 2 Newberg on Class Actions, § 10.16 at p. 373. . . .

MECHMET, v. FOUR SEASONS HOTELS, LIMITED, a a d b a, 639 F. Supp. 330 (N.D. Ill. 1986)

. . . Dinner 4 13.25 13.65 14.15 14.65 15.15 Buffet 4 13.65 14.05 14.55 15.05 15.55 Lunch or Breakfast 3 10.16 . . .

ASSOCIATED DREDGING COMPANY, INC. v. CONTINENTAL MARINE TOWING COMPANY, INC., 617 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. La. 1985)

. . . . § 10.16 (1984). . . .

In UNITED STATES LINES, INC. As S. S. AMERICAN TRADER, 616 F. Supp. 315 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)

. . . Black, The Law of Admiralty § 10.16 at 861-62 (2d ed. 1975). . . .

McDANIEL FORD, INC. v. LOCAL UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS,, 584 F. Supp. 887 (E.D.N.Y. 1984)

. . . affidavit of Lou Salvatore, Recording Secretary of the UAW Local 259, the three mechanics were entitled to $10.16 . . .

SUSMAN, v. LINCOLN AMERICAN CORPORATION,, 578 F. Supp. 1041 (N.D. Ill. 1984)

. . . As the table in the Appendix (the “Chart”) indicates, Meigs testified Consumers was worth $10.16 per . . . Parent Company +1,398 + 1,401 Total Present Value of Income Stream $ 7,551 $ 4,908 Value per Share $ 10.16 . . .

SIGMA INSTRUMENTS, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 724 F.2d 930 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

. . . The administrative regulation cited is 19 CFR § 10.16: The assembly operations performed abroad may consist . . .

NATURAL FOOTWEAR LIMITED, v. SCHAFFNER ROOTS, INC. v. GREEN,, 579 F. Supp. 543 (D.N.J. 1983)

. . . price to U.S. stores over the price charged by Natural to Century, for shoes, to range from a low of 10.16% . . .

In ALI a k a A. a k a N., 33 B.R. 890 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1983)

. . . The discount rate in the Ali case is 10.16% [see In Re Fisher, 29 B.R. 542, 10 BCD 858, 8 CBC2d 628 ( . . . Thus, the Ali’s would need just over 25 monthly payments of $89 each to satisfy the $2,000 claim at a 10.16% . . .

BUDGET MARKETING, INC. v. TOBACK,, 88 F.R.D. 705 (S.D. Iowa 1981)

. . . expressly effects, by way of illustration but not in limitation, the incorporating herein of paragraph 10.16 . . . Paragraph 10.16 of the Sub Loan Agreement provides: Dealer [defendant] hereby designates and appoints . . .

In PILLOW, Jr. L. PILLOW, Jr. v. AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, In W. GEIGLE, W. GEIGLE, v. AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, In W. HORTON J. W. HORTON, v. AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, In J. REVELLO O. J. REVELLO O. v. AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES,, 8 B.R. 404 (Bankr. D. Utah 1981)

. . . See, e. g., 5 Collier on Bankruptcy, rr 77.17 and 77.19 (14th ed. 1978); 6A Id., •' 10.16; 3 D. . . .

BURCHETT, v. Dr. H. BOWER, 470 F. Supp. 1170 (D. Ariz. 1979)

. . . McGarry 3.6 $60.00 $ 216.00 $ 6,902.00 PARALEGAL FEES AWARDED Multhauf 16.13 $20.00 $ 322.60 (158 X 10.16% . . .

FISHER S ISLAND, v. DADE COUNTY,, 47 Fla. Supp. 129 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1977)

. . . Parcel B BU-2 Zoning 10.16 C. . . . through 6, 162.04 Acres Present zone classification: GU Zone classification desired: RU-4A — Parcel B, 10.16 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CHIANTESE, 560 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir. 1977)

. . . of text which Mann called plain error underwent minor revisions and appeared as the centerpiece of § 10.16 . . .

BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC. v. UNITED STATES By, 555 F.2d 637 (8th Cir. 1977)

. . . This computation produced a figure of $10.16 per ton. . . . Finally, it updated the $10.16 figure to October, 1976 by applying general rate increases of 2.5% and . . .

UNITED STATES v. LITTLEBEAR,, 531 F.2d 896 (8th Cir. 1976)

. . . Devitt, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 10.16 at 139 (1st ed.1965), on voluntary intoxication . . .

UNITED STATES v. BELL,, 505 F.2d 539 (7th Cir. 1974)

. . . Marshall, Law of Crimes §§ 10.15, 10.16 (1958); J. Miller, Criminal Law §§ 98, 99 (1934). . . .

STATE v. COUNTY OF DADE, a, 250 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1971)

. . . proposed issue, the lease to be entered into by the County with Spencer Foods, Inc., provides, in Section 10.16 . . .

DOUGLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. L. B. v. JORGENSON, Al F. D. C. Dr. A., 293 F. Supp. 849 (D.S.D. 1968)

. . . 10.94% of all State Educational moneys while the Federal Government provides nearly an identical amount, 10.16% . . .

WALKER v. MOSER,, 201 So. 2d 609 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . . & Proc., § 10.16: “The same rule applies to appeals from directed verdicts as applies to appeals from . . .

GOINGS, v. UNITED STATES, 377 F.2d 753 (8th Cir. 1967)

. . . satisfactory, instruction is found in Mathes and Devitt, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, p. 139: Ҥ 10.16 . . .

EATON, v. SS EXPORT CHALLENGER, a, 376 F.2d 725 (4th Cir. 1967)

. . . ship appellant demanded his wages from the purser for February 25 for the full day, in the amount of $10.16 . . .

O. RIVERS, v. UNITED STATES, 368 F.2d 362 (9th Cir. 1966)

. . . Cal.Jur. 78(B)), and the refusal to give instruction § 10.16, Mathes and Devitt: Fed. . . . the court did instruct on all essential elements of the case, including those mentioned in Mathes § 10.16 . . .

W. KILGARLIN v. MARTIN,, 252 F. Supp. 404 (S.D. Tex. 1966)

. . . * 314,070 5 62,814 — 1.64 70 67,717 1 67,717 + 6.03 71 64,630 1 64,630 H" 1.19 72 70,357 1 70,357 + 10.16 . . .

a DRAPER, v. B. J. RHAY, a LORENTZEN, v. B. J. RHAY,, 242 F. Supp. 829 (E.D. Wash. 1964)

. . . The Washington statute, RCW 10.16.-010 provides that a Justice of the Peace shall issue a warrant for . . .

FLORIDA WATER SERVICE,, 20 Fla. Supp. 10 (Fla. Railroad & P. U. C. 1962)

. . . This results in a net income of $17,201.85 or a rate of return on the commission approved rate base of 10.16% . . .

LADNER v. UNITED STATES, 358 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1958)

. . . See Burdick, Law of Crime (1946), §342; Clark and Marshall, Law of Crimes (1958), § 10.16; Miller on . . .

GOLTZMAN v. ROUGEOT, 122 F. Supp. 700 (W.D. La. 1954)

. . . Regulation 10.16(e) required that they should be carried “at each end” of the barges “when being towed . . .

NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. v. UNITED STATES, 99 F. Supp. 394 (D. Mass. 1951)

. . . been much the same since 1939, though starting with 1945 it has been somewhat more consistent, with 10.16% . . .

UNITED STATES CARTRIDGE CO. v. POWELL, 174 F.2d 718 (8th Cir. 1949)

. . . Mason Company, D.C., 68 F.Supp. 576, affirmed D.C.W.D.La., 70 F.Supp. 929, affirmed 5 Cir., 164 F.2d 10.16 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 44 F. Supp. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)

. . . Its cost of production was 10.16 cents a pound. . . . By dividing the 7.83, which was the gross profit, by the 10.16, which was the cost of production, we . . .

v., 33 B.T.A. 512 (B.T.A. 1935)

. . . At paragraph 10.16 of this chapter, it is said: “ Bonds, notes, and contracts for the payment of money . . .

FIREMEN S INS. CO. v. LASKER, 18 F.2d 375 (8th Cir. 1927)

. . . to the written provisions of the policy, is such proportion of $33.33 as $84.11 is of $275.92, or $10.16 . . .

, 2 U.S. 396 (C.C.D. Pa. 1798)

. . . and indorfements which leave the bill to a free negotiation, has been fully efta^ blifhed; 2.Burr. 10.16 . . .