Cases from cite.case.law:

VERIDIAN CREDIT UNION, v. EDDIE BAUER, LLC,, 295 F. Supp. 3d 1140 (W.D. Wash. 2017)

. . . Pattern Jury Instructions: Civil 60.03, at 481 (2005) (WPI) ). . . .

POPE v. COUNTY OF ALBANY, 94 F. Supp. 3d 302 (N.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Remedial Plan District DOJ Black VAP Hispanic VAP Combined VAP 2 54.03% 7.88% 61.91% 3 53.91% 6.12% 60.03% . . .

In LOZADA RIVERA,, 470 B.R. 109 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2012)

. . . See 12-60 Moore’s Federal Practice Civil § 60.03. Also see United States v. $23,000 in U.S. . . .

In JACK KLINE CO. INC. d b a, 440 B.R. 712 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 60.03[4], at 60-24 (3d ed. 1998)). . . .

BAUER, v. T. SHEPARD,, 620 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2010)

. . . contribution, a judge or candidate for judicial office should also be mindful of the requirements of SCR 60.03 . . .

MARYLAND ENTERPRISE, L. L. C. v. UNITED STATES,, 93 Fed. Cl. 658 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

. . . See Maryland Enterprise, 91 Fed.Cl. at 530-31; see also 12 MOORE’S Federal PRACTICE § 60.03[5] (3d ed . . .

SIEFERT, v. C. ALEXANDER,, 608 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2010)

. . . In fact, Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 60.03(2) prohibits improper use of the visibility and prestige . . . contribution, a judge or candidate for judicial office should also be mindful of the requirements of SCR 60.03 . . . identifying himself as “Judge” is dubious (he would be prohibited from using his title anyway by SCR 60.03 . . .

BENSON, MD OB GYN PA, v. ST. JOSEPH REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER St. St. G. MD Dr. W. Jr. Dr. B. Dr. R. Dr. H. Jr. Dr. G. RN Dr. F. C. A., 575 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.03[4], at 60-24 (3d ed.1998)). . . .

SIEFERT, v. C. ALEXANDER, a a R. a A. a A. a a R. a M. a, 597 F. Supp. 2d 860 (W.D. Wis. 2009)

. . . litigation and legislative action” under provisions regarding “the appearance of impropriety,” SCR 60.03 . . . E.g., SCR 60.03(2) (“A judge may not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence . . .

HERNANDEZ, KROONE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 85 Fed. Cl. 662 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . States, 76 Fed.Cl. 315, 317 (2007) (citing 12 James William Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.03 . . .

RIVERA AGREDANO, v. UNITED STATES,, 76 Fed. Cl. 315 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

. . . final judgments, orders, or proceedings.” 12 James William Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.03 . . .

KENNY A. WINN, v. PERDUE,, 454 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (N.D. Ga. 2006)

. . . for a discovery conference before Judge Goger in Fulton Superior Court before this case was removed, 60.03 . . .

GEORGIA, v. ASHCROFT,, 195 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . Benchmark H.D. 56 41,311 24.801 32,393 17,724 _(60.03%)_(54.72%) Proposed H.D. 51 43,675 25,162 34,793 . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. SRNSKY M., 271 F.3d 595 (4th Cir. 2001)

. . . Skaggs, 79 W.Va. 645, 91 S.E. 536, 537-38 (1917); see also 7 Thompson, Real Property § 60.03(b)(4)®, . . .

ROACH v. WEST INDIES INV. CO. C. v., 94 F. Supp. 2d 634 (D.V.I. 2000)

. . . Powell, Powell on Real PROPERTY § 60.03 (1999) [hereinafter “Powell”]; see also Neal v. . . . Loch Haven Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 413 So.2d 28, 29 (Fla.1982); Powell, supra, at § 60.03. . . .

HALICKI, v. LOUISIANA CASINO CRUISES, INC d b a, 151 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 1998)

. . . in support of the Rule 59(e) motion would also support Rule 60(b) relief.” 12 MooRE et al., supra, § 60.03 . . .

A. BURKE, C. v. WARREN COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT, C., 916 F. Supp. 181 (N.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.03[4] (2d ed. 1995). . . .

SPECIALIZED SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 792 F. Supp. 577 (M.D. Tenn. 1992)

. . . Symons ed. 1941), and in 15 Jacob Mertens, Jr., The Law of Federal Income Taxation § 60.03 (1992). . . .

BELTWAY MANAGEMENT CO. t u o v. LEXINGTON- LANDMARK INSURANCE COMPANY,, 746 F. Supp. 1145 (D.D.C. 1990)

. . . Bal Harbour Club, Inc., 509 So.2d at 943; see also 3 Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 60.03, at . . .

In AMERICAN PRECISION VIBRATOR COMPANY, AMERICAN PRECISION VIBRATOR COMPANY, v. NATIONAL AIR VIBRATOR CO., 863 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . Groether, 6A Moore's Federal Practice and Procedure ¶ 60.03[1], at 60-17 (1987). . . .

In AMERICAN PRECISION VIBRATOR COMPANY, AMERICAN PRECISION VIBRATOR COMPANY, v. NATIONAL AIR VIBRATOR CO., 863 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . Groether, 6A Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure ¶ 60.03[1], at 60-17 (1987). . . .

UNITED STATES VA v. BEKHRAD,, 672 F. Supp. 1529 (S.D. Iowa 1987)

. . . to recover losses sustained as a result of fraud against government); see generally 3 Sutherland § 60.03 . . .

W. GROVES, v. MODIFIED RETIREMENT PLAN FOR HOURLY PAID EMPLOYEES OF JOHNS MANVILLE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES,, 803 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1986)

. . . expense of another will appear remedial to the former and penal to the latter. 3 Sands, supra, at § 60.03 . . .

R. E. RODGERS v. G. WATT,, 722 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1983)

. . . Jackson Tool & Die, Inc., 426 F.2d 5 (5th Cir.1970); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.03[9] (2nd ed. . . .

BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, a a v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,, 707 F.2d 1147 (10th Cir. 1983)

. . . Von Kalinowski, Antitrust Law and Trade Regulation §§ 60.03(4), 61.02, 61.07[2]. . . .

In DAHLBERG R. MARCUS, v. SAM T. DAVIS FARMS, INC., 681 F.2d 546 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . Moore, supra, page 763, ¶ 60.03. . . .

In DAHLBERG R. MARCUS, v. SAM T. DAVIS FARMS, INC., 681 F.2d 546 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . Moore, supra, page 763, ¶ 60.03. . . .

Dr. BRADEN v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH W., 552 F.2d 948 (3d Cir. 1977)

. . . But see 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.03[9] at 4039 (1975), wherein Professor Moore indicates that . . .

D. COVEY, a H. v. C. I. T. CORPORATION, a R. CONWAY, v. C. I. T. CORPORATION, a, 71 F.R.D. 487 (E.D. Okla. 1975)

. . . American Express Co., 190 F.2d 334 (C.A. 2, 1951); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.03[4] (2 ed. 1964 . . .

EXPEDITIONS UNLIMITED AQUATIC ENTERPRISES, INC. v. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE, 500 F.2d 808 (D.C. Cir. 1974)

. . . Jackson Tool & Die, Inc., 426 F.2d 5 (5th Cir. 1970); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.03[9] (2nd ed. . . .

In W. No. TIME OIL COMPANY, v. W. WOLVERTON,, 491 F.2d 361 (9th Cir. 1974)

. . . with the giving (or receipt) of a mere preference; . . . .” 3 Collier on Bankruptcy (14 ed.), Sec. 60.03 . . .

v. v., 60 T.C. 141 (T.C. 1973)

. . . estop one in an individual capacity and vice versa.” 10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 60.03 . . .

CONERLY L. v. FLOWER,, 410 F.2d 941 (8th Cir. 1969)

. . . See generally 6A Moore, Federal Practice 60.03 (2d ed. 1966). . . .

J. GONG, E. v. BRYANT,, 230 F. Supp. 917 (S.D. Fla. 1964)

. . . Fourth 482,968 1.17 to 1 or + 17.04% Fifth 377,421 .91 to 1 or — S.53% Sixth 660,335 1.6 to 1 or + 60.03% . . .

ROSOF, A. v. ROTH,, 169 F. Supp. 707 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)

. . . fraudulent conveyances or transfers was graphically stated as follows in Yol. 3, Collier on Bankruptcy, Jf, 60.03 . . .

CROSLEY CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES, 229 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1956)

. . . Commissioner, supra, 31 B.T.A. 344, 348; Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, Vol. 10A, Sec. 60.03 . . .

ROSS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 169 F.2d 483 (1st Cir. 1948)

. . . Tide Water Oil Co., 1934, 29 B.T.A. 1208; see 10 Mertens, supra, § 60.03. . . . Co., 2 Cir., 1934, 72 F.2d 274; see 10 Mertens, supra, § 60.03. In the Brooklyn City R. . . . Co., supra; see 10 Mertens, supra, § 60.03. But cf. Commissioner v. . . .

THE B B NO. IRA S. BUSHEY SONS, INC. v. THE B B NO., 70 F. Supp. 578 (E.D.N.Y. 1947)

. . . Ill, §§ 60.02, 60.03, 60.04; and Thompson v. . . .

DAVIES WAREHOUSE CO. v. BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, 321 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1944)

. . . .; South Dakota Code (1939) c. 60.03; Texas Stat. . . .

McGINN v. UNITED STATES, 2 F.R.D. 562 (D. Mass. 1942)

. . . the courts had power to correct errors in judgments and decrees. 3 Moore, Federal Practice, §§ 60.02, 60.03 . . . Co., 6 Cir., 155 F. 524; 3 Moore, Federal Practice, § 60.03 p. 3266. . . .

PREVEDEN v. HAHN, 36 F. Supp. 952 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)

. . . Moore Federal Practice, Volume 3, Sections 60.01, 60.03, and 60.04. In United States v. . . .

Co., 5 B.T.A. 637 (B.T.A. 1926)

. . . The consideration given for this stock was the patents of The Pay-Within Car Company and 60.03 per cent . . . value of the capital stock of The Pay-Within Car Company at the date acquired by the taxpayer, plus (b) 60.03 . . . In accordance with the stipulation, it is found that 60.03 per cent of the value of the patents acquired . . . . — On March 1, 1911, the petitioner exchanged 60.03 per cent of the patents acquired from the Burdett-Rowntree . . . Pay-Within Car Co. $112,980.63 (computed in the manner outlined above), and computed the cost and value of 60.03 . . . per cent interest in the patents acquired from the Burdett-Rowntree Manufacturing Co. at 60.03 per cent . . . Oo., given as part consideration (60.03%X$162,610.88)_ 07,615.31 Value of stock of Prepayment Car Sales . . . value of the capital stock of The Pay-Within Car Co. at the date acquired by the taxpayer, plus (b) 60.03 . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)