Cases from cite.case.law:

CURCI VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MARIA,, 14 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 30.03 requires each unit owner to comply with the provisions of the declaration. . . . prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 718.303, Florida Statutes, and section 30.03 . . .

COVELLI FAMILY, L. P. a d b a v. L. L. C. a L. L. C. a, 977 So. 2d 749 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Section 30.03 of the lease governs "holding over.” . . .

v., 31 Ct. Int'l Trade 1999 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . preparations, however, intended for the prevention or treatment of diseases or ailments are excluded (heading 30.03 . . .

MAXCELL BIOSCIENCE, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . preparations, however, intended for the prevention or treatment of diseases or ailments are excluded (heading 30.03 . . .

L. WEISMUELLER, v. KOSUBUCKI, H. A. J. M. E. T. F. L. D. S. P. N. D. B., 492 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (W.D. Wis. 2007)

. . . SCR 30.03. . . .

CITIZENS FOR BETTER FORESTRY, v. U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, v., 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . excluded from documentation in an EIS or an EA unless scoping indicates extraordinary circumstances (sec.30.03 . . .

BUCCIARELLI- TIEGER, v. VICTORY RECORDS, INC., 488 F. Supp. 2d 702 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 30.03(a) and Form 30.03(a)(1) (2006). . . .

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES, Co. v., 75 Fed. Cl. 557 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 30.03[5] at 30-23 (3d ed.2006), the breadth of RCFC 30(a)—“any person . . . Riverview Narrow Fabrics, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 83, 84 (M.D.N.C.1987) (same); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 30.03 . . .

SANTA- ROSA, v. COMBO RECORDS,, 471 F.3d 224 (1st Cir. 2006)

. . . See generally 6 David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 30.03 (2006) ("Copyright ownership of the physical . . .

BROWN, III, v. C. FLOWERS, a k a, 196 F. App'x 178 (4th Cir. 2006)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 30.03 (2003) [hereinafter Nimmer ] (“Copyright ownership . . .

WARNER- LAMBERT COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 425 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

. . . insecticidal, fungicidal or similar purposes, states: “the term ‘medica-ments’ within the meaning of heading 30.03 . . .

DIRECTV, INC. v. GOLLY,, 392 F. Supp. 2d 419 (N.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Allowed Member_Rate_Hours_Amount Rate Hours Amount Attorney Aieta, $400 0.143 $ 57.20 $210 0.143 $ 30.03 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ALLEN,, 116 F. App'x 210 (10th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 30.03 (5th ed.) (2004) (citing Parsons, as well as United States v. . . . Jury Prac. & Instr. § 30.03, with James B. . . .

THE GLOBE SAVINGS BANK, F. S. B. v. UNITED STATES,, 61 Fed. Cl. 91 (Fed. Cl. 2004)

. . . See generally 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 30.03[2], at 30-20 to 30-21, § 32.21[2][c], at 32-26 to 32 . . . Lines, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 521, 523 (D.Utah 2003) (applying similar factors); I Moore’s Federal Practice % 30.03 . . . responsibilities of the individual respecting the matters involved in the litigation. 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 30.03 . . .

ULLOA, v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC AND VIDEO DISTRIBUTION CORP. A- LLC d b a Z, 303 F. Supp. 2d 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 30.03 (2003) (“Copyright ownership of the physical embodiment . . .

ANALYTIC RECRUITING, INC. v. ANALYTIC RESOURCES, LLC,, 156 F. Supp. 2d 499 (E.D. Pa. 2001)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §§ 30.01-30.03 (3d ed.1996)). . . .

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY, v. VILLANOVA ALUMNI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC., 123 F. Supp. 2d 293 (E.D. Pa. 2000)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §§ 30.01-30.03 (3d.ed.1996). . . .

R. SHANDS, Jr. v. PURKETT,, 211 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 2000)

. . . addition, he failed to seek leave to file an appeal out-of-time pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 30.03 . . .

L. FULLER, v. BOWERSOX, 202 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir. 2000)

. . . R.Crim.P. 30.03, Mo.S.CtR.Civ.P. 81.07(a). The state appellate court denied the motion. IV. Mr. . . .

SPARTON CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 44 Fed. Cl. 557 (Fed. Cl. 1999)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 30.03[5] at 30-24 (3d ed.1997). . . .

REED, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,, 185 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 1999)

. . . Because of this fact, Reed tendered Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (“IPI”) 30.03 which states: If . . . IPI 30.01, 30.03. . . . The case law in Illinois overwhelmingly supports Reed’s position that IPI 30.03 and 30.21 should have . . . Pyramid Elec., Inc., 281 Ill.App.3d 545, 217 Ill.Dec. 374, 667 N.E.2d 167 (1996) (combination of IPI 30.03 . . . Given the case law in Illinois, we hold that IPI 30.03 and 30.21 correctly state the law in Illinois. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HOLLAND Sr. Jr., 34 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D. Va. 1999)

. . . Two of the elements of this offense are outlined in Devitt, Blackmar, Sec. 30.03, as follows: “... . . .

F. FROEBEL, v. E. MEYER,, 13 F. Supp. 2d 843 (E.D. Wis. 1998)

. . . . § 30.03, enjoining the DNR to perform remedial actions with respect to Funk’s Dam and sediment loading . . . Section 30.03(2), Wis.Stat., authorizes the district attorney or the attorney general (if requested by . . . Section 30.03(4)(a), Wis.Stat., gives the DNR the authority to "request the hearing examiner to issue . . . These were, variously, Wis.Stat. § 30.03(4)(A), § 227.57(5), § 227.57(8), and § 227.57(9). . . . .

In ELDER- BEERMAN STORES CORP. ELDER- BEERMAN STORES CORP. v. THOMASVILLE FURNITURE INDUS. INC., 206 B.R. 142 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1997)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Manual § 30.03[2]). . . .

GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. AMERICAN GUARDIAN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, 943 F. Supp. 509 (E.D. Pa. 1996)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §§'30.01-30.03 (3d ed. 1996) (hereinafter . . .

SUNAMERICA CORPORATION, a f k a a v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, a U. S. a, 77 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 1996)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 30.03[1] (4th ed. 1995) (quoting ALPO . . .

v., 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 374 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993)

. . . For the purposes of headings Nos. 30.03 and 30.04 and of Note 3(d) to this Chapter, the following are . . .

In GRAND TRAVERSE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, In GRAND TRAVERSE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. In GRAND TRAVERSE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPERS, INC. GRAND TRAVERSE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GENERAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF CITY OF DETROIT, GRS Co. COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GENERAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF CITY OF DETROIT, GRS Co., 150 B.R. 176 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1993)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Manual § 30.03[2]: Under Rule 56(a), (d), and Rule 42(b), the district court exercises . . .

PURDY, v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,, 968 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1992)

. . . In 1975, it adopted Rule 30.03 (now Rule 31.3) to prohibit fraud in leverage transactions. . . .

McKENZIE, v. KEMNA,, 786 F. Supp. 817 (W.D. Mo. 1992)

. . . late notice of appeal from his conviction in the trial court pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 30.03 . . . late notice of appeal from his conviction in the trial court pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 30.03 . . . However, petitioner is mistaken when he construes Missouri Supreme Court Rule 30.03 under his fact situation . . . Rule 30.03 states: Where the defendant or the state has the right of appeal including appeals from an . . . Mo.R.Cr.P.Rule 30.03 (emphasis added). . . .

UNITED STATES, v. W. YOUNG,, 955 F.2d 99 (1st Cir. 1992)

. . . O’Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal §§ 30.03-04, at 238-50 (4th ed. 1990) (embezzlement . . .

A. JONES, Jr. v. ARMONTROUT,, 953 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1992)

. . . Ct.R. 30.03. . . .

WISE, v. ARMONTROUT,, 952 F.2d 221 (8th Cir. 1991)

. . . Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 28.07 (superseded by Rule 30.03), an appellate court may enter a special . . .

UNITED STATES v. LEONARD,, 868 F.2d 1393 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 30.03 (Vernon 1989). This offense, however, is not a felony. It is a Class A misdemeanor. . . . Id. at § 30.03(c). . . .

UNITED STATES v. MOLINA- URIBE,, 853 F.2d 1193 (5th Cir. 1988)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice II 30.03(1) at 30-10 (2d Ed. 1987). . . .

PENNINGTON, II, v. ARMONTROUT,, 659 F. Supp. 145 (W.D. Mo. 1987)

. . . The response filed by the Attorney General on April 14, 1987 attached a copy of the petitioner’s Rule 30.03 . . . The exhibits attached to petitioner’s Rule 30.03 motion and the other documentary evidence before the . . . Rule 30.03 Motion, Exhibit A. . . . Rule 30.03 Motion, Exhibit A. Mr. . . . It is conceded that the latter court denied petitioner’s Rule 30.03 motion on March 4, 1987. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. WOODS,, 812 F.2d 1483 (4th Cir. 1987)

. . . Black population of South Carolina is 30.03 percent. U.S. . . .

VILLAGE PARK MOBILE HOME ASSOCIATION, INC. a v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND MOBILE HOMES,, 506 So. 2d 426 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . .-011(l)(b); Rule 7D-30.03, Florida Administrative Code. . . . See Rule 7D-30.03, Florida Administrative Code. . . .

STERMAN K. v. FERRO CORPORATION W. M. N. A. E. O G., 785 F.2d 162 (6th Cir. 1986)

. . . the district court observed, there was no evidence that the parties considered and/or treated the $30.03 . . .

GUMZ, v. MORRISSETTE, 772 F.2d 1395 (7th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 30.03 (1979), states that “All forfeitures shall be recovered by civil action as provided in ch. . . . that a “forfeiture” of $100 was sought m the Wisconsin Circuit Court (Defendants’ App. 385) under § 30.03 . . . Neither Wis.Stat. § 30.20(l)(b) nor Wis.Stat. § 30.03(3) authorized the seizure of Gumz’ property. . . . The enforcement section, § 30.03, also provides that where the "public interest may not be adequately . . . Wis.Stat. § 30.03(4)(a), (b). . . .

CLIFFORD, v. WHITE,, 562 F. Supp. 387 (W.D. Mo. 1983)

. . . Circuit Court of Caldwell County but may yet seek leave to file a late notice of appeal under Rule 30.03 . . . To that end, the State stated its willingness to join with the petitioner in a Rule 30.03 V. . . .

UNITED STATES v. G. RICHARDSON,, 687 F.2d 952 (7th Cir. 1982)

. . . Section 30.03 (“Essential Elements”) says that the government must prove two essential elements: First . . .

FIRST COMMODITY CORP. OF BOSTON v COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,, 676 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982)

. . . . §§ 32.9 (options contracts) and 30.03 (leverage contracts) (1981). . . .

BRUNSON, v. R. HIGGINS,, 542 F. Supp. 216 (W.D. Mo. 1982)

. . . right to request special leave of this Court to file a Notice of Appeal out of time pursuant to Rule 30.03 . . . Respondent recognizes that the last date on which a Rule 30.03 V.A.M.R. motion could have been filed . . . A Rule 30.03 motion is therefore no longer “available.” . . . a motion for leave of court to file a late notice of appeal would have been timely pursuant to Rule 30.03 . . . hold that petitioner did not deliberately bypass available State remedies by failing to file a Rule 30.03 . . .

In BRADA MILLER FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. BRADA MILLER FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. In BRADA MILLER FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA No. No. G. v. BRADA MILLER FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., 16 B.R. 1002 (N.D. Ala. 1981)

. . . Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, paragraph 30.03, at p. 3-315. . . .

UNITED STATES v. PRIESKORN,, 658 F.2d 631 (8th Cir. 1981)

. . . elicited from government witnesses either on direct or cross-examination.” 8A Moore’s Federal Practice K 30.03 . . .

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, v. PREMEX, INC., 655 F.2d 779 (7th Cir. 1981)

. . . Savage, 611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1979), supports its claim that Rule 30.03 requires scienter. . . . . §§ 6b, 6o (1976), and not Rule 30.03(b). . . . Rule 30.03, on the other hand, contains no similar provisions. . . . The initial complaint itself charges defendants with, inter alia, violations of Rule 30.03. . . . Rule 30.03 provides as follows: 30.03 Fraud in connection with certain transactions in silver or gold . . .

UNITED STATES BARKSDALE, v. BLACKBURN,, 610 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . derived for the years 1954-1962: Year Total Parish Population Total Black % Black 1954 160,906 48,338 30.03% . . . Year % Black in General Population % Black on Grand Jury Venire Disparity 1954 30.03% 11.33% 18.70% 1955 . . .

UNITED STATES v. LYLES,, 593 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1979)

. . . Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 937, 95 S.Ct. 207, 42 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974); 8A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 30.03 . . .

In An COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, v. FIRST NATIONAL BULLION CORP. a, 461 F. Supp. 659 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)

. . . . §§ 6b, 6c(b), 6d, 6h, 6m, and 6o, and Regulations 30.03, 32.9, and 32.11 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 30.03 . . .

UNITED STATES v. F. W. STANDEFER, 452 F. Supp. 1178 (W.D. Pa. 1978)

. . . It has been pointed out that Professor Moore (8A Moore’s Fed.Prac. 30.03(2) 1976) has stated with respect . . .

UNITED STATES v. P. GREZO, T. D L., 566 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1977)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 30.03[1], n.14 (2d ed. 1955). . . .

REED, III, v. A. RHODES, 422 F. Supp. 708 (N.D. Ohio 1976)

. . . terms of racial consequence, in the period from 1940-41, Beehive’s black percentage rose from 23.02% to 30.03% . . . the Beehive student population, its 1941 black percentage would have risen only to 25.5%, rather than 30.03% . . .

UNITED STATES v. O. BROWN,, 540 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1976)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶30.03[l] (2d ed. 1976). . . .

UNITED STATES v. GOFF, UNITED STATES v. R. RICHARDSON,, 509 F.2d 825 (5th Cir. 1975)

. . . The appellants’ statistics demonstrated that in the Eastern District only 30.03% of the food stamp recipients . . .

UNITED STATES v. R. NANCE, II, N., 502 F.2d 615 (8th Cir. 1974)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice j[ 30.03[ 1] at 30-5 (2d ed. 1973). See also United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN RADIATOR STANDARD SANITARY CORPORATION, Co. Co. J. J. R. E. B. S. J. Jr. W. AMERICAN STANDARD, INC. KOHLER COMPANY, BORG- WARNER CORPORATION, J. DECKER, J. QUINN, R. HELD, 433 F.2d 174 (3d Cir. 1970)

. . . See 8 Moore’s Federal'Practice," Paragraphs 30.03 [1] and '•[2] (.1969). •’ The appellants further contend-that . . .

UNITED STATES v. TOURINE, 428 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1970)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶30.03[1] (2d ed. 1969). . . . See id. at ¶30.03[2]. . . .

W. PIEL, v. H. FALKNER,, 426 F.2d 412 (C.C.P.A. 1970)

. . . Moore Federal Practice 30.03 [11] (2d ed. 1953). . . .

W. v. H., 57 C.C.P.A. 1132 (C.C.P.A. 1970)

. . . Moore Federal Practice ¶30.03[11] (2d ed. 1953). . . .

UNITED STATES v. ENGLISH,, 409 F.2d 200 (3d Cir. 1969)

. . . Rule 30, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, see 8 Moore’s Federal Practice, Para. 30.03 [1]. . . .

UNITED STATES D. SLIGH M. L. d b a v. FULLERTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 296 F. Supp. 518 (D.S.C. 1968)

. . . cooling towers, make-up water to cooling towers, and drains from blow-off tank and fuel oil tank.” 30.03 . . .

STRUTHERS SCIENTIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, v. GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION,, 290 F. Supp. 122 (S.D. Tex. 1968)

. . . witnesses in time for plaintiff to prepare for cross-examination. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, para. 30.03 . . .

In IRA HAUPT CO. a KNAPP, S. H. L. v. SELIGSON, Co. Co. s Co., 398 F.2d 607 (2d Cir. 1968)

. . . In re Prindible, 115 F.2d 21, 24-25 (3 Cir. 1940); 2 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 30.03. . . .

HARDIN, MAYOR OF TAZEWELL, v. KENTUCKY UTILITIES CO., 390 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)

. . . Compare generally 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 30.03 (1958); Jaffe, Judicial Review: Question . . .

In HARDY,, 287 F. Supp. 40 (S.D. Ohio 1967)

. . . See 9 Collier on Bankruptcy, 14th Ed., § 30.03, p. 716.” (Pages 825-826.) . . .

CUYUNA REALTY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 382 F.2d 298 (Ct. Cl. 1967)

. . . reasonable belief at the time that it would be repaid. 5 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 30.03 . . .

CUYUNA REALTY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 180 Ct. Cl. 879 (Ct. Cl. 1967)

. . . reasonable belief at the time that it would be repaid. 5 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 30.03 . . .

UNITED STATES v. W. HENDERSON, Jr. R., 375 F.2d 36 (5th Cir. 1967)

. . . See Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 30.03. . . .

AMERICAN PROCESSING AND SALES COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 371 F.2d 842 (Ct. Cl. 1967)

. . . must have been advanced with reasonable belief at the time that it would be repaid. 5 Mertens, sec. 30.03 . . .

MOORE, v. UNITED STATES, 356 F.2d 39 (5th Cir. 1966)

. . . . ¶30.03 [2] and ¶30.04. . . . .

THOMAS, v. UNITED STATES, 327 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1964)

. . . Jury Pattern Instructions 30.03, Watkins v. Town of Cicero, 312 Ill.App. 380, 37 N. . . .

HUBENY BROTHERS, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 161 Ct. Cl. 838 (Ct. Cl. 1963)

. . . reconciliation that defendant’s officials desired, it would have shown that, except for one possible item of $30.03 . . . However, there is no satisfactory explanation in any of defendant’s records as to the $30.03 item. . . .

J. Jo v., 37 T.C. 882 (T.C. 1962)

. . . See 5 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 30.03, p. 10. . . .

LOCAL UAW- AFL- CIO, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. KOHLER COMPANY, KOHLER COMPANY, a v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,, 300 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1962)

. . . See generally 4 Davis, Administrative Law § 30.03 (1958).' . Cf. National Labor Relations Board v. . . .

L. RICE, D. v. D. MIMMS, In D. MIMMS,, 291 F.2d 823 (10th Cir. 1961)

. . . See 9 Collier on Bankruptcy, 14th Ed., § 30.03, p. 716. . . .

UNITED STATES v. WESSEL DUVAL CO. THE EDWARD RUTLEDGE, 123 F. Supp. 318 (S.D.N.Y. 1954)

. . . “scattered clouds, easterly wind, force 2-3, barometer 30.03”; and at 8 A.M. and 12 N. . . .

CHERO v. COMPANIA MARITIMA HARI LTDA. PANAMA, S. A., 15 F.R.D. 110 (S.D.N.Y. 1953)

. . . Civ.P. 30(a), 4 Moore’s Fed.Prac., 2d Ed., para. 30.03, [6] p. 2019, enough is disclosed by the motion . . .

BRANYAN v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ BARROWS v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ GRATKE v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ WERKLEY v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ, 13 F.R.D. 425 (S.D.N.Y. 1953)

. . . Volume 4, § 30.03(6). Cf. Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Edition. . . .

DOMINION NATIONAL BANK v. HALE DOMINION NATIONAL BANK v. HENSLEE, 87 F. Supp. 709 (M.D. Tenn. 1950)

. . . That plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in the amount of $30.03 for the year 1941 and interest from . . .

BRONX BARGE CORPORATION v. CONNELLY TRANSP. CORPORATION, 35 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1929)

. . . As the flotilla passed Sandy Hook, the wind was northwest 26 miles an hour; the barometer 30.03; the . . .

S. B., 36 Conn. 558 (D. Conn. 1870)

. . . in evidence, that on the 6th of November, 1867, Captain Holt was indebted to them to the amount of $30.03 . . .

FOX v. HOLT, 9 F. Cas. 630 (D. Conn. 1870)

. . . in evidence, that on the Gth of November, 1S67, Captain Holt was indebted to them to the amount of $30.03 . . .

v., 73 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1867)

. . . sale of the same, made in October, 1845, by the sheriff’ of Eitchie County, for taxes amounting to $30.03 . . . inadequate price; the land having been worth $6000, and the sale having been made to the defendant for'$30.03 . . . of Slater, for taxes due in October, 1845 (the taxes which had accrued in 1841-2-3-4), amounting to $30.03 . . .