Cases from cite.case.law:

In IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND COURT RECORDS RECOMMENDATIONS- AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FLORIDA PROBATE RULES FLORIDA SMALL CLAIMS RULES FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 78 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)

. . . person against whom the judgment is rendered must be included in the judgment, pursuant to section 55.01 . . . person against whom the judgment is rendered must be included in the judgment, pursuant to section 55.01 . . . person against whom the judgment is rendered must be included in the judgment, pursuant to section 55.01 . . . person against whom the judgment is rendered must be included in the judgment, pursuant to section 55.01 . . . person against whom the judgment is rendered must be included in the judgment, pursuant to section 55.01 . . .

In TREADWELL v., 637 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . P. 55.01. . . .

In TREADWELL v., 637 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . P. 55.01. . . .

EKECHI, v. FIRST AMERICA FIRST STUDENT, 49 So. 3d 335 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . lim-iting JCC’s authority to entry of “compensation order” — rather than judgment, as defined by section 55.01 . . .

In ZOTOW v. P. LP, LP,, 432 B.R. 252 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2010)

. . . recalculated Debtors’ monthly escrow payment at $311.58, which consisted of $220.04 for insurance and taxes, $55.01 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. In, 44 So. 3d 555 (Fla. 2010)

. . . person against-whom the judgment is rendered must be included in-the-judgment, pursuant to-section 55.01 . . .

In THORNTON s H. v. L., 419 B.R. 787 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2009)

. . . formal answer, the plaintiffs moved for a default judgment pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 55.01 . . . Rule 55.01 provided that “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has . . . P. 55.01. . . . On Appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals could not find any caselaw interpreting Minnesota’s Rule 55.01 . . . P. 55.01.” Id. . . .

KROWTOH II LLC, v. EXCELSIUS INTERNATIONAL LTD,, 330 F. App'x 530 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . Shepard, 796 F.2d at 194 (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.01 [2] at 55-61 (1985 ed.)). . . .

S. BERNSTEIN, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SBC, 453 F. Supp. 2d 554 (D. Conn. 2006)

. . . This notice indicated that he was in arrears in the amount of $55.01 and had current charges of $43.00 . . .

FRANKLIN FINANCIAL, INC. v. K. WHITE, a k a, 932 So. 2d 434 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . . § 55.01, Fla. Stat. (1994). . . . . § 55.01, Fla. Stat. (1994). . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TWO YEAR CYCLE, 858 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2003)

. . . person against whom the judgment is rendered must be included in the judgment, pursuant to section 55.01 . . .

MAXFLY AVIATION INC. v. CAPITAL AIRLINES LTD., 843 So. 2d 973 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Appellants rely on section 55.01(2), Florida Statutes (2002), which requires that: “Each final judgment . . . Section 55.01(2) also expressly states that the “failure to include same shall in no way affect the validity . . .

M. PICHT, v. JON R. HAWKS, LTD., 236 F.3d 446 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . This summons stated that the Pichts were in default pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 55.01 . . . Rule 55.01 provides, in pertinent part: Wdien a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief . . . P. 55.01(a) (emphasis added). . . . P. 55.01(a). . . . Thomas, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that Rule 55.01 stated, “[i]n the clearest possible terms[, . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 773 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2000)

. . . addresses of parties, and judgment debtors’ social security numbers, if known, to comply with sections 55.01 . . . person against whom the judgment is rendered must be included in the judgment, pursuant to section 55.01 . . . person against whom the judgment is rendered must be included in the judgment, pursuant to section 55.01 . . . person against whom the judgment is rendered must be included in the judgment, pursuant to section 55.01 . . . person against whom the judgment is rendered must be included in the judgment, pursuant to section 55.01 . . .

M. PICHT M. v. R. HAWKS, E. R., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (D. Minn. 1999)

. . . the civil action when a judgment by default could have, but has not, been entered pursuant to Rule 55.01 . . . In turn, Rule 55.01(a) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts states that: . . . Minn.R.Civ.P. 55.01(a). . . .

OCONOMOWOC RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS, INC. a v. CITY OF GREENFIELD, a a, 23 F. Supp. 2d 941 (E.D. Wis. 1998)

. . . . § 55.01(2). . . .

BENZ, v. SKIBA, SKIBA GLOMSKI, d b a s,, 164 F.R.D. 115 (D. Me. 1995)

. . . . § 9256(3) (Mason 1927), now Minn.R.Civ.Proc. 55.01 (no mention of jury trial); 2 Wash.Rev.Stat.Ann. . . .

In BRANDL, NORTH TEL, INC. v. BRANDL,, 179 B.R. 620 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1995)

. . . applied to the Ramsey County District Court for entry of a default judgment pursuant to MiNN.R.CrvP. 55.01 . . . It is not clear whether the Plaintiff proceeded under color of Minn.R.Civ.P. 55.01(a), or Minn. . . . R.Civ.P. 55.01(b). . . . .

M. SNYDER, v. TALBOT,, 836 F. Supp. 26 (D. Me. 1993)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.01[2] at 62 (2d Ed.1985)). B. . . .

MERCK CO. INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 24 Cl. Ct. 73 (Cl. Ct. 1991)

. . . therefrom: Year Sales ($000) Net Income ($000) Percent of Sales 1972 18,428 5,834 31.66 1973 35,151 19,336 55.01 . . .

G. SMITH, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 926 F.2d 1470 (6th Cir. 1991)

. . . Moore, 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 55.01[2] at 55-61, 62 (1985 ed)). . . .

In VANCE, d b a d b a, 120 B.R. 181 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1990)

. . . a Trustee to administer a debtor’s estate in bankruptcy, 3 Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1977) ¶ 55.01 . . .

PAUL, v. UNITED STATES,, 20 Cl. Ct. 236 (Cl. Ct. 1990)

. . . —Paul realized $55.01 per hour in the stipulated payment for the 5,000 hours he claimed to have worked . . .

In KLINGBEIL, 119 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1990)

. . . complaint upon the debtor in the main action where judgment by default could be entered pursuant to Rule 55.01 . . .

HEATH v. A. J. BROWN, R. J. E., 807 F.2d 1229 (5th Cir. 1987)

. . . See Tex.Crim.Proc.Code Ann. art. 55.01 et seq. (Vernon 1979). Both sides appealed. . . .

SHEPARD CLAIMS SERVICE, INC. v. WILLIAM DARRAH ASSOCIATES, a, 796 F.2d 190 (6th Cir. 1986)

. . . We agree with the summary of court holdings in 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.01[2] at 55-61, 62 (1985 . . .

STARNES v. HILL, L., 635 F. Supp. 1270 (W.D.N.C. 1986)

. . . Travel Charges $165.60 Investigative Charge 78.61 Long Distance Telephone Charge 82.54 Postage Charges 55.01 . . . Postage Charges 55.01 What does this consist of? . . .

DALY, v. HILL L. In STARNES, v. HILL L., 790 F.2d 1071 (4th Cir. 1986)

. . . $512.00 for out-of-pocket expenses for legal research, $135.21 for long distance telephone calls, $55.01 . . .

FIRST AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST, v. GEORGACOPOULOS,, 472 So. 2d 818 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Interest on a judgment accrues by operation of law, § 55.01(1), Fla.Stat. . . .

STARNES, v. HILL, L., 589 F. Supp. 341 (W.D.N.C. 1984)

. . . Postage Charges 55.01 Copying Charge 351.08 Mileage 54.00 Photocopies 79.90 Long Distance Telephone Charges . . .

E. GARRIS, v. G. F. ROWLAND,, 678 F.2d 1264 (5th Cir. 1982)

. . . relief in the form of $40,000 compensatory damages, $20,000 punitive damages, and pursuant to Article 55.01 . . . stipulated at trial that the facts of this- case would support an order of expunction pursuant to Article 55.01 . . . resolve an issue which both parties agreed was controlled and could be disposed of pursuant to Article 55.01 . . . Article 55.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: “Art. 55.01. . . .

J. v., 73 T.C. 736 (T.C. 1980)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, pars. 55.01-55.09 (2d ed. 1976); 10 C. Wright & A. . . .

GRAVES v. BARNES REGESTER v. BULLOCK MARRIOTT v. SMITH, ARCHER v. SMITH A. ESCALANTE v. WHITE GASKIN v. WHITE L. CHAPMAN v. W. WHITE, Jr., 446 F. Supp. 560 (W.D. Tex. 1977)

. . . That part of Tarrant County included in census tracts 42.02, 54.01, 54.02, 55.01, 55.02, 55.03, 55.04 . . .

H. McLELLAN, v. MISSISSIPPI POWER LIGHT COMPANY,, 545 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1977)

. . . Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction §§ 55.01-.03 (1973). . See note 22 supra. . . . .

PITTS, v. CATES v. D. BUSBEE,, 536 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55.01 . . .

BLASS, Sr. B. v. UNITED STATES BLASS, Jr. W. v. UNITED STATES BLASS, II, B. v. UNITED STATES, 344 F. Supp. 669 (E.D. Ark. 1972)

. . . on a fair market basis, amounted to $49.80; that said valuation for January 15, 1919, amounted to $55.01 . . .

In MARINE SULPHUR TRANSPORT CORPORATION, As As VESSEL MARINE SULPHUR QUEEN. In TEXAS GULF SULPHUR COMPANY, As, 312 F. Supp. 1081 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)

. . . The hogging numeral on all fully loaded voyages varied from 47.63 and 55.01. . . .

MRS. WALTER E. KALINOWSKI v. THE UNITED STATES, 151 Ct. Cl. 172 (Ct. Cl. 1960)

. . . Marquise ring with four large diamonds, three sapphires, and small diamonds.. 230 55.01 70.00 ! . . .

In ELLIS ELLIS v. HARKNESS TOWLER, 143 F. 103 (8th Cir. 1906)

. . . Boiler Company, and Voightmann & Co., alleging that they had provable claims amounting respectively to $55.01 . . .