Cases from cite.case.law:

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 199 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 2016)

. . . Effect of Law Enforcement Statements on the Defendant)); 11.22 (Giving Obscene Material to a Minor); 20.22 . . . None Attempt_777.04(1) 61 Comment This instruction was adopted in 2016. 20.22 UNLAWFUL FILING OF FALSE . . .

IN RE YOUNES, v., 545 B.R. 591 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2016)

. . . He makes $20.22 per hour. . . .

OHIO VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, v. FOLA COAL COMPANY, LLC,, 120 F. Supp. 3d 509 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)

. . . Swan identified a WVSCI score of 39.66 and á GLIMPSS score of 20.22. Pis.’ Ex. 25. . . .

O- N MINERALS CO. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS HELPERS, CEMENT, LIME, GYPSUM, AND ALLIED WORKERS AFL- CIO NO., 563 F. App'x 380 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . , earns $19.00 per hour in year one of the Agreement, $19.25 in year two, $19.73 in year three and $20.22 . . . ” earns $19.00 per hour in year one of the Agreement, $19.25 in year two, $19.73 in year three and $20.22 . . .

CHYTKA, v. WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC., 925 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Colo. 2013)

. . . Defendant states that at the time of her discharge, Plaintiff was making $20.22 per hour, the highest . . .

HAJRO, R. v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES T. USCIS USCIS, 832 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . injunctive relief where the asserted pattern of FOIA timing violations revealed an average response time of 20.22 . . .

In LINERBOARD ANTITRUST LITIGATION P. C., 361 F. App'x 392 (3d Cir. 2010)

. . . Judge DuBois’s Practices and Procedures Order of October 4, 2000 ¶ 7); Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.22 . . .

J. GRILLO, v. TEMPUR- PEDIC INTERNATIONAL, INC., 553 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D. Ky. 2008)

. . . Tempur-Pedic director and the Vice President of TA Associates, sold 15,941 shares of Tempur-Pedic stock at $20.22 . . .

UNITED STATES v. WASHINGTON,, 20 F. Supp. 3d 777 (W.D. Wash. 2006)

. . . as such must be strictly construed, 157 F.3d at 642, citing Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 20.22 . . .

J. M. v. FLORIDA AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES,, 938 So. 2d 535 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 20.22(1), Fla. . . .

COLINDRES, v. QUIETFLEX MANUFACTURING,, 235 F.R.D. 347 (S.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . The five highest-paid core operators in Department 910 earned, per hour, $20.70, $20.38, $20.22, $19.64 . . .

In LINERBOARD ANTITRUST LITIGATION., 292 F. Supp. 2d 644 (E.D. Pa. 2003)

. . . Manual, supra § 20.22, at 26. . . .

In LORAZEPAM CLORAZEPATE ANTITRUST LITIGATION. v. v. v. v., 205 F.R.D. 369 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . Following the recommended structure set forth in the Manual for Complex Litigation (Third), § 20.22 at . . . See generally Manual for Complex Litigation (Third), § 20.22 (1995). . . .

In CYGNUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, LLC,, 177 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2001)

. . . See Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, § 20.22 (1995). . . .

In PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE PPA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 173 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2001)

. . . See Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, § 20.22 (1995). . . .

In INTER- OP HIP PROSTHESIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 149 F. Supp. 2d 931 (J.P.M.L. 2001)

. . . See Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, § 20.22 (1995). . . .

VINCELLI, v. NATIONAL HOME HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, H. D. J. v. H. D. v. H. D. v. D. A., 112 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (M.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . Upjohn Co., 159 F.R.D. 473, 491 (W.D.Mich.1994) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation 2nd § 20.22 at . . .

CURRY, v. MORGAN STANLEY CO., 193 F.R.D. 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . The credit card receipt is for $16.22; Curry wrote in a $4.00 “tip” and a total of $20.22. . . .

In TOBACCO LITIGATION, v. v. v. H. K. v. A. Jr. E. Jr. v. B. L. J. J. A. H. J. v. v. v., 192 F.R.D. 90 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . Among the court’s powers in aid of ADR are appointment of liaison and lead counsel, see Manual §§ 20.22 . . .

QUESTROM, v. FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., 84 F. Supp. 2d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . arguments, discussed below, it is worth noting that the valuation range derived from the DCF analysis was $20.22 . . . The $20.22 to $22.52 per share translates to a range of $3,729.8 million to $4,154.1 million for the . . .

In PARTY CITY SECURITIES LITIGATION, 189 F.R.D. 91 (D.N.J. 1999)

. . . Upjohn Co., 159 F.R.D. 473, 491 (W.D.Mich.1994) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation 2nd § 20.22 at . . .

In NICE SYSTEMS SECURITIES LITIGATION, 188 F.R.D. 206 (D.N.J. 1999)

. . . Upjohn Co., 159 F.R.D. 473, 491 (W.D.Mich.l994)(quoting Manual for Complex Litigation 2nd § 20.22 at . . .

In COPLEY PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., 50 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Wyo. 1999)

. . . See Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.22 at 27, (3rd ed.1995); see also In re Indigo Sec. . . .

In MILESTONE SCIENTIFIC SECURITIES LITIGATION, 187 F.R.D. 165 (D.N.J. 1999)

. . . Upjohn Co., 159 F.R.D. 473, 491 (W.D.Mich. 1994) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation 2nd § 20.22 at . . .

SHERLEIGH ASSOCIATES LLC v. WINDMERE- DURABLE HOLDINGS, INC. M. D. LLC,, 184 F.R.D. 688 (S.D. Fla. 1999)

. . . , 54 Bus.Law. 763, 764 (1999) (discussing need for reform); and see Manuel for Complex Litigation § 20.22 . . .

In NEW ENGLAND MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, 183 F.R.D. 33 (D. Mass. 1998)

. . . will exercise the functions of lead counsel as outlined in the Manual for Complex Litigation, Third §§ 20.22 . . . exercise the functions of Liaison Counsel as outlined in the Manual for Complex Litigation, Third §§ 20.22 . . .

UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, L. I. J. C. J. C. C. S. L. No. D. C. No. CV- ER R. F. A. I. D. G. W. B. S. E. Jr. UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, C. W. K. Jo Jr. Ho H. J. UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON,, 157 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 1998)

. . . Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 20.22, at 110 (5th ed.1992). . . . Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 20.22, at 110 (5th ed.1992). . . .

In HORIZON CMS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D.N.M. 1998)

. . . Lawsuits: A Critical Analysis, 87 Nw.U.L.Rev. 423, 429 (1993); see also Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.22 . . .

UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, L. I. J. C. J. C. C. S. L. No. D. C. No. CV- ER R. F. A. I. D. G. W. B. S. E. Jr, UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, C. W. K. Jo Jr. Ho H. J. UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES Of v. STATE OF WASHINGTON,, 157 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 1998)

. . . Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 20.22, at 110 (5th ed.1992). . . . Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 20.22, at 110 (5th ed.1992). . . .

UNITED STATES v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, L. I. J. C. J. C. C. S. L. R. F. A. I. D. G. W. B. S. E. Jr. UNITED STATES v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, C. W. K. Jo Jr. Ho H. J. UNITED STATES v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES v. STATE OF WASHINGTON,, 135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1998)

. . . Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 20.22, at 110 (5th ed.1992). . . . Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 20.22, at 110 (5th ed.1992). . . .

In SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION. MASSARO, v. CHESLEY, In SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION. BIEDER, v. CHESLEY,, 111 F.3d 220 (1st Cir. 1997)

. . . 818 F.2d at 223 (noting that lead counsel owes fiduciary duty to class plaintiffs); see also MCL § 20.22 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MARINE SHALE PROCESSORS,, 81 F.3d 1361 (5th Cir. 1996)

. . . . § 20.22(a)(2), now L.A.C. § 33.V.4139.A.2, self-executing. . . .

ASGROW SEED CO. v. WINTERBOER DEEBEES, 513 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1995)

. . . Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 20.22 (5th ed. 1992).) . . .

BALLAN, v. UPJOHN COMPANY,, 159 F.R.D. 473 (W.D. Mich. 1994)

. . . Manual for Complex Litigation, Second § 20.22 at 16. . . .

In TWO APPEALS ARISING OUT OF SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION, 994 F.2d 956 (1st Cir. 1993)

. . . See Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.22, at 15 (2d ed. 1985). . . .

In TWO APPEALS ARISING OUT OF SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION, 994 F.2d 956 (1st Cir. 1993)

. . . See Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.22, at 15 (2d ed. 1985). . . .

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

. . . SCR 20.22(l)(a). The threshold question, therefore, is whether Mr. . . .

WALITALO, A. K. M. A. G. M. J. M. v. IACOCCA, s v. L. H. CARTER, L. H. W. v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, N. CHRZANOWSKI, Q. E. M. v. RDS MANAGEMENT, d b a v. THREADGILL, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, JOHNSON, v. OVERSEAS MILITARY SALES CORPORATION DUCKETT, E. J. E. R. J. W. A. B. G. B. F. Jr. v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION,, 968 F.2d 741 (8th Cir. 1992)

. . . MCL 2d § 20.22 (1985). . . .

FOLD- PAK CORPORATION, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 784 F. Supp. 49 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . In its proof of loss, plaintiff calculates that it cost $20.22 more to produce 1000 food pails by using . . .

In ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION NO. VI, 771 F. Supp. 415 (J.P.M.L. 1991)

. . . See Manual for Complex Litigation, Second, § 20.22 (1985). . . .

In AIRCRASH DISASTER AT MALAGA, SPAIN ON SEPTEMBER, 769 F. Supp. 90 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . See Manual for Complex Litigation Second, §§ 20.22, 20.224 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (authorizing . . .

In SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION, 768 F. Supp. 912 (D.P.R. 1991)

. . . See Manual for Complex Litigation, Second, § 20.22 (1985). . . . .

STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, v. GLOUCESTER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., 138 F.R.D. 421 (D.N.J. 1991)

. . . In MCL 2d at § 20.22 the court’s authority to assign parties to groups having similar characteristics . . .

In UNIMET CORPORATION, 74 B.R. 156 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1987)

. . . Value With Land $ 18.96 $ 15.00 $ 20.22 $ 16.57 Subject property: 46,401 S.F. at $14.00/S.F. $649,614 . . .

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

. . . 18.76 23.16 24.60 16.37 23.12 23.37 25.26 24.02 22.15 20.65 27.60 23.84 24.77 27.42 31.59 18.16 14.79 20.22 . . .

In TETZLAFF, G. PARO, v. H. TETZLAFF,, 31 B.R. 560 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1983)

. . . The defendant’s motion cited Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20.22 (1982) as ground for granting the motion . . . SCR 20.22 is based on Canon 4 of the American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility and . . . provides in pertinent part as follows: SCR 20.22 Preservation of confidences and secrets of a client . . .

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. . . .

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

. . . Road job, above its ADC for April of $20.17 p.c.y., and above its ADC for the fiscal year to date of $20.22 . . .

In TAYLOR MANUFACTURING, INC. a k a a k a Co., 6 B.R. 370 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1980)

. . . See e. g. 1A Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 20.22, p. 74 (4th ed. 1972). . . .

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

. . . construction, and maintenance of “gymnasia, stadia, or other recreational facilities,” id., §§ 20.21-20.22 . . . of certain facilities, such as gymnasia, are employed to repay the bonds issued thereon, see id., §§ 20.22 . . .

O. DICKINSON, Jr. v. B. STONE,, 251 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1971)

. . . . § 20.22(4), F.S.A.) which is headed by the Governor and Cabinet just as was the Division of Electronic . . .

GLICKEN v. K. BRADFORD, 35 F.R.D. 144 (S.D.N.Y. 1964)

. . . and the additional expense charged to this shareholder’s account was $1.50, making a total charge of $20.22 . . .

D. PATTERSON, v. J. C. THOMAS, 289 F.2d 108 (5th Cir. 1961)

. . . Taxpayer cites, in support of this theory, Regulation 111, Section 20.22(a) (3) of the 1939 Code, which . . .

F. BADGETT v. UNITED STATES, 175 F. Supp. 120 (W.D. Ky. 1959)

. . . Volume 3, Merten’s Law of Federal Income Taxation, Section 20.22 and see Trenton Cotton Oil Company v . . .

KRUSZEWSKI v. UNITED STATES, 163 F.2d 884 (7th Cir. 1947)

. . . Accounting Office certified that plaintiff had been overpaid $700.90, and that after crediting him with $20.22 . . . On January 4, 1939 plaintiff wrote a letter to the General Accounting Office requesting a refund of $20.22 . . . of settlement certified that plaintiff had been overpaid $700.90, and that after crediting him with $20.22 . . . The fact is, as we understand the record, that plaintiff’s claim for $20.22 which had been previously . . . Referring to this $20.22 claim, the Government in its brief states: ’‘These losses not covered by the . . .

CARR v. GOODYEAR TIRE RUBBER CO., 64 F. Supp. 40 (S.D. Cal. 1945)

. . . thereof were made by it from the above mentioned offices with the exception of tires and tubes valued at $20.22 . . .

UNITED STATES v. OREGON, 295 U.S. 701 (U.S. 1935)

. . . .; S. 12° W. 20.22 chs.; West 3.00 chs.; S. 23° 15' W. 67.00 chs.; S. 22°30' W. 26.00 chs.; thence, in . . .

CHICAGO, BURLINGTON QUINCY RAILROAD CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 63 Ct. Cl. 83 (Ct. Cl. 1927)

. . . The correct net fare on the basis of 50 instead of 100 per cent land-grant deduction is $20.22, and the . . .

M. SAMUEL SONS v. THE UNITED STATES, 61 Ct. Cl. 373 (Ct. Cl. 1925)

. . . metal to Hickman, Williams & Co., of Chicago, shortly after their purchase from the Government for $20.22 . . . The malleable iron shells were sold to said company f. o. b. cars at Toledo for $20.22 per gross ton; . . .

ATCHISON, T. S. F. RY. CO. v. WEEKS, 248 F. 970 (W.D. Tex. 1918)

. . . within the state of Texas, and extends from El Paso to the boundary line ox New Mexico, a distance of 20.22 . . .