Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 259 So. 3d 765 (Fla. 2018)

. . . Child), 20.18(a) (Unlawful Possession of the Personal Identification Information of Another Person), 22.10 . . . and use as proposed, with a correction to the title and statutory citations, and instructions 10.20, 22.10 . . . Lastly, in instructions 22.10, 22.11, and 22.15, on our own motion, we replace the references to a repealed . . . Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 Comment This instruction was adopted in 2016 [190 So.3d 614] and amended in 2018. 22.10 . . .

FOURTH CORNER CREDIT UNION, a v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF KANSAS CITY,, 861 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2017)

. . . Strokoff, The Legislative Drafter’s Desk Reference § 22.10, at 297-98 (2d ed. 2008) (“The terms ‘any, . . .

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

. . . ; 22.7 (Conducting a Lottery Drawing); 22.8 (Assisting in Lottery); 22.9 (Selling Lottery Tickets); 22.10 . . . First, regarding the lottery instructions, i.e., 22.5, 22.6, 22.7, 22.8, 22.9, 22.10, and 22.11, a citation . . . This instruction was adopted in 1981 ahd amended in 2015. 22.10 POSSESSING A LOTTERY TICKET § 849.09( . . .

LENNAR HOMES OF TEXAS SALES AND MARKETING, LTD. v. PERRY HOMES, LLC,, 117 F. Supp. 3d 913 (S.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . Nimmer, 3.04[A], at 3-22.10(1). . . .

MONTANEZ, v. SIMON,, 755 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . noted, the lawyers insist that the court erroneously deducted $35. 20 in printing fees, including $22.10 . . . Turning to the actual deductions, the court struck $22.10 for copies of deposition transcripts of three . . .

G. PE A, v. HANDY WASH, INC., 28 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . (See id. 3 (citing Paratransit Contract ¶¶ 11.0, 22.9, 22.10 & 23)). . . .

In WAL- MART WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION. v. In v., 737 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . Bonsignore contends that § 22.10 of the Settlement Agreement provides for judicial review of the Arbitrator . . .

E. WILLOUGHBY v. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,, 730 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 22.10). . . . Section 22.1002-1 (a subsection of § 22.10) of the Code of Federal Regulations provides, in relevant . . .

MONTANEZ, v. CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS FICO STAR SIMON STAR, 931 F. Supp. 2d 869 (N.D. Ill. 2013)

. . . Christina Alicea, Norma Ruiz and Celia Ruiz, Plaintiff also asks the Court to award him an additional $22.10 . . .

A E TELEVISION NETWORKS, LLC D D v. PIVOT POINT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,, 771 F. Supp. 2d 296 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . Grot-heer, Jr., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.10 (19th ed. 1989)); N. Am. Mktg. Corp. v. K. . . . amount that included set-offs of certain controverted funds) (citing 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.10 . . .

DUKE, v. F. M. K. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. A LLC, LLC, A, 739 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (D. Or. 2010)

. . . "Foundation Balance of Plant Procurement and Construction Contract, 22.10: No partnership created. . . .

BADEN- WINTERWOOD, v. LIFE TIME FITNESS INC., 729 F. Supp. 2d 965 (S.D. Ohio 2010)

. . . .5 = $7.37 x 6 hours = $44.22 x 4 weeks = $176.88 The remaining 6.7 overtime hours: $14.73 x 1.5 = $22.10 . . .

Dr. FINKEL, v. TRIPLE A GROUP, INC., 708 F. Supp. 2d 277 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . and paid the following amounts: PHBP $694.29 DEN $ 63.23 ANN $200.00 E & C $ 2.89 NEBF $ 66.30 Dues $ 22.10 . . . Nonetheless, TAG previously paid Dues in the amount of $22.10 per week, see Sessa 7/3/08 Decl. Exs. . . .

GLUCK, v. EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY, INC., 680 F. Supp. 2d 406 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . See 2 Insurance Claims and Disputes 5th § 11:22.10 & n. 28 (indicating that the term “arising out of’ . . .

In H. SOILEAU, v. H., 488 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . In Texas, notwithstanding that the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 22.10 applies certain civil . . .

In H. SOILEAU, v. H., 488 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . In Texas, notwithstanding that the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 22.10 applies certain civil . . .

ROBERTS, v. MAHONING COUNTY, v., 495 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Ohio 2007)

. . . for inmate litigation. 22.9 Corporate Support Quality of support from district or regional office. 22.10 . . .

RODRIGUEZ- CASTRO, v. R. GONZALES,, 427 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2005)

. . . Penal Code section 22.10 (Vernon 2005), “explicitly requires” knowing or intentional leaving as well . . .

In WILLIAMS, 330 B.R. 534 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2005)

. . . The debtors next claim that the annual percentage rate (“APR”) Tower charged, 22.10%, is an excessive . . . According to Binning, the program calculated an APR of 22.10% for the loan. . . . that the contract rate of interest charged the Williamses was 21.9%, although the APR was listed as 22.10% . . .

In DOVE- NATION, v., 318 B.R. 147 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2004)

. . . Exxon/Mobil account, the amount sought by the Claimant exceeded the amount scheduled by the Debtor by $22.10 . . .

FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS, B. V. C. A. v. CONSORCIO BARR, S. A., 267 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (S.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . (ii) commence legal proceedings (in which case the provisions of sections 22.10 and 22.11 governing jurisdiction . . . Section 22.10, referenced above, provides: The parties hereto irrevocably: (a) submit and consent to . . . by any court which may be called upon to enforce the judgment of the courts referred to in section 22.10 . . . Agreement § 22.10. . . .

BP EXPLORATION OIL COMPANY, v. MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC. DJA BP v., 313 F.3d 936 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . Harper, et al., The Law of Torts § 22.10, at 339 n. 17 (2d ed.1986); see also Dobbs, Law of Remedies . . .

K. HALL, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,, 207 F. Supp. 2d 903 (W.D. Wis. 2002)

. . . Stempel, Law of Insurance Contract Disputes § 22.10 (2d ed.2000). . . .

ROBINSON, E. F. v. METRO- NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001)

. . . See generally 2 Larson, supra, §§ 22.01 to 22.10, at 22-1 to 22-78. . . .

HULL CORPORATION, v. ELBE FLUGZEUGWERKE a k a, 58 F. Supp. 2d 925 (N.D. Ill. 1999)

. . . The final provision of the contract is § 22.10: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in . . . (Agreement, at § 22.10.) . . . Analysis Elbe and Sogerma seek enforcement of § 22.10, which they believe is a forum selection clause . . . Under Seventh Circuit precedent, § 22.10 is a permissive forum selection clause that allows, but does . . . Because Elbe and Sogerma have not pressed this interpretation of § 22.10, any challenge to this Court . . .

UNITED STATES, v. M. MELANSON,, 50 M.J. 641 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 1999)

. . . Lederer, Court-Martial Procedure § 2-22.10(b)(l), at 53 (1991)(citing Howard, 20 M.J. 353). . . .

KING, v. O. KING,, 719 So. 2d 920 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . hearing he had accrued 1500 hours, and that he would be compensated for up to 700 hours at the rate of $22.10 . . .

In FRONTIER INSURANCE GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 172 F.R.D. 31 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions §§ 22.09-22.10 (2d ed.1985). C. . . .

P. DUCKWORTH, v. E. WHISENANT, G., 97 F.3d 1393 (11th Cir. 1996)

. . . WEATHERSBY FEES: $81,555 Paralegal Hours Claimed: 27.50 Total Hours Deducted 5.40 Total Reasonable Hours: 22.10 . . .

In CALIFORNIA MICRO DEVICES SECURITIES LITIGATION, 168 F.R.D. 257 (N.D. Cal. 1996)

. . . In re Seagate II, 843 F.Supp. at 1350; Herbert Newberg and Alba Conte, 4 New-berg on Class Actions § 22.10 . . .

KNAPP SHOES, INC. v. SYLVANIA SHOE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,, 72 F.3d 190 (1st Cir. 1995)

. . . 27.90 20.478.60 2675 566 M ^ 1,531 21.91 33,544.21 2810 514 ^ c22.10 . . . 13,215.80 2815 51 Ü1 CO t-T 62 22.10 1,370.20 2816 26 354 27.40 9.699.60 2840 125 no 777 27.30 21,212.10 . . .

In SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY II SECURITIES LITIGATION., 843 F. Supp. 1341 (N.D. Cal. 1994)

. . . Newberg, § 22.10 at 22-5. . . .

TODD, III, v. SOUTH JERSEY HOSPITAL SYSTEM,, 152 F.R.D. 676 (D.N.J. 1993)

. . . See N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.10. . . .

OVERTON v. UNITED STATES, 28 Fed. Cl. 812 (Fed. Cl. 1993)

. . . payment by a monthly disbursement check and maintained a savings balance of $99,000.00 in principal and $22.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. TWO PLASTIC DRUMS, MORE LESS OF AN ARTICLE OF FOOD, LABELED IN PART VIPONTE LTD. BLACK CURRANT OIL BATCH NO. BOOSF, 984 F.2d 814 (7th Cir. 1993)

. . . Toulmin, Jr., Treatise on the Law of Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics §§ 22.5-22.10 (2d ed. 1963) (grouping . . .

P. JOHN, v. SOTHEBY S, INC., 141 F.R.D. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.10 (2d ed. 1989). . . .

WILLIAMS, v. JADER FUEL COMPANY, INC., 944 F.2d 1388 (7th Cir. 1991)

. . . Gray, The Law of Torts, § 22.10 at 342 (2d ed. 1986)). . . .

O SHEA, v. R. O SHEA,, 585 So. 2d 405 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Prac. and Proc., 1990 Ed., § 22.10, page 312. . . .

CNA INSURANCE COMPANIES, v. WATERS, T. Jr., 926 F.2d 247 (3d Cir. 1991)

. . . Grotheer, Jr., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 22.10 (19th ed. 1989). . . .

APPLICATIONS RESEARCH CORPORATION v. NAVAL AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER, J. H. III,, 752 F. Supp. 660 (E.D. Pa. 1990)

. . . Subpart 22.10 of the FAR applies to all government service contracts and implements the provisions of . . .

GENERAL RAILWAY SIGNAL COMPANY, A a v. P. CORCORAN, S., 735 F. Supp. 265 (N.D. Ill. 1990)

. . . Co., 138 F.2d 327, 328 (3d Cir.1943); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.10 at 22-91 (2d ed. 1989). . . .

IBI SECURITY SERVICE, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 19 Cl. Ct. 106 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . The coverage in Subpart 22.10, Service Contract Act of 1965, and the contract clauses at 52.222-40 through . . .

WASSELL, v. L. ADAMS M., 865 F.2d 849 (7th Cir. 1989)

. . . 984, 988, 88 Ill.Dec. 231, 234-35, 478 N.E.2d 546, 549-50 (1985); 4 Harper, James & Gray, supra, § 22.10 . . .

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. AMBASSADOR GROUP, INC., 691 F. Supp. 618 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.10, at 22-94 (1987) (it is necessary to give bond for “largest . . .

In SINKING OF M V UKOLA OCEANUS MUTUAL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, BERMUDA LIMITED, v. IMPERIAL SUGAR COMPANY, NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, 806 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.10 (2d ed. 1986). . . . Fields Productions, Inc., 363 F.Supp. 903, 905 (S.D.N.Y.1973); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.10. . . .

In COLEMAN, W. WOODSON, v. BANK OF OKLAHOMA, CLAREMORE,, 55 B.R. 263 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1985)

. . . . § 22.10 (Supp.1984-1985) which states that registration and license fees and mileage taxes imposed . . .

REDMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 10 Fla. Supp. 2d 162 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1985)

. . . . * * * 33-22.10 Additional Time Limits: * * * (4) The thirty (30) day time limit for filing a grievance . . .

SEALY, INCORPORATED, a v. EASY LIVING, INC. a d b a, 743 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1984)

. . . Callman, Unfair Competition, Trademarks, and Monopolies, § 22.10 at n. 20. . . .

BOARD OF WATER WORKS TRUSTEES OF CITY OF DES MOINES, IOWA, v. ALVORD, BURDICK HOWSON, 706 F.2d 820 (8th Cir. 1983)

. . . James, The Law of Torts § 22.10, at 1227 (1956); W. . . . James, supra, § 22.10 at 1229-30. See also Schuller v. . . .

J. NEAL, R. J. F. J. A. Sr. C. C. B. v. CAREY CANADIAN MINES, LTD. Co. Co., 548 F. Supp. 357 (E.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . See N.T. 22.10-22.16; 22.19. . . .

ROOKARD v. MEXICOACH, a S. A. C. V. De, 680 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1982)

. . . For $22.10 (10% of which was retained by Mexicoach) they were issued tickets which contained disclaimers . . .

E. BAUER, d b a a v. UNIROYAL TIRE COMPANY, a a a E. BAUER, d b a a a a v. TIRES, INC. a, 630 F.2d 1287 (8th Cir. 1980)

. . . Luster, 604 F.2d 31 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.10, at 22-99 (2d ed . . . Frankford Trust Co., 352 F.Supp. 130, 133 (E.D.Pa.1972); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ' 22.10, at 22-99 . . .

JOHNSON, v. WILLIAM C. ELLIS SONS IRON WORKS, INC. a Co., 604 F.2d 950 (5th Cir. 1979)

. . . . § 22.10, at 1228. . . .

TENNESSEE VALLEY SAND GRAVEL CO. v. M V DELTA,, 598 F.2d 930 (5th Cir. 1979)

. . . James, The Law of Torts § 22.10 at 1231-34 (1956); compare W. . . .

OLIVER v. KALAMAZOO BOARD OF EDUCATION W., 576 F.2d 714 (6th Cir. 1978)

. . . . $22.10/hour — Davis v. . . .

KEYES v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. DENVER, COLORADO,, 439 F. Supp. 393 (D. Colo. 1977)

. . . . $22.10/hour — Davis v. . . .

ILLINOIS BRICK CO. v. ILLINOIS, 431 U.S. 720 (U.S. 1977)

. . . Moore, supra, ¶ 22.10, and a defendant may be unwilling to put up a bond for the huge amounts normally . . .

J. KRUSE v. W. E. CAMPBELL, 431 F. Supp. 180 (E.D. Va. 1977)

. . . The challenged statute, Va.Code § 22.10.-8(a), is violative of the equal protection guarantees under . . .

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. G. OUTLAW, 411 F. Supp. 824 (D. Md. 1976)

. . . Miller, 229 F.Supp. 1018, 1021 (D.Minn.1964); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.10 (1974). . . .

DAVIS v. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY, 526 F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . abuse its discretion in allowing every hour claimed while reducing the claimed rate from $50.00 to $22.10 . . .

WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, a v. GILLESPIE, B., 397 F. Supp. 1337 (D. Del. 1975)

. . . deposited with the Court in order for the plaintiff to be discharged. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.10 . . . Chase Manhattan Bank, 155 F.Supp. 30, 37 (S.D.N.Y.1957); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.10 n. 16. . . . See 7 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1716 n. 77; 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.10 . . .

QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL CHILDREN, INC. v. SCHOOL BOARD OF SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WINNEBAGO COUNTY, ILLINOIS,, 385 F. Supp. 803 (N.D. Ill. 1974)

. . . .-6; 10-22.10 of the Illinois Revised Statutes. . . . .

EAST HAMPTON DEWITT CORPORATION v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY a k a WARNER NATIONAL, INC. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY a k a STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. L. ROSEN STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, v. EAST HAMPTON DEWITT CORPORATION, 490 F.2d 1234 (2d Cir. 1973)

. . . plaintiff could not recover for damages that a prompt alarm would have prevented. 2 Harper & James, Torts § 22.10 . . . Torts 2d § 465 at 511 and Illustration 1, and of the leading texts. 2 Harper & James, Torts, supra, § 22.10 . . . and the reasoning which generally prevails in this country today,” 2 Harper & James, Torts, supra, § 22.10 . . .

UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION, v. FIELDS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 363 F. Supp. 903 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)

. . . trial of the merits and not at the stage of determining jui’isdiction.” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice If 22.10 . . .

PLACID OIL COMPANY SoLa II, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,, 483 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1973)

. . . Subtotal at 15.025 psia 22.10 23.87 17. Area Gathering 0.51 0.51 18. Production Tax 2.30 2.30 19. . . .

MILLER MILLER AUCTIONEERS, INC. v. G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES, INC. C. C. B W a, 472 F.2d 893 (10th Cir. 1973)

. . . Corp., 288 F.2d 363 (2d Cir. 1961); 3A Moore, Federal Practice § 22.10, n. 3 (2d ed. 1970); 7 Wright . . .

EMMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, v. FRANKFORD TRUST COMPANY, 352 F. Supp. 130 (E.D. Pa. 1972)

. . . safeguarding the disputed fund and facilitating execution of judgment. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice f[ 22.10 . . . plaintiff to deposit or give bond for the largest amount that is in dispute. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice f 22.10 . . .

NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION v. GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY, 331 F. Supp. 208 (E.D. Pa. 1971)

. . . (Emphasis in the original) See also 3A Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.), p. 3080, § 22.10, and Kooman . . .

W. K. Co. Et Al. v., 56 T.C. 434 (T.C. 1971)

. . . Municipal Code of Chicago : See. 28-22.10)) On January 1, 1004 (or as soon thereafter as may be convenient . . .

L. POWERS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY N., 439 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1971)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 22.10, at 3081-3083 (2d ed. 1970); 15 Couch on Insurance 2d § 52:14 (1966); . . .

KOEHRING COMPANY, a v. HYDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a S. N. H. a a Co. a a L a a, 424 F.2d 1200 (7th Cir. 1970)

. . . Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 551. footnote 11. . 3A Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 22.10 . . .

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. S. BENNETT, H., 299 F. Supp. 451 (S.D. Ga. 1969)

. . . See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, (2d ed.), p. 3080, § 22.10. . . .

McLAUGHLIN, v. TRELLEBORGS ANGFARTYGS A B, v. GOLTEN MARINE COMPANY,, 408 F.2d 1334 (2d Cir. 1969)

. . . See Restatement of Torts 2d § 463 (1965) ; 2 Harper & James, Torts § 22.10 (1956); Prosser, Torts § 64 . . .

FLAST v. COHEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,, 392 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1968)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §22.09 (1958), §§22.09-22.10 (1965 Supp.); Jaffe, Standing to Secure . . .

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. HANNON, a, 280 F. Supp. 291 (D. Or. 1967)

. . . Corp., 288 F.2d 363 (2d Cir. 1961); 3 Moore Federal Practice § 22.10, p. 3080 (2d ed. 1967). . . .

ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, v. CHARLES FERRAN COMPANY, CHARLES FERRAN COMPANY, v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY,, 383 F.2d 46 (5th Cir. 1967)

. . . duty’ to mitigate damages or the rule of avoidable consequences.” 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts § 22.10 . . .

W. WIRTZ, v. COMPANIA DE SERVICIOS ELECTRICOS, S. A. P. W. De S. A., 304 F. Supp. 697 (D.C.Z. 1967)

. . . Julio 99.57 Murillo, Florencio 147.52 Murillo, Socorro A. 21.87 Obando, Manuel A. 10.00 Padilla, Benito 22.10 . . .

KITZER, Sr. Jr. v. PHALEN PARK STATE BANK OF ST. PAUL, A. St., 379 F.2d 650 (8th Cir. 1967)

. . . thereof is a condition precedent to obtaining interpleader jurisdiction. 3 Moore, Federal Practice § 22.10 . . .

FLAST, D. C. L. v. W. GARDNER,, 271 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

. . . Review, 66 Colum.L.Rev. 635, 666 (1966); 3 Davis, Administrative Law, § 22.09, at 243 (1958) and § 22.10 . . .

MILLER, v. STEINBACH, 268 F. Supp. 255 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

. . . settlements reached were as follows: 2 dissenters settled for $17.50 per share. 6 18.50 12 22.00 2 22.10 . . .

S. NUCKOLES, v. F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY,, 372 F.2d 286 (4th Cir. 1967)

. . . . § 15.4, at 883, § 17.2, at 972, § 22.10, at 1228. Whether Mrs. . . .

In C. B. DUNN,, 251 F. Supp. 637 (M.D. Ga. 1966)

. . . See 10 Collier, Bankruptcy, § 22.10 (1965). . . .

v., 54 Cust. Ct. 675 (Cust. Ct. 1965)

. . . O.Od. 5.10.0d. 4s.0d. 48. 4.0d. 2 AN/H 22.10.0d. 6.5.0d. 15.12.6d. 7.12.6d. 4s.Od. 52. 4.0d. 2AN/HP 22.10 . . .

SMITH v. GOVERNMENT OF VIRGIN ISLANDS,, 329 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1964)

. . . See Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1958, vol. 3, §§ 22.09, 22.10; Jaffe, Standing to Secure Judicial . . .

DAVID SMITH ERWIN GROSS, v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, MARIO LEWIS STEADMAN HODGE, 4 V.I. 489 (3d Cir. 1964)

. . . See Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1958, vol. 3, §§ 22.09, 22.10; Jaffe, Standing to Secure Judicial . . .

GLENN L. SHADRICK v. THE UNITED STATES, 151 Ct. Cl. 408 (Ct. Cl. 1960)

. . . . * * * Seo. 22.10 Decision in the Commission — (a) By whom made; contents. . . . Sec,. 22.10(b) Copy of decision furnished appellant and agency; appeal to Commissioners. . . . Sec. 22.10(c) Eeport by agencies to Commission of action taken or proposed to be taken on finding favorable . . . hearing and (2) it failed to comply with the requirements (a) of the Commission’s regulations (§ § 22.10 . . . Section 22.10(a) of the regulations (finding 28) required the decision on appeal to be made by the Regional . . .

AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY, v. NAVIERA ANDES PERUANA, S. A. S. A. S. A., 182 F. Supp. 897 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)

. . . condition precedent to obtaining interpleader jurisdiction. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice (2nd Edition) § 22.10 . . .

H. CHRISTIE, v. UNITED STATES, 179 F. Supp. 709 (D. Or. 1959)

. . . Navy withheld sums from his retirement pay for taxes, the total amount withheld for the year being $22.10 . . . Notice of this assessment together with demand for payment, less the $22.10 withheld, was made upon Freeman . . .

F. FREEMAN, v. UNITED STATES, 265 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1959)

. . . . § 1346(a) (1) and the amount sought to be recovered was $22.10. . . . Navy withheld sums from his retirement pay for taxes, the total amount withheld for the year being $22.10 . . . Notice of this assessment together with demand for payment, less the $22.10 withheld, was made upon Freeman . . .

RODRIGUEZ, v. GERONTAS COMPANIA DE NAVEGACION, S. A. THE SS GERONTAS,, 150 F. Supp. 715 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)

. . . the first 11 months and 11 days of his service on the SS Gerontas Rodriguez is entitled to recover $22.10 . . .

HENRY L. DeBUSK v. THE UNITED STATES, 132 Ct. Cl. 790 (Ct. Cl. 1955)

. . . the “Manager and not by the Chief Law Officer of the Regional Office”, as allegedly required by 5 CFR 22.10 . . . This regulation reads: § 22.10 Decision in the Commission — (a) By whom made; contents. . . .

BLACKMAR v. UNITED STATES, 120 F. Supp. 408 (Ct. Cl. 1954)

. . . See 5 CFK. 22.10(a), 22.11(d), (1947 Supp.). . See Mulligan v. Andrews, D.C.Cir., 211 F.2d 28. . . .

ARMAND EDWARD BLACKMAR v. THE UNITED STATES, 128 Ct. Cl. 693 (Ct. Cl. 1954)

. . . See 5 CFR 22.10 (a), 22.11 (d), (1947 Supp.). See Mulligan v. . . .

GREGORY v. UNITED STATES, 107 F. Supp. 840 (Ct. Cl. 1952)

. . . .; 28 Comp.Gen. 489 ; 29 Comp.Gen. 209; 5 C.F.R., 1951 Supp, § 22.10(a). . . .

PAUL H. GREGORY v. THE UNITED STATES, 123 Ct. Cl. 794 (Ct. Cl. 1952)

. . . E., 1951 Supp, § 22.10 (a). . . .

TNA CASUALTY SURETY CO. v. B. B. B. CONST. CORPORATION, 173 F.2d 307 (2d Cir. 1949)

. . . Act has provided expressly for the alternative of filing a bond. 3 Moore, Federal Practice ff22.06, 22.10 . . .

GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. UNION SOLVENTS CORPORATION, 54 F.2d 400 (D. Del. 1931)

. . . 10.17 22.13 USC......... 31.1 9.86 . 21.24 30.9 9.91 20.99 Q10 ......... 31.5 9.25 22.25 32.3 10.20 22.10 . . .

v., 16 Ct. Cust. 457 (C.C.P.A. 1929)

. . . The unit prices in Belgian francs are as follows: “29.02, 29.02, 23.40, 23.40, and 22.10.” . . .

STEPHEN VAN D. HALLENBECK v. THE UNITED STATES, 48 Ct. Cl. 475 (Ct. Cl. 1913)

. . . measured the distance traveled by the claimant over said route No. 1 and that the same was in fact 22.10 . . . Lockwood’s corner to West Greenville_ 2.20 West Greenville to Greenville xsost office-.94 Total distance-22.10 . . . in delivering the mail on said route, in accordance with the map thereof, and found the same to- be 22.10 . . . Under date of November 11, 1909, said inspector reported that he found the route to be 22.10 miles in . . .

A. SANTAELLA CO. v. OTTO F. LANGE CO., 155 F. 719 (8th Cir. 1907)

. . . properly refused because it appears from the counterclaim that the plaintiff owed the defendants some $22.10 . . . would be but a matter of computation of the amount due thereon after deducting the undisputed item of $22.10 . . .