Cases from cite.case.law:

HOSPIRA, INC. v. FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC,, 343 F. Supp. 3d 823 (N.D. Ill. 2018)

. . . (SeePrecedex Concentrate Label at JTX 15.13; Hospira Resp. 7, 8.) . . . (SeePrecedex Concentrate Label at JTX 15.13.) . . . (SeePrecedex Concentrate Label at JTX 15.13.) Drs. . . . (Precedex Concentrate Label at JTX 15.13; Fanikos at JTX 19.2; CSHP Guidelines at DTX 301_0015; Cain . . .

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. UNLIMITED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC,, 353 F. Supp. 3d 904 (D. Haw. 2018)

. . . Owner and his/her guests and visitors, and may limit the Owner's access to portions of Kukui'ula. ... 15.13 . . . conducted by "the Declarant, The Club, Builders designated by the Declarant, or other Owners," and Chapter 15.13 . . . Chapter 15.13 provides notice of "Blasting and Other Activities" and states, "the Owners and all occupants . . .

FUNG RETAILING LIMITED, v. TOYS R US, INC., 593 B.R. 724 (E.D. Va. 2018)

. . . Fung, a company incorporated and headquartered in Hong Kong, owns a 15.13% stake in the Asia JV. . . .

MADERA, Mi v. W. DETZNER, A., 325 F. Supp. 3d 1269 (N.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 15.13. . . . Stat. § 15.13. Not some election laws. The election laws. . . . Stat. § 15.13. . . .

UNITED STATES v. TRACTS LOTS AND LAFITTE S LANDING PHASE TWO PORT ARTHUR, JEFFERSON COUNTY TEXAS,, 852 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2017)

. . . Prac., Marital Property and Homesteads § 15.13 (“[I]f a spouse does not have a written power of attorney . . .

ALSTOM, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,, 228 F. Supp. 3d 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . Specifically, Section 15.13 of the Agreement states, in relevant part, as follows: “Except as set forth . . . (Id. § 15.13). . . . GE informed Alstom via letter that it had requested arbitration before the ICC pursuant to Section 15.13 . . . whether it or the IAF should resolve the disputed items in Alstom’s Dispute Notice because Section 15.13 . . . But, again, that argument ignores the beginning of Section 15.13, which carves out any disputes that . . .

IN RE C. FUSTOLO, LLC, v. C., 563 B.R. 85 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2017)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2], at 993 (2d ed. 1966)). . . .

XENON HEALTH, L. L. C. W. M. D. v. BAIG,, 662 F. App'x 270 (5th Cir. 2016)

. . . Section 15.13 of the PSA provides, “In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement . . .

COVINGTON, v. NORTH CAROLINA,, 316 F.R.D. 117 (M.D.N.C. 2016)

. . . has a BYAP of 45.75%, whereas the part of Duplin County excluded from the district has a BYAP of only 15.13% . . .

In H M OIL GAS, LLC, J. v. A. III,, 514 B.R. 790 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . any well hereunder within 15 days from receipt of an invoice therefore in accordance with Article XV.15.13 . . . any well hereunder within 15 days from receipt of an invoice therefore, in accordance with Article XV.15.13 . . . In turn, JOA § 15.13 states: Each Non-Operator shall be obligated to pay Operator in advance for its . . . Id. at § 15.13 (emphasis added). . . .

In TITANIUM DIOXIDE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 959 F. Supp. 2d 799 (D. Md. 2013)

. . . Likewise, Kronos’s margins fell from 15.13 percent to 7.93 percent, and Millennium’s margins fell from . . .

ONE THREE FIVE, INC. t d b a v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH,, 951 F. Supp. 2d 788 (W.D. Pa. 2013)

. . . secondary employment details will not enforce business rules or directions of the Secondary Employer. 15.13 . . .

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, v. TREDEGAR CORPORATION,, 891 F. Supp. 2d 559 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Exxon claims violations of Sections 12.6, 12.7, and 15.13 of the APA. . . . Exxon also alleges that Tredegar breached its duty under Section 15.13 of the APA, “Cooperation,” which . . . Exxon has adequately pled breaches of Sections 12.6 and 12.7, it has also pled a breach of Section 15.13 . . .

In U. S. FIDELIS, INC., 481 B.R. 503 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2012)

. . . and the Plan Supplement are incorporated and are a part of the Plan as if set forth in full herein. 15.13 . . .

In NEURONTIN MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. v., 810 F. Supp. 2d 366 (D. Mass. 2011)

. . . DASA Corp., 560 F.2d 1078, 1086 (2d Cir.1977) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.13(2) (2d ed.1966 . . .

SIERRA CLUB v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, F., 715 F. Supp. 2d 721 (S.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) in 1997 that 15.13 acres of wetlands would be included in the project . . .

In F. CUTAIA, v. F., 410 B.R. 733 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1493 (1971); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, P 15.13(2) (1974)); . . .

HEADLANDS RESERVE, LLC, a v. CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT, a, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . C, D, § 15.13 & § 14.13, respectively) (emphasis added). . . . (Teresa Deck, ¶ 17, Exhs C, D, §§ 15.13 and 14.13, respectively.) . . .

Y. SILVERSTEIN, v. PENGUIN PUTNAM, INC., 522 F. Supp. 2d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.13(2), at 984 (2d ed.1974)). . . .

SHERRILL A. v. FEDERAL- MOGUL CORPORATION RETIREMENT PROGRAMS COMMITTEE P. B. A. A. W. P. G. G. E. J. S. Jr. M. H. To, 413 F. Supp. 2d 842 (E.D. Mich. 2006)

. . . January 31, 2000 Federal-Mogul’s stock price fell an additional 25% to close at $15.13 per share. . . . $1.01 per share: Date Price July 1,1999 $52.00 Sept. 14,1999 $30.38 Dec. 31,1999 $20.12 Jan. 31, 2000 $15.13 . . .

AMTEC CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 69 Fed. Cl. 79 (Fed. Cl. 2005)

. . . $1.10 For purposes of pricing the exercise of manhour increments of Option I, a composite labor rate of 15.13 . . . For purposes of pricing the exercise of manhour increments of Option I, a composite labor rate of $15.13 . . .

W. H. NOE, d b a d b a d b a v. HENDERSON, In, 373 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Ark. 2005)

. . . Specifically, the letter stated that Noe was operating in violation of AGFC Codes 15.11(B) and 15.13( . . . Code 15.13(D) requires the submission of certain monthly reports. . . . They allege that Codes 15.01, 15.05, 15.11(B), 15.12, and 15.13(D) of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission . . . remains as to whether the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission’s Codes 15.01, 15.05, 15.11(B), 15.12 and 15.13 . . .

In INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION In In In In iXL In In VA VA, 227 F.R.D. 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . During the first day of trading, the stock opened at $15.13, peaked at $24.50 and closed at $17.88, an . . .

In ENRIQUEZ,, 315 B.R. 112 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2004)

. . . Moore, et. al, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2] (1996). . . .

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES W. O v. E. HOOD, C., 310 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . . § 15.13. 10. . . .

UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR, INC. v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE, a J., 286 F. Supp. 2d 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . not violate SEQRA for the simple reason that SEQRA does not apply to outdoor advertising. 17 NYCRR 15.13 . . .

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES W. O v. E. HOOD, C., 278 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 15.13. Clearly, however, voting is one area that Congress intended the ADA to affect. . . .

In WASHINGTON STATE APPLE ADVERTISING COMMISSION, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (E.D. Wash. 2003)

. . . 69.04 RCW and rules; (xi) Horticultural plants and facilities— inspection and licensing under chapter 15.13 . . .

BAKER, v. JOHN MORRELL CO., 249 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (N.D. Iowa 2003)

. . . (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.13, at 846^17) (citations omitted). . . .

In WASHINGTON STATE APPLE ADVERTISING COMMISSION, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (E.D. Wash. 2003)

. . . 69.04 RCW and rules; (xi) Horticultural plants and facilities— inspection and licensing under chapter 15.13 . . .

In RICHARDS CONOVER STEEL, CO. A. v. A. v., 267 B.R. 602 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2001)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2] (1996)). . . .

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, T. v. FLEMING COMPANIES, INC. E. R. N. J., 264 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2001)

. . . On March 18, when the punitive damages award was announced, Fleming shares closed at $15.13. . . .

MAUREY, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA J., 12 F. App'x 529 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 15.13, his declaration is not inadmissible. . . .

V. Jo SIMPSON, v. J. BURROWS, C., 90 F. Supp. 1108 (D. Or. 2000)

. . . Bar, Torts, § 15.13, at 15-10 (1992 rev., 1996 supp.) . . .

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. M. ANTAR, ANTAR, A. M., 15 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D.N.J. 1998)

. . . Antar, Vol. 15.13. Upon questioning by this court, Sam M. further testified: A. ... . . .

SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY, v. LEAHY,, 145 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . responsibility for the “general supervision and administration of the election laws.... ” Sections 97.012 & 15.13 . . . responsibility for the “general supervision and administration of the. election laws.... ” Section 15.13 . . . Thus, based on the two Secretaries’ actions in this matter, as well as Sections 97.012 and 15.13, Fla . . .

DEERE, v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY,, 175 F.R.D. 157 (N.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Co., 568 F.2d 902, 909 (2d Cir. 1977) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[1] (2d ed.1974)). . . .

In C. RAUH, J. NOONAN, v. KUEI FONG RAUH,, 119 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2], at 993 (2d ed.1966)). 1. . . .

In C. RAUH, J. NOONAN, v. KUEI FONG RAUH,, 119 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2], at 993 (2d ed.1966)). 1. . . .

STUDIENGESELLSCHAFT KOHLE, M. B. H. v. SHELL OIL COMPANY,, 112 F.3d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.13[2] (2d ed.1996). . . .

In V. JODOIN, M. D. V. JODOIN, M. D. v. C. SAMAYOA,, 209 B.R. 132 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore, et. al, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2] (1996). . . .

DRR, L. L. C. a v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. a, 171 F.R.D. 162 (D. Del. 1997)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2] (2d ed. 1996). . . .

PHANEUF v. TENNECO, INC., 938 F. Supp. 112 (N.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . Co., 568 F.2d 902, 909 (2d Cir.1977) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[1] (2d ed. 1974)). . . .

In V. JODOIN, M. D. C. SAMAYOA C. v. V. JODOIN, M. D., 196 B.R. 845 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1996)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2] (1996) (“Moore”). . . .

CURTIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. PLASTI- CLIP CORPORATION PLASTI- CLIP CORPORATION v. W. JUDD, 933 F. Supp. 107 (D.N.H. 1995)

. . . if the parties do not squarely recognize it as an issue in the trial.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13 . . .

In CHRYST, FRANKFORD BANK a k a v. CHRYST,, 177 B.R. 486 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1994)

. . . Moore Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2], at 15-134 to 135 (2d ed. 1994). . . .

E. SCHMITT, L. J. v. STATE OF KANSAS, L. COLLIER, S. L. P. O v. STATE OF KANSAS,, 864 F. Supp. 1051 (D. Kan. 1994)

. . . Moore and Richard Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.13[2] at pp. 15-130-32 (2d ed. 1994). 35. . . .

In CHAUS SECURITIES LITIGATION, 801 F. Supp. 1257 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.13[3] at 15-194). . . .

J. STENDER, v. LUCKY STORES, INC., 803 F. Supp. 259 (N.D. Cal. 1992)

. . . This disparity is statistically significant, with a Z-value of — 15.13 (probability of less that 1 in . . . but 75% of those promoted into Apprentice jobs in Deli/Bakery and General Merchandise (Z-value of —15.13 . . .

In PEREZ, III, HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK, v. PEREZ, III,, 954 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1992)

. . . Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice M 15.13-15.14 (2d ed. 1991). . . .

In PEREZ, III, HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK, v. PEREZ, III,, 954 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1992)

. . . Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13-15.14 (2d ed. 1991). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND PREMISES, KNOWN AS NOYAC ROAD, NOYAC, NEW YORK, A., 945 F.2d 1252 (2d Cir. 1991)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice U 15.13[2], at 993 (2d ed. 1966))). . . . different theory.” ’ ” Royal Am., 885 F.2d at 1017 (quoting Browning, 560 F.2d at 1086 (quoting 3 Moore ¶ 15.13 . . .

HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK v. PEREZ, III, 124 B.R. 704 (E.D. La. 1991)

. . . Id. at 871 (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, para. 15.13(2), at 15-130-31 (2d ed. 1985)). . . .

In S. MAYO, MIDLANTIC NATIONAL BANK NORTH, N. A. v. BORG- WARNER ACCEPTANCE CORP., 112 B.R. 607 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1990)

. . . additional evidence if the case were to be retried on a different theory.’ 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.13 . . .

TOYOTA OF PENSACOLA v. E. MAINES,, 558 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . location, and the second is the close association of the access route with the work premises. 1 Larson § 15.13 . . .

JARRETT, v. EPPERLY f k a, 896 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1990)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2], p. 15-157 (2d ed 1984) (amendment to conform to evidence may be made . . .

MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC. v. V. BRUNI, d b a, 129 F.R.D. 35 (W.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13, at 993 (2d ed. 1966)). Royal American Managers, Inc. v. . . .

ROYAL AMERICAN MANAGERS, INCORPORATED, v. IRC HOLDING CORPORATION, 885 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir. 1989)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13, at 993 (2d ed. 1966)). . . .

G. SOULE, v. RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN FOR SALARIED EMPLOYEES OF REXHAM CORPORATION, 723 F. Supp. 1138 (W.D.N.C. 1989)

. . . such determination by the Committee shall be conclusive and binding on all persons (emphasis added). 15.13 . . .

ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY, v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, AG MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, AG v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY,, 718 F. Supp. 274 (D. Del. 1989)

. . . (D.I. 283, Tab 3B, ¶ 15.13 n. *.) . 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) provides: A person shall be entitled to a patent . . .

TONAWANDA STREET CORPORATION, d b a s v. FAY S DRUG COMPANY, INC., 842 F.2d 643 (2d Cir. 1988)

. . . McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 15.13 at 688-89. . . .

P. CAMPBELL, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a a, 817 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1987)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2] (2d ed. 1985). . . .

In V. NETT J. BAHR v. V. NETT J., 70 B.R. 868 (Bank. W.D. Wis. 1987)

. . . additional evidence if the case were to be retried on a different theory.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.13 . . .

GILBERT, O v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS E. E., 799 F.2d 1210 (8th Cir. 1986)

. . . 16.31 55.91 5 Bartsch, T. 38.00 28.5 15.67 53.67 16 Beck, J. 37.60 33 12.23 49.83 37 Bunch, J. 39.60 8 15.13 . . . 16.31 81.50 17 Bartsch, T. 62.51 40 15.67 78.18 26 Beck, J. 63.32 37 12.23 75.55 37 Bunch, J. 68.25 5 15.13 . . .

KNAUER v. JOHNS- MANVILLE CORPORATION,, 638 F. Supp. 1369 (D. Md. 1986)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[3], at 15-194 to -196 (1984) (footnotes omitted) (hereinafter . . .

UPDATE ART, INC. v. CHARNIN, d b a Ki d b a TTF T- s d b a s s, 110 F.R.D. 26 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

. . . Y.Arts & Cult.Aff.Law §§ 13.03, 13.07, 14.03, 14.53, 15.03.1, 15.05, 15.13, 15.17 (McKinney 1984) ("Counts . . .

G. HERRON, J. R. Mc J. A. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, A., 618 F. Supp. 1405 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . The situation we are presented with here is summed up very succinctly in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13 . . .

CUNNINGHAM, An J. CUNNINGHAM, J. v. QUAKER OATS COMPANY, FISHER- PRICE DIVISION,, 107 F.R.D. 66 (W.D.N.Y. 1985)

. . . was introduced because it was relevant to another issue in the case. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, II 15.13 . . .

P. GOSLIN, v. RACAL DATA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. f k a, 468 So. 2d 390 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . The book value of the outstanding Milgo stock on that date was $15.13 per share. . . .

A. CAMPANA, v. T. ELLER,, 755 F.2d 212 (1st Cir. 1985)

. . . .2d 439 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1120, 103 S.Ct. 3089 (1983); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice U 15.13 . . .

BRANDON v. HOLT, DIRECTOR OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF MEMPHIS,, 469 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1985)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2], p. 15-157 (2d ed. 1984) (amendment to conform to evidence may be . . .

In A. HOGARD, V. REA, v. A. HOGARD,, 43 B.R. 590 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1984)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2] n. 28 (2d ed. 1984). . . .

In INDEPENDENT CLEARING HOUSE COMPANY, a In UNIVERSAL CLEARING HOUSE COMPANY, a a In ACCOUNTING SERVICES COMPANY, a D. MERRILL, v. ABBOTT,, 41 B.R. 985 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984)

. . . Moore, MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 15.13[2], at 15-172 to 15-173 (2d ed. 1984). . . .

EHRICHS, v. D. KEARNEY,, 730 F.2d 1170 (8th Cir. 1984)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2], at 15-171 — 15-172 (1983); see Dependahl, supra, 653 F.2d . . . Dependahl, supra, 653 F.2d at 1218; Standard Title, supra, 349 F.2d at 620; see also Moore, supra, ¶15.13 . . .

CRAIK, v. MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD St. J. R. A. G. C. B. P. W. G. J. v. V. L. J. A. A. C. A. H. G. E. C. J. L. R. J. B. D., 731 F.2d 465 (8th Cir. 1984)

. . . V.3.11; V.15.13-14; Dx. 69. . . .

J. ZEBEDEO v. MARTIN E. SEGAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED, 582 F. Supp. 1394 (D. Conn. 1984)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 15.13[2], pp. 15-178 — 179. (4) The amended complaint, if allowed, would interject . . .

LYNCH, v. S. DUKAKIS,, 719 F.2d 504 (1st Cir. 1983)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.13[2], at 15-174 to -175 (2d ed. 1983). . . .

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN, v. GORSUCH, No., 718 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . DASA Corp., 560 F.2d 1078, 1086 (2d Cir.1977) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2], at 993 . . .

M. MARTINEZ, L. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a v. LITECKY,, 714 F.2d 1028 (10th Cir. 1983)

. . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2], at 15-157 (2d ed. 1983). . . .

CONSOLIDATED DATA TERMINALS, a v. APPLIED DIGITAL DATA SYSTEMS, INC. a, 708 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1983)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13(2), at 15-173 (1978 supp. to 2d ed. 1966). . . .

SMITH v. L. MOGELVANG, M. D., 432 So. 2d 119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . United States, 528 F.2d 73, 75 (3d Cir.1975); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, section 15.13[2] (2d ed. 1982 . . .

CHAMBERLAIN, v. BISSELL INC. a, 547 F. Supp. 1067 (W.D. Mich. 1982)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2], at 15-157 to -179 (2d ed. 1982). . . .

A. FLANAGAN, v. E. GILLMOR, M. STARR, v. A. RHODES,, 561 F. Supp. 36 (S.D. Ohio 1982)

. . . the old plan, the 12th District black population was 15.24% and under the new plan the population was 15.13% . . .

SENTRY INSURANCE, a v. R. BROWN, R. BROWN, v. SENTRY INSURANCE, a, 424 So. 2d 780 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . or will only issue a policy at substantially higher rates. 2 Long, The Law of Liability Insurance, § 15.13 . . .

GEORGE R. HALL, INC. v. SUPERIOR TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., 532 F. Supp. 985 (N.D. Ga. 1982)

. . . the first part is whether there has been express or implied consent. 3 Moore’s, Federal Practice ¶ 15.13 . . .

ROHNER, GEHRIG COMPANY, v. CAPITAL CITY BANK,, 655 F.2d 571 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . Bailey, The Law of Bank Checks §§ 15.10, 15.13 (4th ed. 1969). . . .

PHILIPP, a a v. L. CAREY, E., 517 F. Supp. 513 (N.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . Mental Hygiene Law § 15.13. . . .

W. DEPENDAHL, Jr. J. v. FALSTAFF BREWING CORPORATION, a C. CALHOUN, v. FALSTAFF BREWING CORPORATION, a, 653 F.2d 1208 (8th Cir. 1981)

. . . Vol. 3, Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.13 at pp. 846-847. . . .

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, 645 F.2d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

. . . Cf. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 15.13[2] at 15-175: Implied consent to the trial of an unpleaded issue . . .

R. A. POHL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, v. MARSHALL,, 640 F.2d 266 (10th Cir. 1981)

. . . This is the standard described in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13(2). . . .

T. J. STEVENSON CO. INC. a v. BAGS OF FLOUR, ADM MILLING CO. INC. v. T. J. STEVENSON CO. INC. MV NEDON,, 629 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . where the parties do not squarely recognize it as an issue at trial.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice H 15.13 . . . Discussing Rule 15(b), 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, H 15.13[2], states: “The test should be whether . . .

VUYANICH v. REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF DALLAS JOHNSON v. REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF DALLAS, 505 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1980)

. . . banking major, and the professional male/professional female pay disparity dropped from -17.16% to -15.13% . . .

CRANE CO. v. AMERICAN STANDARD, INC. Co., 88 F.R.D. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)

. . . pleadings in line with the actual issues upon which the case was tried.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13 . . .

D. POUNCY, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,, 499 F. Supp. 427 (S.D. Tex. 1980)

. . . 5.57 16.67 6.51 24.49 7.56 Level 9 5.10 7.28 10.81 8.37 11.67 9.46 16.13 10.89 17.39 12.38 Level 8 15.13 . . .

MADISON CORPORATION v. E. CAPONE, 485 F. Supp. 1348 (D.N.J. 1980)

. . . Heard, 532 F.2d 1330, 1332 (10th Cir. 1976); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13[2], at 165 (2d ed. 1979 . . .

MARTINEZ v. W. MAHER,, 485 F. Supp. 1264 (D. Conn. 1980)

. . . However, if the caretaker relative of one needy child receives SSI benefits, the family income is $15.13 . . . Obviously this is an improvement over the present standard, which results in a decrease of $15.13 where . . .

In SANTA FE DOWNS, INC. a J. DUNN, v. B. EWELL, Jr. L. J. W. T., 611 F.2d 815 (10th Cir. 1980)

. . . and the pleadings have not been amended, no amendment can be implied.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13 . . .

In SANTA FE DOWNS, INC. a J. DUNN, v. B. EWELL, Jr. L. J. W. T., 611 F.2d 815 (10th Cir. 1980)

. . . and the pleadings have not been amended, no amendment can be implied.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.13 . . .

McDONOUGH MARINE SERVICE, INC. v. M V ROYAL STREET, In In MORTON CHEMICAL COMPANY, v. M V ROYAL STREET, In In, 608 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1979)

. . . charter hire. 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1493; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 15.13 . . .

VARGAS, v. C. McNAMARA, III, v. SIDMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. BAKER, v. C. McNAMARA, III, v. CAPE COD MARINE SERVICES, INC. BAKER, v. CAPE COD MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. SIDMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. BAKER v. C. McNAMARA, III, BAKER v. C. McNAMARA, III,, 608 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1979)

. . . United States, 23 F.R.D. 279, 280 (D.C.Alaska 1959); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice fl 15.13[2], pp. 15-171 . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)