Cases from cite.case.law:

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

. . . Welfare Fraud — Receiving Unauthorized Payments; 20.10 — Welfare Fraud — Filing Without Crediting; 20.11 . . . Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015. 20.11 WELFARE FRAUD-BILLING IN EXCESS . . .

M. JAMES, v. JAMES,, 129 F. Supp. 3d 1212 (D. Colo. 2015)

. . . James’s Reassignment In February 20.11, there was a privacy breach in the 21st CS. . . .

LABATY, v. UWT, INC., 121 F. Supp. 3d 721 (W.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . Labaty left her account open and was eventually charged the remaining $20.11 in May 2010 for her renewal . . .

UNITED STATES v. CATHEY,, 619 F. App'x 207 (4th Cir. 2015)

. . . . §§ 20.11, 20.21(i) (2013). Cathey appealed his conviction to the district court, which affirmed. . . . Department of Agriculture.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.11(g), (h). . . . attraction for migratory game birds” is “placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered.” 60 C.F.R. § 20.11 . . . Department of Agriculture.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.11(g), (h). . . . for the protection of migratory birds,” including the birds listed in 50 C.F.R. § 10.13. 50 C.F.R. § 20.11 . . .

J. KELLY, v. F. HERRELL,, 602 F. App'x 642 (7th Cir. 2015)

. . . Paul Kelly first surfaced in December 20.11 — nine years after the involuntary petition was filed— when . . .

In UPH HOLDINGS, INC. UPH v. T- USA,, 516 B.R. 873 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . . § 20.11(b) (“Rule 20.11”). . . . at 47 C.F.R. § 20.11). . . . that would accomplish what Rule 20.11(b) accomplishes is preempted. . . . The 2011 statute was subsequently amended by 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 (2012). . . . . Compare 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(b) (2001), with 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(b) (2005) (the language in Rule 20.11 was . . .

J. MCNAUGHTON I. v. UNITED STATES,, 118 Fed. Cl. 274 (Fed. Cl. 2014)

. . . . ¶ 20.11. . . .

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY- EAST v. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC,, 29 F. Supp. 3d 808 (E.D. La. 2014)

. . . Doc. 260 at p. 18 (quoting Copeland-Turner, 20.11 WL 996706, at *5). . Miree v. . . .

WILSON, v. HARTFORD AND EMBLEM HEALTH SERVICES COMPANY, LLC,, 9 F. Supp. 3d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . Nelson’s notes of November 20.11, which state that Plaintiff could sit, stand and walk for ■ up to 20 . . .

AUTOTEL, a v. NEVADA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, d b a AT T FKA SBC,, 697 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . . §§ 51.715 and 20.11(e) apply only when the competing carrier does not have an existing interconnection . . . Reg. 16,141 (Mar. 30, 2005); 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(d) (2005). . . . Auto-tel contends that under § 20.11(e), when an incumbent LEC initiates negotiations under the 1996 . . . We therefore conclude that § 20.11(e)’s cross-reference incorporates all of § 51.715. . . . The FCC amended § 20.11, effective January 11, 2012. . . .

NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, d b a AT T LLC, d b a v. S. FINLEY, Jr. T. III, E. L. D. T. LLC, d b a PCS, LLC, d b a AT T v. S. Jr. T. III, E. L. D. T., 674 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 20.11(e). . . . immediately” "for traffic to or from a CMRS provider subject to reciprocal compensation under either section 20.11 . . .

WESTERN RADIO SERVICES CO. v. QWEST CORPORATION, a, 678 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 20.11(e). B. . . . extend this duty to telecommunications traffic exchanged between LECs and CMRS providers. 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 . . .

In HALO WIRELESS, INC. La v., 872 F. Supp. 2d 558 (W.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . . § 20.11(e). . . .

OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO,, 844 F. Supp. 2d 873 (S.D. Ohio 2012)

. . . . § 20.11.”). . . .

In EMPIRE ONE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. a k a EOT, a k a EOT, v. T- USA,, 458 B.R. 692 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . . § 20.11(b)(2)....” Ex. 1 at 6,11. . . . For example, EOT asks the Court to assume that tariffs apply under § 20.11(b). . . . Furthermore, § 20.11(b) applies to both local and long-distance traffic. See MetroPCS Cal., LLC v. . . . both formal and informal complaints for violations of § 20.11). . . . Amended Complaint ¶¶ 43-50 (describing § 20.11(b) as the source of T-Mobile’s obligation to pay). . . .

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY d b a AT T v. F. FITCH d b a, 801 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . . § 20.11(e). . Deposition of F. Cary Fitch, Exh. . . .

METROPCS CALIFORNIA, LLC, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 644 F.3d 410 (D.C. Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 20.11(b)(2). . . . MetroPCS refused to pay, and North County filed a complaint with the FCC alleging a violation of Rule 20.11 . . . the FCC abused its discretion when it declined to set the “reasonable compensation” required by Rule 20.11 . . . MetroPCS reads the interplay of sections 332 and 201 and Rule 20.11(b) to require the FCC, when asked . . . The FCC asserts that the Communications Act and Rule 20.11(b) leave the agency free to do what it did . . .

NORTH COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS CORP. v. CALIFORNIA CATALOG TECHNOLOGY, d b a CTT OCN TGEC Co. LLC, CA OCN OCN GTE OCN OCN El d b a OCN OCN OCN CA- CCO LC, OCN So. CA, OCN A d b a CA OCN CA, OCN LLC- CA OCN CA OCN LLC- CA OCN CA OCN LLC- MD OCN CA OCN NTCH- OCN CA OCN CA OCN CA OCN CA OCN CA LLC- CA OCN LLC- CA OCN d b a ECI d b a ITS CA OCN CA OCN CA OCN CA OCN CA OCN In CA OCN LLC- CA OCN OCN d b a CA OCN PNG d b a CA OCN CA OCN d b a OCN d b a CA OCN VCOM CA OCN CA OCN d b a OCN LLC, OCN OCN d b a CA OCN d b a NM OCN T- USA, OCN LP, OCN L. P. CA, OCN, 594 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 20.11, provide the requisite private right of action. . . . to time periods preceding April 29, 2005, the effective date of the amendments to 17 C.F.R. section 20.11 . . . (b) and h.7 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5) 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(b) provides: Local exchange carriers and commercial . . . North County's assertion that the Commission equated a violation of 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 with a violation . . . The Commission never addressed violations of 47 C.F.R. § 20.11, nor the remedies for such violations. . . .

PUBLIC SERVICE TELEPHONE COMPANY, v. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v., 755 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (N.D. Ga. 2010)

. . . . § 20.11, which allows local exchange carriers to avoid interconnection that is economically unreasonable . . . In addition, the Commission rejected the 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 argument, noting that PSTC admitted that the . . . the Commission’s orders violate (1) the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the ICAs, (2) 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 . . . B. 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 Plaintiff contends that the Commission’s orders violate 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(a), which . . . and did not demonstrate that the interconnection is “uneconomic” or unreasonable under 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 . . .

DIRECTV LATIN AMERICA, LLC, v. PARK LLC,, 691 F. Supp. 2d 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . Venture Agreement directs that New York law applies to the agreement, see Joint Venture Agreement § 20.11 . . .

SUTLIFFE v. EPPING SCHOOL DISTRICT D. K. A., 584 F.3d 314 (1st Cir. 2009)

. . . Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law § 20.11(d) (4th ed.2008). . . .

QUAPAW TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, v. BLUE TEE CORP., 653 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (N.D. Okla. 2009)

. . . Luza, and (c) a backfill remedy with a unit cost of $20.11 as summarized in Exhibit “J”. Id. at 10. . . .

RED RIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, v. UNITED STATES,, 87 Fed. Cl. 768 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . Paragraphs C-5.S.20.11 and 12 require cocoons be able to withstand 100 mph winds and associated rolling . . .

UNITED STATES v. GILKERSON,, 556 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . . §§ 20.11, 20.36, and 20.81. . . . the fact that no human being can be a ‘facility.’ ” The district court acknowledged that 50 C.F.R. § 20.11 . . . First, the Amended Information failed to reference section 20.11(e). . . . disagree with the district court’s analysis; the Amended Information did not need to reference section 20.11 . . . This definition applies throughout subchapter B of the regulations-where 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.11 and 20.81 . . .

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

. . . . §§ 20.10, 20.11 (2004). . . .

M. J. FARMS, LTD. d b a v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 593 F. Supp. 2d 907 (W.D. La. 2008)

. . . . § 20.11 (2007). IV. . . . Id. § 20.11(g), (h), (i). Mr. . . . Id. § 20.11(g). . . .

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

. . . Also, referring to Exhibit F2, page 24, article 20.11, relating to fleet cards, he must accept those . . . When compared to the existing franchise, Exhibit F2, article 20.11, and Exhibit 7, such a condition is . . . 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, 20.11 . . .

F. FITCH, v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS AT T F. v., 261 F. App'x 788 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 20.11. . . .

UNITED STATES v. GILKERSON,, 527 F. Supp. 2d 932 (D.S.D. 2007)

. . . . § 20.11(e). . . . Nevertheless, 50 CFR § 20.11(e) tells us that a “Migratory bird preservation facility” means “(1) Any . . .

VERIZON WIRELESS VAW LLC, LLC, d b a v. SAHR, SOUTH DAKOTA TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASS N, 457 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D.S.D. 2006)

. . . . § 20.11. . . . CMRS Second Report and Order, at 1498 ¶ 232 (adopting 47 C.F.R. § 20.11). . . . See T-Mobile Order, ¶ 14. 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 in relevant part now reads: “... . . . This, says Verizon, directly conflicts with Rule § 20.11(d) because the state is authorizing LECs to . . . The intercarrier compensation rules remain unaffected by § 20.11. . . .

FALK v. UNITED STATES, BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,, 452 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 20.11(k). . . . Department of Agriculture.” § 20.11(g) (emphasis added). A. . . . Section 20.11(g) defines “normal harvesting” as harvesting conducted in accordance with the official . . . As with the date of harvest above, § 20.11(g) defines “normal planting” as planting conducted in accordance . . . Considering § 20.21(f) and § 20.11(j) together, it is reasonable to interpret the regulations prohibiting . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. ABBATE, Jr., 439 F. Supp. 2d 625 (E.D. La. 2006)

. . . . § 20.11 defines "migratory game birds” as "those migratory birds included in the terms of conventions . . .

IOWA NETWORK SERVICES, INC. v. QWEST CORPORATION,, 385 F. Supp. 2d 850 (S.D. Iowa 2005)

. . . The FCC went on to prospectively amend Rule 20.11 to provide that “[l]ocal exchange carriers may not . . . New 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(e) (taking effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register). . . . carrier, id. at *1, 20 FCC Rcd. at ¶ 2, and thus, like the parallel reciprocal compensation rules, Rule 20.11 . . . As a new administrative rule, Rule 20.11(e) has no retrospective effect. . . . T-Mobile Wireless Termination Order, at *2, 20 FCC Rcd. at ¶ 6; new rule 20.11(f). . . .

RURAL IOWA INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION, v. IOWA UTILITIES BOARD,, 385 F. Supp. 2d 797 (S.D. Iowa 2005)

. . . The FCC prospectively amends Rule 20.11 to provide that "[l]ocal exchange carriers may not impose compensation . . . New 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(e) (taking effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register). . . . As a new administrative k rule, Rule 20.11(e) has no retrospective effect. b T-Mobile Wireless Termination . . .

UNITED STATES v. STRASSWEG,, 143 F. App'x 665 (6th Cir. 2005)

. . . . §§ 20.11(j), (k); 20.21(i)(l)(i), (2)), and whether the appellants knew or reasonably should have known . . . regulations require that all planting be done “in accordance with official recommendations.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.11 . . . for ten (10) days following the complete removal of all such salt, grain, or other feed.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.11 . . . migratory game birds to, on, or over any areas where hunters are attempting to take them.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.11 . . .

FUND FOR ANIMALS, W. v. NORTON, U. S. U. S., 365 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . . § 20.11(b)(2), defines “closed season” as “the days on which migratory game birds shall not be taken . . . dictionaries and at least one Agency regulation, albeit one adopted in a different context. 50 C.F.R. § 20.11 . . .

UNITED STATES v. STRASSWEG,, 337 F. Supp. 2d 956 (W.D. Ky. 2004)

. . . . § 20.11(a)(2). . . . See 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.11(g), (h), and (i); 20.21(i)(l)(i) and (2). . . . See 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.11(g), (h), (i), and (j); 20.21(i)(l)(i) and (2). . . . See 50 C.F.R. § 20.11(g) and Defendants' 8 [Director’s letter of June 22, 2000]. . . . . SO C.F.R. §§ 20.11. . . . .

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

. . . accounts. 20.10 There is no provision in the Partnership Agreement for disproportionate distributions. 20.11 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MARSTON, Jr. IV, 175 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (S.D. Ala. 2001)

. . . Definitions from Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20.11 Normal agricultural planting, harvesting . . . imported only in accordance with the restrictions, conditions, and requirements contained in this part. § 20.11 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HUTSON,, 19 F. App'x 466 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . . §§ 20.11(a)(l)-(2), 10.13, 20.103, 20.105. The government proved that Mr. . . .

JOHNSON, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, 185 F. Supp. 2d 713 (W.D. Ky. 2001)

. . . . § 20.11(j). . . . See 50 CFR § 20.11(j). . . . See 16 U.S.C. § 704(b)(1); 50 CFR § 20.11(j). . . .

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 . . .

KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN, v. CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KWMU C. T. B. S. L. Jr. B. Dr. A. W. E. Jr. Dr. a k a, 203 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2000)

. . . Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law § 20.11, at 279 & n. 2 (3d ed.1999) (noting scholarly work on the . . .

NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE, INSURANCE PLAN, v. M. SCIARRA, v. v. E. F., 103 F. Supp. 2d 388 (D.N.J. 1998)

. . . N.J.A.C. 11:1-20.11. 2. . . .

E. PARRISH L. v. MALLINGER, 133 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 1998)

. . . Code § 201-20.11(7) (1991). . . . Code § 201-20.11(10). . . . summary judgment in Parrish’s favor on the ground that neither the Iowa Victim Restitution Act nor § 201-20.11 . . . decisions confirm there was no due process constraint on Warden Nix’s substantive authority under § 201-20.11 . . . In other words, Parrish contends that Warden Nix’s authority under § 201-20.11(10) could only be exercised . . .

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOUNDATION, INC. C. v. MEYER, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOUNDATION, INC. C. v. MEYER,, 120 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 1997)

. . . Rotunda & Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure 2d § 20.11, p. 48. Cf. . . .

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, v. FREECOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 966 F. Supp. 1066 (D. Utah 1997)

. . . . § 20.11 (1992) it is stated: The most direct way for government to enter the political marketplace . . .

A. MAHERS, v. HALFORD, SNOW, v. HUNDLEY VAN HOFF, v. HUNDLEY, MABRIER, L. E. A. D. v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 76 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 1996)

. . . The Department claimed as alternate authority Iowa Administrative Code (IAC) rule 201-20.11, which was . . . that the defendants were also claiming authority to make restitution deductions under IAC rule 201-20.11 . . . enjoins them from any further application of IN-V-106, and enjoins them from applying IAC rule 201-20.11 . . .

BEEKS T. Jr. v. C. HUNDLEY W., 34 F.3d 658 (8th Cir. 1994)

. . . Iowa Admin.Code § 201-20.11(7). . . . Iowa Admin.Code § 201-20.11(10). . . .

In KNOBEL, 167 B.R. 436 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1994)

. . . . & Prac.2d § 20.11 (Clark Boardman Callaghan 1993). . . .

ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 10 F.3d 812 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

. . . 227-28 n. 3, 107 S.Ct. 1722, 1727 n. 3, 95 L.Ed.2d 209 (1987); see also 4 Rotunda & Nowak, supra, § 20.11 . . .

R. DIXON, v. STATE, 616 So. 2d 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . . §§ 20.11, 20.27 (1988). We decline to treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari. See Marsh. . . .

HOMEOWNERS GROUP, INC. v. HOME MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC., 931 F.2d 1100 (6th Cir. 1991)

. . . Callmann, §§ 20.11 — .12; 2 J. McCarthy, §§ 23:28 — :29. . . .

COUNTY OF ESMERALDA, STATE OF NEVADA, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, COUNTY OF INYO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,, 925 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1991)

. . . Davis, 4 Administrative Law Treatise § 20.11 at 37 (2d ed. 1983) (“[o]nly for some formal adjudication . . .

CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION Co. IBT No. Ad v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION RMA NAWGA GREAT WESTERN TRUCKING CO. INC. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION C. H. Co., 900 F.2d 208 (9th Cir. 1990)

. . . Davis, 4 Administrative Law Treatise § 20.11 (2d ed. 1983) (“If half a dozen of the agency’s precedents . . .

TELCO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. J. BARRY, Jr. N. Jr., 731 F. Supp. 670 (D.N.J. 1990)

. . . .-20; N.J.S.A. 2A:170-20.11; N.J. A.C. 13:45A—17.3(c); N.J.A.C. 13:48-9.3; and N.J.A.C. . . . N.J.S.A. 2A:170-20.12 provides that any person violating either N.J.S.A. 2A:170-20 or N.J.S.A. 2A:17-20.11 . . . Even requiring that the disclosures of N.J.S.A. 2A:170-20.11(a) follow telephone solicitations and be . . . Unlike N.J.S.A. 2A:170-20.11(a)(2) to (a)(6), N.J.S.A. 2A:170-20.11(a)(1) (requiring disclosure of the . . . (a)(2)-(6) are unconstitutional and N.J.S.A. 2A:170-20.11(a)(1) is constitutional, respectively. . . .

In Re G. BURNS, G. BURNS, v. UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,, 887 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . See Deschler & Brown, supra, ch. 28 §§ 20.11-20.15 (giving examples). . . .

In Re G. BURNS, G. BURNS, v. UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,, 887 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . See Deschler & Brown, supra, ch. 28 §§ 20.11-20.15 (giving examples). . . .

UNITED STATES v. STATE OF NEW YORK,, 711 F. Supp. 699 (N.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . force a percentage of 12.33% for blacks, and 7.78% for Hispanics, totalling a combined percentage of 20.11% . . .

A. THOMPSON, v. A. THOMPSON, A., 798 F.2d 1547 (9th Cir. 1986)

. . . usually as near to the beginning of the Act as possible. 1A Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction, § 20.11 . . .

J. MAHONEY, Jr. v. UNITED STATES, 628 F. Supp. 271 (S.D. Ohio 1985)

. . . See, e.g., 2 Mertens, supra, at §§ 20.11-20.12. . . .

ST. JAMES HOSPITAL, v. M. HECKLER, HUMANA OF ILLINOIS, INC. d b a v. M. HECKLER,, 760 F.2d 1460 (7th Cir. 1985)

. . . Under the new Malpractice Rule, however, Medicare only reimbursed 20.11% of its malpractice insurance . . .

S. STRANG, v. O. MARSH, Jr., 602 F. Supp. 1565 (D.R.I. 1985)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 20.11 at 39 (collecting cases). . . . Davis, supra, § 20.11, at 37. . . .

ST. JAMES HOSPITAL, v. M. HECKLER,, 579 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1984)

. . . This resulted in reimbursement of only 20.11 percent of plaintiffs malpractice insurance costs. . . . $24,159 in denied Medicare reimbursement; allegedly the difference in sum between the reimbursement of 20.11 . . .

BUCKHANON v. PERCY, J., 708 F.2d 1209 (7th Cir. 1983)

. . . Admin.Code § PW-PA 20.11(3) (1980). . . . eligibility, for example — the payment would be for the entire calendar month, Wis.Admin.Code § PW-PA 20.11 . . .

DENBERG A. v. UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD L., 696 F.2d 1193 (7th Cir. 1983)

. . . But see Davis Supplement § 20.11, at 280 (“oft-repeated statement that administrative remedies must be . . . 1261 (recognizing need to weigh efficiency against countervailing considerations); Davis Supplement § 20.11 . . .

MOUNTAIN STATES NATURAL GAS CORPORATION, v. PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF TEXAS,, 693 F.2d 1015 (10th Cir. 1982)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1982 Supp., Ch. 20, § 20.11, p. 281. However, in McKart v. . . .

M. NEHRING, v. FIRST DeKALB BANCSHARES, INC., 692 F.2d 1138 (7th Cir. 1982)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 20.11-20.23 (supp. 1982). . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, v. FALLS CHASE SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT,, 424 So. 2d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.11 at 279-80 (1982 Supp.): Since 1975 the [federal] law of exhaustion . . .

SMITH, v. C. WILLIS,, 415 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.11 at 279-80 (1982 Supp.). . . .

ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. P. EAGERTON, Jr. S. L., 541 F. Supp. 1084 (M.D. Ala. 1982)

. . . Grants for Roads, Schools, Welfare, Civil Defense, etc.) ........................... 836,762,721.69 20.11 . . .

LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,, 676 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 20.00-3, 20.11 (Supp.1980). . . .

HAWTHORNE OIL GAS CORPORATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 647 F.2d 1107 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Chapter 21, § 21.05-§ 21.08, 469-84; Davis, 1980 Supplement to Administrative Law Treatise §§ 20.00 to 20.11 . . . 20.01-§ 20.08, 446-468; Davis, 1980 Supplement to Administrative Law Treatise, Chapter 20, § 20.00-§ 20.11 . . .

RICHTER CONCRETE CORP. v. HILLTOP BASIC RESOURCES, INC., 547 F. Supp. 893 (S.D. Ohio 1981)

. . . bid $21.20 p.c.y., above its ADC for May of $19.91 p.c.y. and above its ADC for the year to date of $20.11 . . .

DAUBERT v. J. SCHMIDT, 498 F. Supp. 1344 (E.D. Wis. 1980)

. . . .-10(a)(6); Wis.Adm.Code, § PW-PA 20.11. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CONNERS,, 606 F.2d 269 (10th Cir. 1979)

. . . In 50 C.F.R., § 20.11, there is a definition of “migratory game birds” for which open seasons are prescribed . . . . § 703 prohibited the killing of the ducks and that the conviction should be upheld. . 50 C.F.R. § 20.11 . . . provides in part: § 20.11 Meaning of terms. . . . “Migratory game birds”: See § 20.11 of this subchapter. . . . . § 20.11 (1977). . . .

PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, v. QUECHAN TRIBE OF INDIANS,, 424 F. Supp. 969 (S.D. Cal. 1977)

. . . . §§ 20.1, 20.11, 20.11(2), 20.21-25, 20.101-107 (1975). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. R. DRESKE,, 536 F.2d 188 (7th Cir. 1976)

. . . PW-PA 20.11 of the Administrative Manual of the Department of Health & Social Services of the State of . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA L. SHEVIN, v. EXXON CORPORATION, 526 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . . § 20.11 (1974 Supp.). . . .

MOORE v. LEFLORE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS L. D. M. Jr., 502 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . POPULATION % 1 8,470 20.11 2 8,492 20.17 3 8,384 19.91 4 8,415 19.98 5 8,350 19.83 . . . .

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

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

MOORE v. LEFLORE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS, 361 F. Supp. 609 (N.D. Miss. 1973)

. . . districts are structured as follows: District Number Population % of Total % Variance From Ideal 1 8,470 20.11 . . .

A. v., 28 T.C. 234 (T.C. 1957)

. . . sales figures for the base period, ranging from $1,989,893 in 1936 to $1,915,200 in 1939, he takes 20.11 . . . This figure, 20.11 per cent, represents the actual per cent of net profit to net sales experienced by . . . , with 2 years of added experience under normal conditions, would reach a point where they would be 20.11 . . .

KENT SAXON v. THE UNITED STATES, 131 Ct. Cl. 408 (Ct. Cl. 1954)

. . . Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, has not complied with the requirements of Civil Service regulation 20.11 . . . Regulation 20.11, which appears on page Zl-289 of the Federal Personnel Manual, paragraph (b), provides . . . allegation that the New Orleans District Engineer violated your rights under the provisions of Section 20.11 . . . consideration for reappointment in the competitive service in accordance with the provisions of Section 20.11 . . . and Eeview has failed to disclose any violation by the employing agency of your rights under Section 20.11 . . .

PECK v. UNITED STATES, 86 F. Supp. 138 (Ct. Cl. 1949)

. . . only employees in éxcepted positions shall be considered in competition for the reduction in force.” “20.11 . . .

RALPH L. PECK v. THE UNITED STATES, 114 Ct. Cl. 551 (Ct. Cl. 1949)

. . . only employees in excepted positions shall be considered in competition for the reduction in force. 20.11 . . .

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

. . . (See Section 20.11(a) and (b), Civil Service Overtime Pay Regulations, Part 20, May 8, 1943, Exhibit . . . A; and as amended October 17, 1944, sections 20.10, 20.11, and 20.16, Exhibit E.) . . .

ALBERT F. CONN v. THE UNITED STATES ROBERT D. FLYNT v. THE UNITED STATES WILLIE E. NELSON v. THE UNITED STATES, 107 Ct. Cl. 422 (Ct. Cl. 1946)

. . . (See Section 20.11 (a) and (b), Civil Service Overtime Pay Eegulations, Part 20, May 8,1943, Exhibit . . .

DIXON v. KOPLAR, 102 F.2d 295 (8th Cir. 1939)

. . . foregoing statutes, their remaining individual assets consisting of $13.29 in the case of Horwitz, and of $20.11 . . . certain canned goods, soap, and other merchandise, of the total value of $279.89, which added to the $20.11 . . .

SCHAEFER v. BOWERS,, 41 F.2d 803 (S.D.N.Y. 1930)

. . . On February 24, 1926, the plaintiff received three hundred and ten shares of stock and $20.11, the balance . . . value of shares on date of distribution ................ $33,407.50 Plus cash received.............. 20.11 . . .