Cases from cite.case.law:

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

. . . [Possession with Intent to Fraudulently Use] Counterfeit Personal Identification Information); and 20.21 . . . This instruction was adopted in 2007 [962 So.2d 310] and amended in 2016 [202 So.3d 830] and 2018. 20.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. OBENDORF,, 894 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2018)

. . . . § 20.21 ; see also id. § 10.12 (defining "take"). . . . See, e.g. , 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(a). . . . Id . § 20.21 (emphasis added). . . . Consistent with § 20.21's overall focus on prohibited hunting methods, § 20.21(i)(1) concerns only hunting . . . qualify as "baited areas." 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i)(1). . . .

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

. . . [Possession with Intent to Fraudulently Use] Counterfeit Personal Identification Information); and 20.21 . . . Post-publication, the Committee made minor changes to instructions 20.13, 20.17, and 20.21. . . . This instruction was adopted in 2007 [962 So.2d 310] and amended in 2016. 20.21 FRAUDULENT USE OF PERSONAL . . .

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

. . . The Committee also proposes the following new jury instruction: 20.21 (Fraudulent Use of Personal Identification . . . This instruction was adopted in 2007 [962 So.2d 310] and amended in 2015. 20.21 FRAUDULENT USE OF PERSONAL . . .

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. . . . distributed or scattered ... solely as the result of a normal agricultural operation.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . distributed or scattered ... solely as the result of a normal agricultural operation.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

CAMM, Lu, v. SCOTT, I, H., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (M.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . . § 20.21, which further provides that the Governor and Cabinet shall serve as the head of the department . . .

R. TUMMINGS, v. R. FRANCOIS,, 82 So. 3d 955 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . percentage of the financial responsibility for child support was 79.79% and the husband’s percentage was 20.21% . . . support guidelines worksheet indicates that the husband’s percentage share of the child support need is 20.21% . . .

SCHULTE, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK,, 805 F. Supp. 2d 560 (N.D. Ill. 2011)

. . . mismatch was 0% where there was only one overdraft transaction, 10% for two, 17.65% for three, and 20.21% . . .

Co. Co. Co. Co. Co. v., 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 603 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . seven countries are as follows: South Africa (19.85 Rs/kg), United States (45.00 Rs/kg), Malaysia (20.21 . . .

LONGKOU HAIMENG MACHINERY CO. LTD. Co. Co. Co. TLC Co. v. UNITED STATES,, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . seven countries are as follows: South Africa (19.85 Rs/kg), United States (45.00 Rs/kg), Malaysia (20.21 . . .

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

. . . . § 20.21 (2007) (emphases added). . . . Id. § 20.21(j). . . . planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

PEREZ- ENCINAS v. AMERUS LIFE INSURANCE CO., 468 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

. . . 20.20 (the annuitant is the recipient in an annuity policy); 3-20 California Insurance Law & Practice § 20.21 . . .

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

. . . . § 20.21(i). . . . . § 20.21(i)(l)(i). . . . Under § 20.21(i), a person is prohibited from taking migratory birds “[b]y the aid of baiting, or on . . . Considering § 20.21(f) and § 20.11(j) together, it is reasonable to interpret the regulations prohibiting . . . Chandler, 753 F.2d 360, 362 (4th Cir.1985) (“The manifest intent of the regulation [§ 20.21(f) ] is to . . .

AMERICAN RELIABLE INSURANCE CO. v. NAVRATIL LLP Co., 445 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 2006)

. . . Smith, Legal Malpractice § 20.21 (2006). . . .

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 . . . that the area was baited (16 U.S.C. § 704(b)(1); 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.21(i)(l)(i), (2)). . . . Appellants asserted at trial and now on appeal that 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.21(i)(l)(i) and (2) allowed them . . .

In PAYNE, v. E., 323 B.R. 723 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 20.21[2][b] (Matthew Bender 2004). . . . Law & Prac., supra, § 20.21[2][b]. . . . Law & Prac., supra, § 20.21[2][b]. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. SHAW,, 109 F. App'x 702 (5th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 20.21(b). . . . at his rearraignment that he knowingly violated the requirements of 16 U.S.C. § 703 and 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

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

. . . . §§ 20.11Q) and (k); 20.21(i)(l)(i) and (2). . . . 16 U.S.C. § 704(b)(1); 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.21(i)(l)(l) and (2). . . . See 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.11(g), (h), and (i); 20.21(i)(l)(i) and (2). . . . This interpretation is consistent with §§ 20.21(i)(l)(i) and (2) which allow the hunting of doves over . . . See 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.11(g), (h), (i), and (j); 20.21(i)(l)(i) and (2). . . .

CEMS, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 59 Fed. Cl. 168 (Fed. Cl. 2003)

. . . entitled to an equitable adjustment to the contract for the additional six subgrade compaction tests, at $20.21 . . . the plaintiff is entitled to an equitable adjustment for the 83 additional tests taken by CEMS, at $20.21 . . . to an equitable adjustment to the contract for the additional 28 tests for structural backfill, at $20.21 . . . plaintiff is entitled to an equitable adjustment for the additional 146 tests for asphaltic concrete, at $20.21 . . . The figure of $20.21 per test for this test and for the tests described immediately below in claim A17 . . .

NAVAJO NATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HUMAN SERVICES,, 325 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . . §§ 20.1(t) and 20.21(e), which refer to AFDC and establish eligibility requirements tracking the state . . . the Snyder Act provide for the federal general assistance program at issue in this case. 25 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

INDIANA INSURANCE COMPANY, v. PANA COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER v., 314 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2002)

. . . Under Section 5/10-20.21 of the Illinois School Code, PANA must publicly bid contracts in excess of $10,000.00 . . .

UNITED STATES v. S. MORGAN,, 311 F.3d 611 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 20.21(f)(1) & (2) (2002). . . .

UNITED STATES v. S. MORGAN,, 283 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 20.21(f)(1) & (2) (2002). . . .

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

. . . Excerpts from Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20.21(i) No persons shall take migratory game . . . attraction for migratory game birds to, on, or over any areas where hunters are attempting to take them. § 20.21 . . . In regard to the second exception delineated in § 20.21(i)(2) above, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals . . . Cir.1999) (“In Adams, we rejected the Government’s argument that the two exceptions set forth in § 20.21 . . . distributed or scattered as the result of bona fide agricultural operations or procedures ....’ 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

In VASQUEZ, 261 B.R. 654 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2001)

. . . still a sixty month plan, the modification reduced the payout to unsecured creditors from 57.71% to 20.21% . . .

RAM v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,, 243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 20.21 (4th ed.1986) (good legislative drafting dictates that . . .

GLAZER S WHOLESALE DRUG CO. INC. v. KANSAS,, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (D. Kan. 2001)

. . . . §§ 20.21 and 20.33. . . .

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. v. RENO,, 216 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 20.21(e); see also id. § 20.1 (stating the purpose of the CHRI system). .The regulations further . . . Id. § 20.21(e). . . .

UNITED STATES v. LEE J. L. Jr. J. C. Jr. H. V., 217 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 20.21®. . . . birds is directly or indirectly placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered .... 50 C.F.R. 20.21 . . . distributed or scattered as the result of bona fide agricultural operations or procedures .... 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . over grain or other feed capable of luring birds into the field where the grain was placed. 50 C.F.R. 20.21 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. NOVOA,, 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 20.21 Fla.Stat. (1997). . . .

UNITED STATES v. SANTOS- RIVIERA,, 183 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 20.21(i), which prohibits hunting certain birds over baited areas pursuant to the Migratory Bird . . . In Adams, we rejected the Government’s argument that the two exceptions set forth in § 20.21(i)(1) and . . . See § 20.21(a)-(j). . . . Section 20.21 provides in relevant part: Migratory birds on which open seasons are prescribed in this . . . scattered as the result of bona fide agricultural operations or procedures . ..; (j).... 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ADAMS, Jr., 174 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 20.21(i). . . . . § 20.21(i), is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him in this case, (2) the Magistrate Judge erred . . . DISCUSSION Adams first challenges 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i) as being unconstitutionally vague as it was applied . . . Two cases from other circuits interpreting the § 20.21 (i) exceptions have come to different conclusions . . . intent is relevant specifically to the exceptions of § 20.21 (i). . . .

COBELL, v. BABBITT,, 37 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 1999)

. . . MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION § 20.21, at 24 (3d ed.1995). . . .

In MAITEN, 225 B.R. 246 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . Under Florida Statutes § 20.21, the Department of Revenue is charged with child support enforcement responsibilities . . . F.S.A. § 20.21(2)(h) (1994). . . .

In HAASE, E. COVEY, v. COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK INTERSTATE PRODUCERS LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, v. E. COVEY, a, 224 B.R. 673 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 1998)

. . . Thus, of the 94 head, 20.21% are not subject to INTERSTATE'S claim. . . . The TRUSTEE admits that the total received for the 94 head was $39,827.13; and thus, 20.21% of that amount . . .

STATE v. SMITH,, 697 So. 2d 889 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . . § 20.21(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1991). . . . Each is headed directly by the governor and the cabinet. §§ 20.21, 20.24, Fla. Stat. (1991). . . .

UNITED STATES v. W. TUCKER,, 934 F. Supp. 1249 (D. Colo. 1996)

. . . . § 20.21(b). This Court has found no published opinions concerning § 20.21(b). . . . : § 20.21 Hunting methods. . . . The Court has found no published case dealing with § 20.21(b). . . . It was immaterial that Defendant did not intend to violate § 20.21(b). . . . The Court has found Defendant guilty of the charge of violation of 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(b). . . .

CLINE, v. W. ROGERS,, 87 F.3d 176 (6th Cir. 1996)

. . . . § 20.21(c)(2) (“No agency or individual shall confirm the existence or nonexistence of criminal history . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE a k a v. FERGUSON,, 673 So. 2d 920 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Section 20.21, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), directs the Department of Revenue to administer the child . . .

UNITED STATES v. R. HOGAN,, 906 F. Supp. 455 (C.D. Ill. 1995)

. . . . § 20.21; (2) the defendants took or attempted to take migratory birds over the baited area; and (3) . . . found scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or harvesting.... 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

TOTAL CONTAINMENT, INC. v. ENVIRON PRODUCTS, INC. C., 921 F. Supp. 1355 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . , in the amount of $163,368.59, plus the product of the number of days since November 3, 1995, and $20.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. S. BOYNTON R. Jr., 63 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 1995)

. . . . § 20.21(i), as follows: [Njothing in this paragraph shall prohibit: (1) The taking of all migratory . . . Fish and Wildlife Service cited all of the hunters pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. and 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . distributed or scattered as the result of bona fide agricultural operations or procedures.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . On its face, the pamphlet issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service interpreting 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i) does . . .

ACTIVE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, v. A. H. CHOITZ CO. INC. d b a, 163 F.R.D. 274 (N.D. Ind. 1995)

. . . MCL, § 20.21. . . .

D. TUCKER, v. G. RESHA,, 634 So. 2d 756 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . . §§ 20.21(3)(c)-(d), 212.18(2); 212.-15(l)-(2), Fla.Stat. (1987); § 213.34, Fla.Stat. (1989); see also . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. TRAXLER V., 847 F. Supp. 492 (S.D. Miss. 1994)

. . . . § 20.21(i). . . . They insisted, however, that what they had done had been done in accordance with 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 which . . . distributed or scattered as the result of bona fide agricultural operations or procedures....” 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . See generally 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i). . . .

R. KAHN A. Jr. v. VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM CSX, 13 F.3d 110 (4th Cir. 1993)

. . . In this instance, however, the Commonwealth sold its rights in the shares to VRS for $20.21 per right . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. DIZE, Sr. UNITED STATES v. W. DIZE UNITED STATES v. K. FOX UNITED STATES v. J. GRAFTON UNITED STATES v. J. ORME, III UNITED STATES v. W. PENN UNITED STATES v. W. STONE, Sr., 839 F. Supp. 1170 (D. Md. 1993)

. . . See 50 CFR § 20.21(i). . . . See 50 CFR § 20.21®. . . . prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that the farm was a “baited area” within the meaning of 50 CFR § 20.21 . . . Pursuant to that authority the Secretary has issued 50 CFR § 20.21, the primary regulation at issue here . . . directly distributed, or indirectly placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered____ 50 CPR § 20.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GARRETT,, 984 F.2d 1402 (5th Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 20.21(i), prohibit the shooting of migratory game birds over a baited field. . . .

UNITED STATES v. VAN ENGEL, K. L. A. F. E. J. A., 809 F. Supp. 1360 (E.D. Wis. 1992)

. . . SCR 20.21(6) (ethical consideration). Thus, if Mr. Van Engel had directed Mr. . . .

UNITED STATES v. F. BOOKOUT,, 788 F. Supp. 933 (S.D. Tex. 1992)

. . . . § 20.21(i) makes it illegal to take migratory birds over a baited area. . . . . § 20.21(i). The Fifth Circuit interpreted 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 in United States v. . . . The court held that there is a knowledge component in 50 C.F.R. § 20.21. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. JAVIER ANGUEIRA,, 951 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 20.21(i) (1988). . . . notices charged them with hunting by aid of bait, or on or over a baited area in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

CALIPATRIA LAND COMPANY, v. LUJAN,, 793 F. Supp. 241 (S.D. Cal. 1990)

. . . . § 20.21(i), Exhibit 18. . . .

In H. MOFFAT, H. MOFFAT, v. R. HABBERBUSH,, 119 B.R. 201 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1990)

. . . See generally California Insurance Law and Practice §§ 20.20-20.21 (Matthew Bender 1990) (hereafter “ . . . See California Insurance § 20.21[2]-[3]. . . . Id. at § 20.21[3]. . . . As stated in California Insurance, § 20.21[3][b], “[djeferred annuity contracts permit the annuitant . . . See California Insurance § 20.21[2], The annuity at issue is a period certain guaranteed minimum annuity . . .

UNITED STATES v. ANGUEIRA,, 744 F. Supp. 36 (D.P.R. 1990)

. . . regulations which allow the taking of migratory birds in limited and specific circumstances, regulation 20.21 . . . Sec. 20.21(i) forbids. Yandell v. . . . Forfeiture Schedule approved by this Court prescribes a fine of $250.00 for a violation of Section 20.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. W. VAN FOSSAN,, 899 F.2d 636 (7th Cir. 1990)

. . . . § 20.21. . . .

W. CLAYTON, Jr. W. v. HOWARD JOHNSON FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC., 730 F. Supp. 1553 (M.D. Fla. 1988)

. . . Callman, Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 20.21, at p. 136 (4th ed. 1987). . . .

In H H BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 850 F.2d 165 (3d Cir. 1988)

. . . Norton, Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 20.21 & n. 2 (1981) (notice of tax deficiency is “condition . . .

In H H BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 850 F.2d 165 (3d Cir. 1988)

. . . Norton, Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 20.21 & n. 2 (1981) (notice of tax deficiency is “condition . . .

UNITED STATES v. SYLVESTER,, 848 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1988)

. . . . § 20.21(i). Substantial evidence supports, and we thus affirm, these convictions. . . . distributed or scattered as the result of bona fide agricultural operations or procedures. ... 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MEBANE Jr., 839 F.2d 230 (4th Cir. 1988)

. . . . § 20.21(f) (1986). . . . The regulation at issue here, 50 C.F.R. § 20.21, provides, in pertinent part: Migratory birds on which . . .

REYES, v. SUPERVISOR OF DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,, 834 F.2d 1093 (1st Cir. 1987)

. . . . §§ 20.34, 20.21(g). . . .

FLORIDA EXPORT TOBACCO CO. INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 510 So. 2d 936 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Section 20.21, Florida Statutes. . . . Section 20.21(1), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that "[t]he head of the Department of Revenue is . . .

BUSHMAN v. J. HALM, 798 F.2d 651 (3d Cir. 1986)

. . . Harper & James, supra pp. 15-16, § 20.21, at 1118. . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. MANNING,, 787 F.2d 431 (8th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 20.21(i). . . . to do is follow the geese and it appears[.]’ ” Cooper then cited Manning for violating 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . The regulation at issue here, 50 C.F.R. § 20.21, provides in pertinent part: Migratory birds on which . . . Section 20.21(i)(2) allows the taking of migratory game birds over land where corn has been “scattered . . . Section 20.21(i)(l) allows the taking of waterfowl over land where grain is scattered “solely as the . . .

GRUNDY NATIONAL BANK, v. TANDEM MINING CORPORATION, 754 F.2d 1436 (4th Cir. 1985)

. . . deep coal mine contractor, obtained two two-year secured loans from Grundy in 1982 with interest at 20.21% . . .

GRUNDY NATIONAL BANK, v. TANDEM MINING CORPORATION, 754 F.2d 1436 (4th Cir. 1985)

. . . deep coal mine contractor, obtained two two-year secured loans from Grundy in 1982 with interest at 20.21% . . .

UNITED STATES v. CHANDLER, III, III, Jr. Jr. M. III,, 753 F.2d 360 (4th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 20.21(i), a regulation promulgated pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et . . . II 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i) provides in pertinent part: Migratory birds on which open seasons are prescribed . . . taking or attempting to take waterfowl by aid of bait” and listed 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712 and 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . area and thus supports the convictions for taking waterfowl by aid of bait in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CATLETT, III E. C. W. R. R., 747 F.2d 1102 (6th Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 20.21(i) (emphasis added). . . . Under the definition of “baited field,” see 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i), this field was therefore baited on . . . Green, 571 F.2d 1, 2 (6th Cir.1977), this circuit held that 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i) does “not require proof . . . regulations adopted by the Secretary, there need be no bait on the field on the day of the hunt. 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

In GOETZ a k a, 43 B.R. 849 (Bank. W.D. Wis. 1984)

. . . Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 221 (7th Cir.1978) See generally Wis.Sup.Ct.R. 20.21 (Canon 4 of the A.B.A. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BRANDT, III,, 717 F.2d 955 (6th Cir. 1983)

. . . . § 20.21(i), was unconstitutionally vague. . . . Pursuant to this authority, the Secretary promulgated 50 C.F.R. § 20.21, which provides, in pertinent . . .

ASSINIBOINE SIOUX TRIBES, v. STATE OF MONTANA,, 568 F. Supp. 269 (D. Mont. 1983)

. . . . §§ 20.21, 20.22 and 20.23; and educational loans and grants under 25 C.F.R. § 40.1. . . .

WILSON, v. G. WATT,, 703 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1983)

. . . . § 20.21 (1982). . . . . § 20.21(b), (c) (1982). . . . Section 20.21 provides: General assistance. . . . (d) They accept available employment which they are able and qualified to perform. 25 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . See also 25 C.F.R. § 20.21(b), (c) (1982) (set out in full at note 2 supra). . . . .

MOSLEY, v. CLARKSVILLE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, 574 F. Supp. 224 (M.D. Tenn. 1983)

. . . Of these 960 persons, 26.15% were non-white and 20.21% were black. . . .

J. B. SMITH, v. HIGHTOWER, B. G. L., 693 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1982)

. . . Ann. arts. 20.09-, 10, 20.19, 20.21. . . . .

M. YANDELL, v. UNITED STATES, By DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,, 550 F. Supp. 572 (N.D. Miss. 1982)

. . . seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of or application to him of 50 C.F.R. 20.21 . . . Service and charged with taking migratory waterfowl with the aid of baiting, a violation of 50 C.F.R. 20.21 . . . The contested regulation is 50 C.F.R. 20.21(i), which provides that no person shall take migratory game . . . this increase of population was accomplished “by the aid of baiting” which is the very act 50 C.F.R. 20.21 . . .

In COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROCKLAND COUNTY,, 15 B.R. 785 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . See also 1 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice, § 20.21. . . .

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS No. No. No. No. v. CLIMATEMP, INC. R. A. Co. Co. F. E. AC Co. Co. Co. Co. B. L. J. A. S. J. T. H. STATE OF ILLINOIS v. CLIMATEMP, INC. R. A. Co. Co. AC Co. Co. Co. J. J., 91 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Ill. 1981)

. . . Rev.Stat., ch. 122, par. 10-20.21, which mandates that school boards publicly invite secret, sealed bids . . .

PRUETT, v. H. LEVI,, 622 F.2d 256 (6th Cir. 1980)

. . . . § 20.21(b); provide the individual with access to his file, an opportunity to request corrections, . . . administrative review of the request, and an opportunity to appeal the denial of a request, 28 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . require the state or local agencies to inform the FBI and other agencies of any corrections, 28 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

DOE, v. H. WEBSTER, FBI,, 606 F.2d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 1979)

. . . . §§ 20.21(b), 20.33 (1978) (limiting the agencies to which, and the circumstances under which, disclosure . . . See, e. g., 20 C.F.R. § 20.21(b) (Appendix at 251) (1978). . . .

UNITED STATES v. ATKINSON,, 468 F. Supp. 834 (E.D. Wis. 1979)

. . . . § 20.21(i) with hunting migratory waterfowl over a baited area. . . . moved the Court to dismiss the charges against them on the grounds that 16 U.S.C. § 703 and 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . The regulation which defendants challenge, 50 C.F.R. § 20.21, provides in part: “Migratory birds on which . . .

ASHLAND OIL, INC. v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY,, 463 F. Supp. 619 (N.D. Okla. 1978)

. . . helium prices charged by private parties f. o. b. the plant decreased from $25.39 per Mcf in 1966 to $20.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. BULLOCK,, 579 F.2d 1116 (8th Cir. 1978)

. . . . § 20.21 (1976). . . . * [protected under certain conventions between the United States and foreign nations]. 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. DELAHOUSSAYE,, 573 F.2d 910 (5th Cir. 1978)

. . . Subpart C, 20.21(f) and (i). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CORBIN FARM SERVICE, Jr., 444 F. Supp. 510 (E.D. Cal. 1978)

. . . . § 20.21(8) (1976). . . .

UNITED STATES v. GREEN,, 571 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1977)

. . . . § 20.21, promulgated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. (1970). . . . following complete removal of all such corn, wheat or other grain, salt, or other feed. 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ARDOIN UNITED STATES v. FORET UNITED STATES v. R. MONIER, 431 F. Supp. 493 (W.D. La. 1977)

. . . . § 20.21(i). They were tried by the court on November 1, 1976 and December 13, 1976. . . . to establish the offense of hunting with the aid of bait, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703, 704, 707(a), 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . specifically exempts from its ambit bait present due to normal agricultural conditions, 20 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . shall be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

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). . . . .

REED, III, v. A. RHODES, 422 F. Supp. 708 (N.D. Ohio 1976)

. . . capacity Agassiz 1.34% 673/700 Garfield 0% 564/410 Haw thorne 8.4% 726/700 Jones 0% 448/560 Longmead 20.21% . . .

UNITED STATES v. C. BRYSON, 414 F. Supp. 1068 (D. Del. 1976)

. . . . § 20.21(i). Trial was to the Court. . . . CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 provides in part: Migratory birds on which open seasons are prescribed . . . following complete removal of all such corn, wheat or other grain, salt, or other feed. . 2. 50 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . . The second prohibition of Section 20.21(i) has a different scope, however. . . . I think it quite clear that the draftsman of Section 20.21 intended the two sections of this regulation . . .

TARLTON, v. B. SAXBE,, 407 F. Supp. 1083 (D.D.C. 1976)

. . . . §§ 20.21(g)(2)-(5) (1975) (correction procedures required in information systems of state criminal . . . may have its access to the FBI criminal record system cancelled. 28 C.F.R. §§ 20.37-.38 (1975); id. § 20.21 . . .

E. UTZ v. CULLINANE, 520 F.2d 467 (D.C. Cir. 1975)

. . . . § 20.21. . 28 C.F.R. § 20.33(a)(3) (1975) (emphasis added). . Menard v. . . . period if, for example, an arraignment has taken place, see 40 Fed.Reg. 22118 [comment on 28 C.F.R. § 20.21 . . .

CHAPMAN v. MEIER,, 407 F. Supp. 649 (D.N.D. 1975)

. . . Thus, the total variance under the original Dobson Plan was 20.21%. . . .

INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD COMPANY, a v. GENERAL AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD COMPANY, a v. NORTH AMERICAN CAR CORPORATION, a INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES, 368 F. Supp. 904 (N.D. Ill. 1973)

. . . The charge assessed for this service was $20.21 per car, but no charge was assessed on empty freight . . .

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

. . . acquisition, construction, and maintenance of “gymnasia, stadia, or other recreational facilities,” id., §§ 20.21 . . .

E. Sr. E. Jr. G. v. E. Jr. B. v., 58 T.C. 311 (T.C. 1972)

. . . tax on the reinvestment of funds in stocks and bonds. 3 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 20.21 . . .

PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 187 Ct. Cl. 129 (Ct. Cl. 1969)

. . . 1957- 22.13 21.12 16.83 34.77 1958- 21.11 21.17 17.42 31.27 1959- 20.14 20.24 17.42 29.44 1960- 19.84 20.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. I. MILLER, M. UNITED STATES v. TERMINAL FLOUR MILLS COMPANY,, 303 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1962)

. . . A footnote under 14 CFR, Part 60, § 20.21-1, states: “An air traffic clearance * * * is issued for the . . .

DE KORWIN, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, v. KAUFMAN, N., 170 F. Supp. 112 (N.D. Ill. 1958)

. . . , 1952, their expectancies were 22.48 and 48.55 years, respectively; on December 6, 1954, they were 20.21 . . .

HIGHLAND PARK INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 142 Ct. Cl. 269 (Ct. Cl. 1958)

. . . Plaintiff's asking prices (subject to negotiation downward) for the lots in Highland Park averaged $20.21 . . .

STARR v. SUPERHEATER CO., 102 F.2d 170 (7th Cir. 1939)

. . . Starr’s expectancy of life at the time the contract was entered into was 20.21 years, hence the amount . . .