Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 253 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 2018)

. . . Personal Identification Information); 20.14 (Harassment by Use of Personal Identification Information); 20.15 . . . This instruction was adopted in 2007 [962 So.2d 310] and amended in 2016 [202 So.3d 830], and 2018. 20.15 . . . 60 years of age or older, the trial judge should instruct using the appropriate parts of Instruction 20.15 . . .

NWANGUMA v. J. TRUMP J., 903 F.3d 604 (6th Cir. 2018)

. . . Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure § 20.15(d) (Online ed. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ESPINOZA- BAZALDUA,, 711 F. App'x 737 (5th Cir. 2017)

. . . We do not hold that Indiana’s statute, as a matter of law, categorically matches the 20.15 Guidelines . . .

BIGGAR, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,, 274 F. Supp. 3d 954 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . days), the tolling from this period would have extended Prudential’s deadline 48 days to August 9, 20.15 . . .

IN RE SOLARCITY CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 274 F. Supp. 3d 972 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . . ¶ 96; the shareholder letter reporting on the second quarter of 2015 was issued on July 29, 20.15 ( . . .

DECICCO, v. MID- ATLANTIC HEALTHCARE, LLC,, 275 F. Supp. 3d 546 (E.D. Pa. 2017)

. . . Pa. 20.15) (“[F]actors such as ... .the timing of an employee’s dismissal ... . . .

BROOKHAVEN TOWN CONSERVATIVE COMMITTEE, v. M. WALSH, Jr., 258 F. Supp. 3d 277 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . Defendants moved to dismiss on March 13, 20.15 (ECF No. 16), and after the parties fully briefed that . . .

BORDA, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CRIMINAL DIVISION,, 245 F. Supp. 3d 52 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . 1.3), but the copy of the request that he attaches as an exhibit reflects a filing, date of March 24, 20.15 . . .

PORTER v. W. CLARKE, 852 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2017)

. . . conclusion, the district court found that “defendants here decline to explicitly acknowledge that the pre-20.15 . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 202 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 2016)

. . . Personal Identification Information); 20.14 (Harassment by Use of Personal Identification Information); 20.15 . . . This instruction was adopted in 2007 [962 So.2d 310] and amended in 2016. 20.15 FRAUDULENT USE OF PERSONAL . . . 60 years of age or older, the trial judge should instruct using the appropriate parts of Instruction 20.15 . . .

IN RE W. CRIPPS E. In A. L., 549 B.R. 836 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2016)

. . . residence complied with its obligations by filing its response to the notice of final cure on October 28, 20.15 . . .

FRIENDS OF ANIMALS, v. M. ASHE,, 174 F. Supp. 3d 20 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . Pritzker, 75 F.Supp.3d 1, 6 (D.D.C.2014), appeal dismissed, No. 15-5038, 20.15 WL 1619247 (D.C.Cir. . . .

BIBLE BELIEVERS v. WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN N., 805 F.3d 228 (6th Cir. 2015)

. . . Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure § 20.15(d) (Online ed. . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 176 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 2015)

. . . Employee of a Facility); 13.1 (Burglary); 14.9 (Exploitation of [an Elderly Person] [a Disabled Adult]); 20.15 . . . Included Offense Comment This instruction was adopted in 2013 [131 So.3d 755] and amended in 2015. 20.15 . . . 60 years of age or older, the trial judge should instruct using the appropriate parts of Instruction 20.15 . . .

BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. HAWAIIAN TELCOM, INC., 136 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (D. Haw. 2015)

. . . At the hearing of September 17, 20.15, the Court' asked TWC's counsel whether TWC sought to preclude . . .

NEW YORK BANKERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK,, 119 F. Supp. 3d 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . The transcript of the August 5, 20.15 oral argument will be referred to as “Aug. 5 Tr.” . . . .

ANDREWS, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 118 F. Supp. 3d 630 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . (See Deck of Todd Rubenstein dated February 6, 20.15 ¶ 4.) . . .

WAGNER, v. HASLAM,, 112 F. Supp. 3d 673 (M.D. Tenn. 2015)

. . . (the version attached to the Complaint), and January 30, 20.15 (the most recent revision located by the . . .

MAKIEL, v. BUTLER,, 782 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2015)

. . . 1992-07-15/ news/9203030778_l_defendants-sentenced-cook-county-circuit-judge (last visited April 9, 20.15 . . .

ARANSAS PROJECT, v. SHAW, Al, 775 F.3d 641 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . CODE § 20.15. There are, however, signs of inadequate review. . . .

IN RE SANDERS,, 521 B.R. 389 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . will conduct an EVIDENTIARY HEARING on the accounting and any matters related to it on January 30, 20.15 . . .

ARANSAS PROJECT, v. SHAW,, 756 F.3d 801 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . Code § 20.15. There are, however, signs of inadequate review. . . .

In GOLD RESOURCE CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 957 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (D. Colo. 2013)

. . . After the press release, GRC’s shares dropped from its previous day’s closing price of $20.15 per share . . .

RUIZ, v. ROBINSON,, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . §§ 20.15(2), 1001.10(1). . . .

EPPS, v. POOLE,, 687 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012)

. . . Furthermore, § 20.15 provides that "when, pursuant to section 20.00, two or more persons are criminally . . .

CASTRO, v. COLLECTO, INC. U. S., 634 F.3d 779 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 20.15. . . .

CLAYTON, v. VANGUARD CAR RENTAL U. S. A. INC., 761 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D.N.M. 2010)

. . . Sobieski, Jr., Civil Rights Actions ¶ 20.15[B], at 20-123-24 (2003) (noting that the issue is comparison . . .

In HAWAIIAN GUAMANIAN CABOTAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 754 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (W.D. Wash. 2010)

. . . . § 20.15(c). . . .

UNITED CONSTRUCTORS, LLC, v. UNITED STATES,, 95 Fed. Cl. 26 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

. . . cubic feet were one-half cubic yard or larger; thus the survey included 544 cubic feet of rock (or 20.15 . . . compensation for a total of 883.41 cubic yards of boulders slightly smaller than one-half cubic yard (20.15 . . .

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)

. . . . § 20.15(a). . . . See 47 C.F.R. § 20.15(a) ("Commercial mobile radio services providers, to the extent applicable, must . . .

IBERIA CREDIT BUREAU, INC. v. CINGULAR WIRELESS,, 668 F. Supp. 2d 831 (W.D. La. 2009)

. . . . § 20.15(a), (c)(1997). . . .

CASTRO, v. COLLECTO, INC. U. S., 668 F. Supp. 2d 950 (W.D. Tex. 2009)

. . . . § 20.15(a). . Id. § 20.15(b)(1). . Id. § 1.783. . Id. § 1.785. . Id. § 1.787. . Id. § 1.788. . . . . Id. § 20.15(c). . Id. § 1.771. . Id. § 1.772. . See Lewis v. . . .

STATE FARM AND CASUALTY COMPANY, v. MYRICK,, 611 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (M.D. Ala. 2009)

. . . produced or brought about the injuries were accidental. 1 Alabama: Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil) 20.15 . . .

W. WILHELM, a v. CREDICO, INC., 519 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 2008)

. . . recorded the entire $4,644.36 as principal and then added interest at the agreed credit card rate of 20.15% . . .

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

. . . Personal Identification Information; 20.14 — Harassment by Use of Personal Identification Information; 20.15 . . . Comment This instruction was adopted in 2007. 20.15 FRAUDULENT USE OF PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION . . . In addition, new instructions 20.14'— Harassment by Use of Personal Identification Information; 20.15 . . .

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS O. v. EARLE,, 388 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2004)

. . . P. art. 24.01; 20.15; 24.05-08. . . .

ORLOFF, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 352 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 20.15. . . . providers do not file tariffs; in fact, the Commission has forbidden them from doing so. 47 C.F.R. § 20.15 . . .

CATERPILLAR INC. v. WALT DISNEY COMPANY,, 287 F. Supp. 2d 913 (C.D. Ill. 2003)

. . . In 2002, Caterpillar reported $20.15 billion in multi-national sales and revenues, primarily from the . . .

COEUR D ALENE TRIBE, v. ASARCO INCORPORATED Co. v. ASARCO, 280 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (D. Idaho 2003)

. . . tailings in the Basin not impounded or used as landfill, the responsible percentage is 31% (Hecla’s 20.15 . . .

CULLEN, v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES,, 338 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2003)

. . . Sobieski, Jr., Civil Rights Actions ¶ 20.15[B], at 20-123-24 (2003) (noting that the issue is comparison . . .

In H. PINO, H. v., 268 B.R. 483 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2001)

. . . cleaning 150.00 medical, dental 450.00 transportation 200.00 recreation 50.00 charitable contributions 20.15 . . .

A. LILLEY, v. PAGING NETWORK OF OHIO, INC., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (S.D. Ohio 2000)

. . . . § 20.15 (1998). . . .

ABBOTT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES M. D. P. C. P. C. P. C. X- P. C. P. C. A. M. D. P. C. A. M. D. d b a W. N. Y. A. M. D. P. C. P. C. N K A P. C. P. C. P. C. P. C. C. M. D. P. C X- P. C. P. C. M. M. D. W. N. Y. P. C. C. M. D. J. M. D. M. D. s, P. C. P. C. v. E. SHALALA,, 992 F. Supp. 212 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Medicare Carriers Manual, § 5026, p. 5-20.15. . . .

LENHART, v. THOMAS,, 944 F. Supp. 525 (S.D. Tex. 1996)

. . . Lenhart had no privilege to keep her sources confidential, held her in contempt pursuant to Article 20.15 . . .

J. TAYLOR M. v. CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA DRUG AND ALCOHOL SERVICES CORPORATION L., 890 F. Supp. 360 (M.D. Pa. 1995)

. . . /31/92 @ 8% .08 x 2/12 x $575.82 $ 7.68 Interest from 4/1/92 to 9/30/92 @ 7% .07 x 6/12 x $575.82 $ 20.15 . . . /31/92 @ 8% .08 x 1/12 x $575.82 $ 3.84 Interest from 4/1/92 to 9/30/92 @ 7% .07 x 6/12 x $575.82 $ 20.15 . . . $575.82 $ 37.43 $ 61.42 4/1/92 — $575.82 Interest from 4/1/92 to 9/30/92 @ 7% .07 x 6/12 x $575.82 $ 20.15 . . .

In ERICKSON d b a D. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 172 B.R. 900 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1994)

. . . 223.70 § 6651(a)(1) 142.37 91.61 131.49 166.52 § 6656(a) 56.85 36.34 52.59 66.60 § 6651(a)(3) 31.31 20.15 . . .

BARCIA, v. SITKIN, MUNICIPAL LABOR COMMITTEE, v. SITKIN,, 865 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . this same period of time, the success rate for employers appealing hearing decisions has gone from 20.15% . . .

CORPORATION a a v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, a U. S. a, 890 F. Supp. 1559 (N.D. Ga. 1994)

. . . National Data Corp., 228 U.S.P.Q. 45, 46 (T.T.A.B.1985); see also 2 McCarthy § 20.15[6] (a cancellation . . .

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

. . . . § 20.15; e.g., Lobato v. Paulino, 304 Mich. 668, 8 N.W.2d 873, 876 (1943). . . .

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. HOLLAENDER MANUFACTURING COMPANY,, 942 F.2d 321 (6th Cir. 1991)

. . . consequence of all of this is that effective June 1, 1989, we will no longer be deducting union dues of $20.15 . . .

In OFFIELD,, 128 B.R. 548 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1991)

. . . Offield in his individual capacity (Needier, 20.15 hours). . . .

S. RICHARDSON, H. K. B. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a, 759 F. Supp. 1477 (D. Haw. 1991)

. . . This figure would yield a maximum allowable renegotiated rent of $180.15 per an-num, an amount only $20.15 . . .

SILVERMAN, P. v. R. NISWONGER, F. Jr. a a a a a a, 761 F. Supp. 464 (E.D. Mich. 1991)

. . . . § 20.15 [Mich.C.L.A. § 449.15] (Callaghan 1990). . . .

MAIORINO, v. J. SCULLY,, 746 F. Supp. 331 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . See New York Penal Law § 20.15. See also People v. . . .

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). . . .

HORNER EQUIPMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. SEASCAPE POOL CENTER, INC. J., 884 F.2d 89 (3d Cir. 1989)

. . . V, rule 20.15 (Supp.1988). . . . Rule 20.15, supra note 4, gives the appellate division of the district court the authority to adopt “ . . .

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

. . . $ 40.20 $ 0.70 $ 80.40 $14.90 $ 80.40 $14.90 $ 80.40 $36.65 $ 60.30 $20.80 $100.50 $ 7.75 $ 80.40 $20.15 . . .

In L. SMITH, SMITH, v. SMITH,, 81 B.R. 888 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1988)

. . . . § 20.15 (Callaghan 1981)). This included the note for $17,500 made payable to the Kruegers. . . .

A. LETTSOME, v. S. WAGGONER,, 672 F. Supp. 858 (D.V.I. 1987)

. . . V Rule 20.15 (1985). . . .

PORT, v. HEARD,, 764 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1985)

. . . Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 20.15 (Vernon 1977). . . . Crim.App.1982) (en banc) (contempt judgment under Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 20.15 was moot as to confinement . . . Art. 20.15 provides: When a witness, brought in any manner before a grand jury, refuses to testify, such . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 18 27 27 13 49 6 10 28 36 21 26 3 27 18 33 37 32 31 28.08 26.54 30.60 28.57 22.97 8.64 66.32 28.71 20.15 . . .

PORT v. HEARD,, 594 F. Supp. 1212 (S.D. Tex. 1984)

. . . See e.g., Art. 20.15 Tx.C.C.P. . . .

UNITED STATES A. v. G. ABODEELY,, 564 F. Supp. 327 (N.D. Iowa 1983)

. . . . @ $20.15/hr. = 261.95 Gray - 13 hrs. @ $15.53/hr. = 201.89 463.84 $1,123.32 Total . . .

ESTATE LEVINE, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 634 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1980)

. . . See generally 3 Mertens, supra, §§ 20.02-20.15 (discussing § 1001 and its predecessors). . . . .

GUICHARD, v. J. SMITH,, 471 F. Supp. 784 (E.D.N.Y. 1979)

. . . PL'§ 20.15, which recites that: “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, when, pursuant . . .

EMPLOYER- TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL NO. HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, v. WEATHERALL CONCRETE, INC. EMPLOYER- TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL NO. PENSION FUND, v. WEATHERALL CONCRETE, INC., 468 F. Supp. 1167 (S.D.W. Va. 1979)

. . . received by each party; and that the trustees improperly billed Defendant at the rate of $26°.00 and $20.15 . . .

MOORE v. LEFLORE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS, 361 F. Supp. 603 (N.D. Miss. 1972)

. . . persons) was assigned to each of the new districts, to-wit: Beat No. 1 8,479 20.13% 2 8,409 19.97 3 8,485 20.15 . . .

A. CALVEY H. v. UNITED STATES, 448 F.2d 177 (6th Cir. 1971)

. . . . “§ 20.15 Joint and several liability of partners; separate obligation of partner to perform firm contract . . . Mich.Stats.Ann. § 20.15 (1964), M.C.L.A. § 449.15. . . . Stats.Ann. § 20.15 also makes “all partners” liable jointly and severally for everything chargeable to . . .

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a v. KAISER d b a, 213 So. 2d 449 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . dry cleaning businesses and their agencies an annual license tax of $40.25 for such a business and $20.15 . . . was raised from $40.25 to $44.30; the tax on the separate agency locations thereof was raised from $20.15 . . .

v., 55 Cust. Ct. 120 (Cust. Ct. 1965)

. . . Official Agricultural Chemists,” Seventh Edition, page 322 [Ed. note, 8th edition, 1955, p. 344, sec. 20.15 . . .

v., 47 Cust. Ct. 550 (Cust. Ct. 1961)

. . . points out that the entry papers in each case before the court— * * * show a per se unit price of $20.15 . . . Thus, the freely offered price for export to the United States was $20.15 per 100 commutators. . . .

v., 25 T.C. 1304 (T.C. 1956)

. . . Section 20.15-2 of Regulations 111 provides in part as follows: For disallowance of the surtax exemption . . .

J. KELLY v. UNITED STATES, 138 F. Supp. 244 (Ct. Cl. 1956)

. . . Your attention is kindly invited to the provisions of Section 20.15 of the Retention Preference Regulations . . . The der cisión went on to state that under the provisions of section 20.15 of the retention preference . . .

JOSEPH J. KELLY v. THE UNITED STATES, 133 Ct. Cl. 571 (Ct. Cl. 1956)

. . . Yonr attention is kindly invited to the provisions of Section 20.15 of the Eetention Preference Regulations . . . The decision went on to state that under the provisions of section 20.15 of the retention preference . . . Your attention is kindly invited to the provisions of Section 20.15 of the Retention Preference Regulations . . .

ANDERSON v. UNITED STATES, 117 F. Supp. 438 (N.D. Fla. 1954)

. . . The State law, Sec. 317.04(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and the City Ordinance of Pensacola (Sec. 20.15 . . .

WESTERN CASUALTY SURETY CO. v. BIRMINGHAM CONTRACTING CO. McCURDY v. PHELPS SAME v. BIRMINGHAM CONTRACTING CO. WESTERN CASUALTY SURETY CO. WESTERN CASUALTY SURETY CO. v. PHELPS, 74 F. Supp. 200 (E.D. Mich. 1947)

. . . . § 20.15. 7. . . .

CLAY v. MOTOR FREIGHT EXPRESS,, 52 F. Supp. 948 (E.D. Pa. 1943)

. . . 35.00 7.88 4/9 -4/15 35.00 : 76% ■ ‘ .457 18.30 25.05 43.35 35.00 8.35 4/16-4/22 35.00 : 69% 1 ‘ .504 20.15 . . .

Co. v., 18 B.T.A. 983 (B.T.A. 1930)

. . . (The said sum of $91,867.49 differs by $20.15 from the sum of the entries of $87,898.23 and $3,949.11 . . .

In PRINCE WALTER, 131 F. 546 (M.D. Pa. 1904)

. . . The $20.15 which is left of the personal fund will take care, to that extent, of the filing fees, which . . .

HAMMON v. NIX, 104 F. 689 (8th Cir. 1900)

. . . advertisement on May C, 1895, and at such sale the claim was purchased by Ouray county for the sum of $20.15 . . .