Cases from cite.case.law:

J. DETZNER, v. ANSTEAD,, 256 So. 3d 820 (Fla. 2018)

. . . See § 20.10(1), Fla. . . .

OTERO, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,, 292 F. Supp. 3d 245 (D.D.C. 2018)

. . . This review also revealed that the plaintiff "still owes $20.10 for duplication fees associated with . . . refuse to perform any additional work on the plaintiff's FOIA request because he had not paid the $20.10 . . .

IN RE WEAVER, v., 579 B.R. 865 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2018)

. . . The bottom section, filled in by hand, lists Wilson’s current hourly base pay at $20.10 ppr hour, his . . . She also verified that Wilson never earned $20.10 per hour while at Vail. . . . fraudulent VOE — one based on the Wilson’s “actual” 2009 year-to-date income, and one based on his $20.10 . . . Nor do the noted changes in pay explain or clarify the difference between the $20.10 per hour rate that . . . The difference between $20.10 per hour and $17.76 per hour is $2.34. . . .

BAODING MANTONG FINE CHEMISTRY CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 279 F. Supp. 3d 1321 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2017)

. . . administrative review at. issue pertained, to entries of subject merchandise made during the period of March 1, 20.10 . . .

BORGES v. EL CONQUISTADOR PARTNERSHIP,, 280 F. Supp. 3d 295 (D.P.R. 2017)

. . . Plaintiff Nieves’s wife claims that she saw Alvarez hug the Plaintiff on three occasions between 2007 and 20.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ELLIS,, 270 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . Rev. 1241, 1260-71 (20.10)). See also United States v. . . .

PEREZ, v. ABBOTT,, 274 F. Supp. 3d 624 (W.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . voting, for Latino candidates but African Americans not tending to support Latino candidates in the 20.10 . . .

STOUT, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,, 250 F. Supp. 3d 1092 (N.D. Ala. 2017)

. . . was as follows: Gardendale Elementary Snow Rogers Elementary Bragg Middle Gardendale High Black White 20.10% . . .

DOE, v. UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS,, 240 F. Supp. 3d 984 (D. Minn. 2017)

. . . Bd. of Broward Cty., 604 F.3d 1248, 1254 (11th Cir. 20.10), Further, a plaintiff must meet the high bar . . .

LORD ABBETT MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND, INC. a v. ASAMI R. De LLC,, 653 F. App'x 553 (9th Cir. 2016)

. . . With respect to the 20.10 purchase of the bonds .by Lord Abbett in the secondary market, there could . . .

CARTER, Jr. v. BUTTS COUNTY, GEORGIA,, 821 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . By letters dated September 22, 2010, and November-22, 20.10, Ocwen notified the Filbecks of the impending . . .

KKC, STONER, v. W. COLVIN,, 818 F.3d 364 (8th Cir. 2016)

. . . The-majority concedes the July 20.10 and December 2010 exercise tests were untimely 12 months after the . . .

IN RE RUST- OLEUM RESTORE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016)

. . . Plaintiff Hickman, for example, alleges that she purchased Rust-Oleum and used in around the Summer of 20.10 . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 175 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 2015)

. . . Welfare Fraud — Administrator Failure to Disclose; 20.9— Welfare Fraud — Receiving Unauthorized Payments; 20.10 . . . Both comments asserted that language in instructions 20.3-20.10 and instruction 20.12 stating that repayment . . . The commenters suggested adding language to instructions 20.3-20.10 and instruction 20.12 to clarify . . . Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015. 20.10 WELFARE FRAUD — FILING WITHOUT . . .

GOMEZ, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP LVNV LLC,, 129 F. Supp. 3d 147 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Cir.20.10)), and by the fact that this Opinion resolves both sides’ summary judgment motions without . . .

REGTER, v. STRYKER CORPORATION, 607 F. App'x 732 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . The FAC also alleged Regter became aware of the shoulder injury at issue in June 20.10 when his doctor . . .

COMPTROLLER OF TREASURY OF MARYLAND, v. WYNNE, 135 S. Ct. 1787 (U.S. 2015)

. . . Hellerstein, State Taxation, ¶ 20.10, pp. 20-163 to 20-164 (3d ed. 2003). . . .

C. J. MERCADANTE, v. XE SERVICES, LLC,, 78 F. Supp. 3d 131 (D.D.C. 2015)

. . . Dep., Ex. 3 ¶ 20.10 (waiver of jury trial); Biddle Dep., Ex. 2 ¶ 20.6 (same); Jefferson Dep. . . . Ex. 3, ¶ 20.10 (same); OHara Dep., Ex. 4 ¶ 19.6 (same). . . .

FOGG COMPANY, Co. v. UNITED STATES,, 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . Commerce published its preliminary results on September 7, 20.10. . . .

UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC. v. MEGATRUX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 750 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . Finally, Section 20.10 provides: “Each Services Recipient is an intended third[-]party beneficiary of . . .

R. PATEL, v. K. SHINSEKI,, 984 F. Supp. 2d 461 (W.D. Pa. 2013)

. . . Sonel; (4) November 20.10 to Dr. Sonel; (5) January 2011 to Dr. . . .

COCHRAN v. MARLTON AUTO CREDIT, 933 F. Supp. 2d 697 (E.D. Pa. 2013)

. . . Stealth failed to provide, prior notice of repossession before attempting to repossess the car in April 20.10 . . .

FLORIDA, v. UNITED STATES, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . . §§ 20.10, 97.012. . . .

RACK ROOM SHOES, SKIZ LLC, v. UNITED STATES,, 856 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012)

. . . overalls_overalls_ 19 Heading: 6106: Women’s or girl’s blouses, and shirts, knitted or crocheted Subheading: 20.10 . . . of wool or fine animal hair_ Heading: 6105: Men’s or boy’s shirts, knitted or crocheted Subheading: 20.10 . . . Of artificial fibers, Other 150 Heading: 6209: Babies’ garments and clothing accessories Subheading: 20.10 . . .

AMVETS POST v. RUTTER,, 863 F. Supp. 2d 670 (N.D. Ohio 2012)

. . . Laws § 23-20.10-3; SDCL § 34-46-14; U.C.A.1953 § 26-38-3; Ver. Stat. tit. 28 § 1428; Wash. . . .

TIMEGATE STUDIOS, INC. v. SOUTHPEAK INTERACTIVE, LLC,, 860 F. Supp. 2d 350 (S.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . in by the arbitrator violate the following three provisions of the parties’ agreement: (1) Article 20.10 . . .

R. J. ANTS, INC. v. MARINELLI ENTERPRISES, LLC,, 771 F. Supp. 2d 475 (E.D. Pa. 2011)

. . . F.Supp. 588, 595 (D.N.J.1984); 3A Call-mann, Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies §§ 20.09, 20.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SISCO,, 576 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . “crack cocaine”), 2.99 kilograms of marijuana, 20.10 grams of powder cocaine, $5,850 in United States . . .

SANTIAGO- SEPULVEDA, v. ESSO STANDARD OIL COMPANY PUERTO RICO INC., 634 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.P.R. 2009)

. . . (Lease Agreement, Article 20.10, Docket No. 108-3, at 23; Franchise Contract, Article 18.3, Docket No . . . (Docket No. 108-3, at 23, art. 20.10.) . . .

In DUNN, 399 B.R. 909 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009)

. . . . §§ 20.10, 20.11 (2004). . . .

SANTIAGO- SEPULVEDA, v. ESSO STANDARD OIL COMPANY PUERTO RICO INC., 582 F. Supp. 2d 154 (D.P.R. 2008)

. . . 14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 17.1, 17.2, 18.1, 19.1, 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.7, 20.8, 20.9, 20.10 . . . Making reference to a severability clause, (see Exhibit 28, at 23, article 20.10), he noted the intention . . .

ELECTED COUNTY MAYOR POLITICAL COMMITTEE, INC. v. E. SHIRK,, 989 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . , Constitutional Amendment by Initiative Petition (adopted under the specific authority of sections 20.10 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR- FLORIDA REGISTERED PARALEGAL PROGRAM, 969 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2007)

. . . SUBCHAPTER 20.10 AMENDMENTS RULE 20-10.1 GENERALLY Rules governing the Florida Registered Paralegal Program . . .

MIDDLESEX RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. QUEST SOFTWARE INC. C. M. J. M. Jr., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . The drop in the Company’s stock now totaled 20.10% since May 18, 2006, the last trading day before the . . . Notably, Plaintiff stated in its FAC that this 20.10% drop in stock is not attributable to a general . . . Both of these numbers are minimal compared to the 20.10% drop suffered by Defendants’ stock. . . .

ASSOCIATION CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY d b a St. K. P. P. Jr., 507 F. Supp. 2d 610 (S.D. Miss. 2007)

. . . Law Treatise, § 20.10 (1958)). . . .

In O. TOMLIN, Jr. Jr. v., 280 B.R. 374 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2002)

. . . the partnership agreement and which would have an equal effect on all the partner’s capital accounts. 20.10 . . .

UNITED STATES, v. M. SANCHEZ,, 54 M.J. 874 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2001)

. . . American Express charged $20.10 in processing fees to SPC Bartley’s account for these transactions. . . .

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM VETMEDICA, INC. v. SCHERING- PLOUGH CORPORATION, 106 F. Supp. 2d 667 (D.N.J. 2000)

. . . Van Alstine’s article to support its defense of inequitable conduct, see Tr. at 20.11; Tr. at 20.4-20.10 . . .

In RECYCLING INDUSTRIES, INC. EIN, 243 B.R. 396 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2000)

. . . Feldman indicates that he billed 20.10 hours working on the First Application and Ms. . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST EMPLOYEES TECHNICIANS, AFL- CIO, CLC, v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. ABC, 140 F.3d 459 (2d Cir. 1998)

. . . ABC further argued that, because Section 20.10 of the agreement provides that one party may pursue arbitration . . . Section 20.10 provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions of this Article . . . However, this Section 20.10, which is applicable only to actions not yet effectuated, shall be used only . . . bargaining agreement prohibits NABET’s “interference with [ABC’s] Company operations,” and Section 20.10 . . . We cannot say with “positive assurance” that Section 20.10 does not confer jurisdiction on the arbitrator . . .

UNITED STATES v. RICHARD DATTNER ARCHITECTS,, 972 F. Supp. 738 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Gordon et al., supra, § 20.10[1], at 20-120. . . .

In DIBERT, BANCROFT ROSS COMPANY, LIMITED ROSS, a v. L. MARRERO,, 117 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1997)

. . . See Saul Litvinoff, The Law of Obligations, 5 Civil Law Treatise § 20.10, at 691 (1992); see also Dept . . .

In DIBERT, BANCROFT ROSS COMPANY, LIMITED ROSS, a v. L. MARRERO,, 117 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1997)

. . . See Saul Litvinoff The Law of Obligations, 5 Civil Law Treatise § 20.10, at 691 (1992); see also Dept . . .

In HINKLE, HINKLE, v. WHEATON COLLEGE,, 200 B.R. 690 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1996)

. . . Thereafter, the payments reach $709.17 for 17 months, then $448.29 for one month, and $20.10 for the . . .

AMENDED OPINION KEY, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 90 F.3d 1546 (11th Cir. 1996)

. . . to her Allstate policy effective March 5, 1991, and she subsequently incurred a premium increase of $20.10 . . .

VILLAGES OF CORNWALLIS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. DURHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY, J., 894 F. Supp. 236 (M.D.N.C. 1995)

. . . In this case, the Record reveals that the Site is located in Census Tract 20.10 and that minority persons . . . will increase to 60.5% Within Census Tract 20.10, the Site is located in districts 902 and 905 which . . . Additionally, the Record indicates that Census Tract 20.97 borders on Census Tract 20.10 and is very . . . (The Site is located on the east border of Census Tract 20.10.) . . . Fulton cited the census data for Census Tract 20.10. Mr. . . .

FEGLEY, v. B. HIGGINS, Sr. C. M. R. A. CMR Jr., 19 F.3d 1126 (6th Cir. 1994)

. . . Fegley was entitled to an hourly rate for these hours of $20.10. . . .

HOUSTON, v. LAFAYETTE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, W., 841 F. Supp. 751 (N.D. Miss. 1993)

. . . %) 6,419/20.20 .85% 1,038/16 5,381/84 6,448/20.30 1.30% 6,226/19.60 (2.18%) 3,719/60 2,507/40 6,407/20.10 . . . 61.65 2,401/38.16 6,209/20.00 (2.45%) 1,489/24 4,703/75.75 6,686/21.00 3.47% 989/15 5,562/84.45 6,366/20.10 . . .

PSI ENERGY, INC. v. EXXON COAL USA, INC., 831 F. Supp. 1430 (S.D. Ind. 1993)

. . . Exxon made its first reopener proposal to PSI on July 17, 1991, offering an undelivered price of $20.10 . . .

ROBIN INDUSTRIES, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 29 Fed. Cl. 122 (Fed. Cl. 1993)

. . . McBride, Government Contracts § 20.10[4] (1992). . . . VECP, any subsequent contract disputes would be subject to the disputes clause. 2 McBride, supra, § 20.10 . . . (CCH) 11 24,172, at 120,913, 1991 WL 129845 (ASBCA July 2, 1991); 2 McBride, supra, § 20.10[1]; Nash, . . . corresponding reduction in the contract price and a reduction in the contractor’s profit. 2 McBride, supra, § 20.10 . . . types of value engineering clauses: incentive provisions and program requirements. 2 McBride, supra, § 20.10 . . .

PSI ENERGY, INC. v. EXXON COAL USA, INC., 831 F. Supp. 1419 (S.D. Ind. 1992)

. . . Exxon made its first reopener proposal to PSI on July 17, 1991, offering an undelivered price of $20.10 . . .

LITTLE SOULS, INC. v. PETITS a k a, 789 F. Supp. 56 (D. Mass. 1992)

. . . Call-man, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 20.10 at 60 (4th ed.1983). . . .

MESNICK, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,, 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991)

. . . Undaunted, Mesnick responded by filing a 20.10 concern in which he branded Tubbs’ handling of Mesnick . . . On March 28, 1988, Tubbs registered a "20.10 concern" because Mesnick had been absent without noting . . . Under internal GE policies, a 20.10 concern is a vehicle for submitting reports anent questionable practices . . . to discuss work-related matters with him, denying him a salary increase, moving his office, filing a 20.10 . . .

MUNDELL, Sr. v. BEVERLY ENTERPRISES- INDIANA, INC., 778 F. Supp. 459 (S.D. Ind. 1991)

. . . See, 3 Marilyn Minzer et al., Damages in Tort Actions § 20.10 (1991). . . .

TAJ MAHAL ENTERPRISES, LTD. v. J. TRUMP,, 745 F. Supp. 240 (D.N.J. 1990)

. . . F.Supp. 588, 595 (D.N.J.1984); 3A Call-mann, Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies §§ 20.09, 20.10 . . .

BOSTON ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, v. SULLIVAN,, 867 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1989)

. . . Pignons, 657 F.2d at 489; see also 3A Callman § 20.10 at 60. . . .

INDIANA VOLUNTARY FIREMEN S ASSOCIATION, INC. v. E. PEARSON,, 700 F. Supp. 421 (S.D. Ind. 1988)

. . . Young, Treatise on Constitutional Law § 20.10 at 37 (1986). . . .

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST EMPLOYEES TECHNICIANS AFL- CIO, NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY,, 707 F. Supp. 124 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . Section 20.10, pursuant to which the Company filed its grievance, reads, as relevant: “Notwithstanding . . . Thus, § 20.10 imposes several prerequisites before an expedited arbitration may be heard by the impartial . . . Section 20.10 provides that a party to the Master Agreement shall have the right to file a grievance . . . Since the prerequisites for an expedited arbitration hearing pursuant to § 20.10 were all satisfied, . . . Section 20.10 of the Master Agreement expressly provides that “the Impartial umpire shall be empowered . . .

OSIAS, v. MARC,, 700 F. Supp. 842 (D. Md. 1988)

. . . Wages Hours Days Worked Wages Worked (6 hrs/day) Paid Wages due at $3.35/hr $100.50 $ 60.30 $100.50 $ 20.10 . . .

v., 89 T.C. 1010 (T.C. 1987)

. . . Van Mieghen, Federal Taxation of Insurance Companies, par. 20.10, at 2012, P-H Services (1983). . . .

PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS v. WILMOT,, 492 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Id. at § 20.10 (e.s.). . . .

J. THAMES, a k a v. OKLAHOMA HISTORICAL SOCIETY,, 646 F. Supp. 13 (W.D. Okla. 1985)

. . . Historical Society may obligate the general fund of the State Treasury. 53 O.S.A. (1981) §§ 2A(l)(f), 20.10 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, J., 472 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . of Employment (Division) that persons hired by HRS pursuant to Florida Administrative Code, Rule 100-20.10 . . . Accordingly, we hold that “housekeepers” utilized by HRS pursuant to Florida Administrative Code, Rule 100-20.10 . . .

MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY, A DIVISION OF MOBIL CORPORATION, v. R. HAWKINS,, 440 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Simon, Redfearn Wills and Administration in Florida, § 20.10 at 377, n. 23 (5th Ed.1977); Trawick, Florida . . .

In D. H. OVERMYER TELECASTING CO. INC. HADAR LEASING INTERNATIONAL CO. INC. v. D. H. OVERMYER TELECASTING CO. INC., 23 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1982)

. . . 10" E. 113.00 feet, S. 89° 33' 10" E. 104.05 feet, S. 87° 40' 10" E. 112.88 feet, N. 84° 03' 50" E. 20.10 . . .

AERO CORPORATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,, 493 F. Supp. 558 (D.D.C. 1981)

. . . See 4 C.F.R. 20.10 (1979). The SLEP program (or more completely, SLEP/CILOP, i.e. . . .

TEXTRON, INC. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON DIVISION, v. ADAMS, B., 493 F. Supp. 824 (D.D.C. 1980)

. . . . § 20.10, challenge the award of á government contract. . . .

C. R. COOK, T. W. v. HOUSTON POST,, 616 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . He administered oaths to two Grand Jury witnesses at the request of the jury foreman (See Articles 20.10 . . .

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK E. W. A. v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, M., 481 F. Supp. 443 (D.N.J. 1979)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, §§ 20.01-20.10 (1958), and the cases cited therein. . . .

W. DYKE, d b a Co. v. GULF OIL CORPORATION, a COLVIN OIL COMPANY, v. GULF OIL CORPORATION, a O. OWEN, d b a v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, a R., 601 F.2d 557 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, Primary Jurisdiction §§ 19.01-19.09; Exhaustion §§ 20.01-20.10 (1958 . . .

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. F. O NEILL, 431 F. Supp. 700 (E.D. Pa. 1977)

. . . Jordan spent 11.75 hours in this endeavor, and requests compensation at the (two-thirds) hourly rate of $20.10 . . . 26.80 (% x $40) 41.25 x 26.80 = $1,105.50 Research Assistants Michael Jordan 5/23/73-8/29/75 11.75 20.10 . . . (% x $30) William Lehane 5/23/73-8/29/75 Less: 5/23/73-8/29/75 10.00 20.10 (% x $30) 10.00 x 20.10 = . . .

DOE H. v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, 415 F. Supp. 308 (N.D. Cal. 1976)

. . . Rule 20.10. . . .

In ESTATE D. BUCKLEY, PAIEWONSKY, a a, 536 F.2d 580 (3d Cir. 1976)

. . . See 2 Page, Wills § 20.10 (1960). . . .

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY D. BUCKLEY, ETHEL PAIEWONSKY, a THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, PRELATURE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, INC. a, 13 V.I. 345 (3d Cir. 1976)

. . . See 2 Page, Wills § 20.10 (1960). . . .

NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INC. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 386 F. Supp. 665 (N.D. Ind. 1974)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 20.01-20.10 (1958), as well as the propriety of mandamus relief . . .

A. ASH, v. S. CORT, 496 F.2d 416 (3d Cir. 1974)

. . . . §§ 20.10 and 20.11. In T.I.M.E., Inc. v. . . .

SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. RODRIGUEZ, 411 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1973)

. . . . § 15.01 et seq., and § 20.10 et seq. . . .

BANNERCRAFT CLOTHING COMPANY, v. RENEGOTIATION BOARD, ASTRO COMMUNICATION LABORATORY, A v. RENEGOTIATION BOARD, DAVID B. LILLY CO. v. RENEGOTIATION BOARD,, 466 F.2d 345 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.10 (1958). . . .

BOHN v. FINCH,, 320 F. Supp. 270 (E.D. La. 1970)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Text, §§ 20.01-20.10 (1959). . . .

UNITED STATES S. BROOKS, v. CLIFFORD, R., 412 F.2d 1137 (4th Cir. 1969)

. . . . § 704; 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, §§ 20.01-20.10 (1958). . . .

JACKSON, v. CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, 31 Fla. Supp. 151 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1968)

. . . Subsection 14 adds a new §20.10, providing that rules relating to the conduct of officers and employees . . .

UNITED STATES v. DENISON,, 318 F.2d 819 (5th Cir. 1963)

. . . Lowndes and Kramer, Federal Estate and Gift Taxes, 2nd Ed. 536, §§ 20.10 et seq.; 4 Mertens Law of Federal . . .

COMMERCE OIL REFINING CORP. v. W. MINER, 281 F.2d 465 (1st Cir. 1960)

. . . it is not necessary tó a proper disposition of the case * * 6 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 20.10 . . .

LAURANCE G. NEWMAN v. THE UNITED STATES, 143 Ct. Cl. 784 (Ct. Cl. 1958)

. . . Specifically, plaintiff called attention to the fact that under Civil Service Eegulations, section 20.10 . . .

E. BODSON v. UNITED STATES, 158 F. Supp. 948 (Cust. Ct. 1958)

. . . light of the Roth decision the Civil Service Commission promulgated new regulations, sections 9.109 and 20.10 . . .

CHARLES E. BODSON v. THE UNITED STATES, 141 Ct. Cl. 532 (Ct. Cl. 1958)

. . . light of the Roth decision the Civil Service Commission promulgated new regulations, sections 9.109 and 20.10 . . .

HENRY A. QUEEN v. THE UNITED STATES, 137 Ct. Cl. 167 (Ct. Cl. 1956)

. . . K. 20.10) require that the notice be given in writing at least 30 days prior to the effective date of . . .

L. HOLCOMB v. UNITED STATES, 146 F. Supp. 224 (Ct. Cl. 1956)

. . . .) § 20.10. Plaintiff’s petition will be dismissed. It is so ordered. . . .

ROBERT L. HOLCOMB v. THE UNITED STATES, 135 Ct. Cl. 612 (Ct. Cl. 1956)

. . . .) § 20.10. Plaintiff’s petition will be dismissed. It is so ordered. . . .

ASHLEY v. ROSS,, 191 F.2d 655 (D.C. Cir. 1951)

. . . period may include active duty, leave with pay, and nonpay furlough.” 15 Fed.Reg. 49, amending 5 CFR § 20.10 . . .

MARSHALL v. CROTTY, 88 F. Supp. 30 (D. Mass. 1950)

. . . Civil Service Regulations, 20.10(d), effective September 1, 1949) were not applicable in reduction of . . .

CONN v. UNITED STATES FLYNT v. SAME NELSON v. SAME, 68 F. Supp. 966 (Ct. Cl. 1946)

. . . Overtime Pay Regulations, Part 20, May 8, 1943, Exhibit A; and as amended October 17, 1944, sections 20.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 67 F. Supp. 397 (D.D.C. 1946)

. . . .; of #2 Grade of the same dimension, $20.10 per M sq. ft.; and of seconds of the same dimension, $17.60 . . . price for %" #2 board was changed from $21.35 per M sq. ft. to $22.60; and the seconds from $18.85 to $20.10 . . .

INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA, 300 F. 190 (D. Ind. 1924)

. . . why “subscribers’ station revenues” in the four cities occupied by plaintiff should have ranged from $20.10 . . .

STANLEY W. MARTIN v. THE UNITED STATES, 26 Ct. Cl. 160 (Ct. Cl. 1891)

. . . papers in cases where defendants were held for court by United States commissioners, at 10 cents each, $20.10 . . .