Cases from cite.case.law:

GRABBA- LEAF, LLC, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,, 257 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 210.75, Fla. Stat. . . .

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, LLC, Mr. Dr. Dr. Dr., 771 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 210.75 (hereinafter, the enforcement proceeding). . . .

UNITED STATES Ex REL. M. SCHELL, v. BATTLE CREEK HEALTH SYSTEM, a, 419 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2005)

. . . quantity listing of two); J.A. at 189 (Patient D itemized statement listing total pharmacy charges of $210.75 . . .

VASTFAME CAMERA, LTD. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Co., 386 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 210.75(b), constituted an investigation under § 1337(b) because that is the only provision that authorizes . . . Similarly, the Commission cites Rule 210.75(b), under which the enforcement proceeding was conducted. . . . however, that section concerns only cease and desist orders and cannot provide the authority for Rule 210.75 . . . argument made with respect to each of these statutory provisions that the authority to promulgate Rule 210.75 . . .

SAN HUAN NEW MATERIALS HIGH TECH, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, YBM, 161 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

. . . Section 210.75 of 19 C.F.R. provides for an enforcement hearing, and court enforcement of a consent order . . . , as follows: § 210.75(b) Formal enforcement proceedings. (3) The Commission, in the course of a formal . . . The Commission replies that Rule 210.75 does not mandate in every case a full hearing-only because in . . . D We conclude that an action brought in the district court under 19 C.F.R. § 210.75(c), implementing . . . Part 210 includes Rule 210.75(b) and (c), which implement the Commission’s authority under § 337(f)(2 . . .

A. ZEFFIRO v. FIRST PENNSYLVANIA BANK, N. A. v. CAPITAL FIRST CORPORATION, M. BERNARD, Jr. v. FIRST PENNSYLVANIA BANK, N. A. v. CAPITAL FIRST CORPORATION,, 574 F. Supp. 443 (E.D. Pa. 1983)

. . . Anthony 210.75 327.60 53.75 2.55 489.50 67.10 1,151.25 James P. . . .

GINGRAS, v. LLOYD,, 585 F. Supp. 684 (D. Conn. 1983)

. . . Thus, the court finds that 210.75 hours were reasonably spent by plaintiffs’ attorneys on this litigation . . . CONCLUSION Plaintiffs’ counsel are entitled to an award of fees for 210.75 hours at the “break point" . . .