Cases from cite.case.law:

KINNEY, v. PUTNAM COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD BY AND THROUGH HARRIS, L. III, D. III,, 253 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 104.15, Fla. Stat. . . .

DEWALD, v. WRIGGELSWORTH,, 748 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . . §§ 102.14(a), 110.11, and 104.15). . . .

HILLCREST RIVERSIDE, INC. v. SEBELIUS,, 680 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2010)

. . . ’s submission of the 1999 through 2001 cost reports, however, it adjusted the IME FTE cap upward to 104.15 . . . The hospital purportedly contacted Blue Cross to notify it that the 104.15 IME FTE count was erroneous . . . The hospital then filed cost reports for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 using the cap of 104.15 IME FTEs. . . . The plaintiff asserted that the IME FTE cap that actually applied from 1999 through 2004 was 104.15, . . . , which Blue Cross then annualized to 104.15 because the 1996 cost report covered 375 days. . . .

SEWICKLEY VALLEY HOSPITAL PA, v. O. LEAVITT,, 567 F. Supp. 2d 761 (W.D. Pa. 2008)

. . . See also Provider Reimbursement Manual (“PRM”), Ch. 1, § 104.15 (A.R.690). . . .

N. SMITH, k v. SYDNOR, Jr., 184 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 1999)

. . . the $260.31 value per share provided by the Articles of Incorporation plus the unpaid dividends of $104.15 . . .

L. URSO, v. I. URSO,, 724 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Palm Beach County and, on March 4, 1996, the court rendered an order requiring the appellant to pay $104.15 . . .

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, v. LEGI- TECH, INC., 967 F. Supp. 523 (D.D.C. 1997)

. . . . § 104.15, and it commenced an investigation. . . . The FEC has implemented this statutory provision through 11 C.F.R. § 104.15, which, in relevant part, . . . Section 104.15(c).” Id. . . . Through 11 C.F.R. § 104.15(c), and its advisory opinions, the agency has reasonably filled the gap left . . . are exempt from the prohibition of 2 U.S.C. § 438(a)(4) through the FEC’s regulation at 11 C.F.R. § 104.15 . . .

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, v. POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS DATA, INC., 995 F.2d 383 (2d Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 104.15(c) (1991). See Federal Election Comm’n v. . . . . § 104.15(c) (1991). . . .

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, v. POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS DATA, INC., 807 F. Supp. 311 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . . § 104.15(c) (the “Regulation”). Federal Election Com., 753 F.Supp. at 1129. . . . courts offered any meaningful interpretation of 2 U.S.C. § 438(a)(4) or the Regulation, 11 C.F.R. § 104.15 . . . The Court then found that the FEC had filled this gap with the Regulation, 11 C.F.R. § 104.15(c), but . . . information ... for the purpose of soliciting contributions or for other commercial purposes.” 11 C.F.R. § 104.15 . . . reports for the purpose of soliciting contributions or for other commercial purposes." 11 C.F.R. § 104.15 . . .

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, v. POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS DATA, INC., 943 F.2d 190 (2d Cir. 1991)

. . . See, 11 CFR 104.15(c); Advisory Opinion 1985-16. . . . commercial purposes"; and (3) that PCD's activities did not fall within the "media exception" of 11 C.F.R. 104.15 . . . such reports for the purpose of soliciting contributions or for other commercial purposes. 11 C.F.R. § 104.15 . . . In advisory opinion 1986-25, FEC construed the “similar communications” requirement of 11 C.F.R. § 104.15 . . . “Principal purpose" The second prong of 11 C.F.R. § 104.15(c) requires that “the principal purpose of . . .

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, v. POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS DATA, INC., 753 F. Supp. 1122 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . . § 104.15(c). . . . a)(4), than like newspaper or other traditional media publications, which are excepted, 11 C.F.R. § 104.15 . . . § 438(a)(4), or instead whether they would fall under the media exception carved out by 11 C.F.R. § 104.15 . . . The Commission construes § 104.15(c) to except media use of contributor information in such contexts . . . It also rejects PCD’s First and Fifth Amendment challenges to that provision and 11 C.F.R. 104.15(c). . . .

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, v. LEGI- TECH CORPORATION, 795 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 104.15(c) (1985). . . .

McDONELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 754 F.2d 365 (Fed. Cir. 1985)

. . . The contract with MDC contained a clause, incorporated by reference to ASPR § 7-104.15 and described . . .

SUN CITY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. d b a O. v. UNITED STATES, 624 F.2d 997 (Ct. Cl. 1980)

. . . The Hearing Officer interpreted Manual section 104.15 as articulating a general rule that for Medicare . . . We also recognize that section 104.15 literally provides that “[a]n asset is considered donated [only . . . Manual section 134.6 would allow such assets to be donated in part; Manual section 104.15 would not. . . . In addition, reading this exception into section 104.15 will allow both sections to be read harmoniously . . . Manual section 104.15. . . . .

SUN CITY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. d b a WALTER O. BOSWELL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. THE UNITED STATES, 224 Ct. Cl. 201 (Ct. Cl. 1980)

. . . The Hearing Officer interpreted Manual section 104.15 as articulating a general rule that for Medicare . . . We also recognize that section 104.15 literally provides that "[a]n asset is considered donated [only . . . Manual section 134.6 would allow such assets to be donated in part; Manual section 104.15 would not. . . . In addition, reading this exception into section 104.15 will allow both sections to be read harmoniously . . . Manual section 104.15. . . .

COLUMBUS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. a v. A. CALIFANO, Jr. a, 614 F.2d 181 (8th Cir. 1980)

. . . The Secretary argues that section 104.15 of the Provider Reimbursement Manual precludes consideration . . . Section 104.15 provides in part: An asset is considered donated when the provider acquires the asset . . . According to the Secretary, the rationale for section 104.15 is to prevent a provider from increasing . . . Section 104.15 of the Provider Reimbursement Manual, however, precludes the inclusion of any amount in . . . Section 104.15 of the Provider Reimbursement Manual is therefore “inconsistent with the regulation,” . . .

STATE v. H. BROWN, Jr., 298 So. 2d 487 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . candidacy of any person for nomination or election in any election shall give or promise. . . . ’ Section 104.15 . . .

DOYLE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES, 462 F.2d 1150 (Ct. Cl. 1972)

. . . The contract provided as paragraph 104.15: SHADE EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR FURNISHED COMPONENTS. . . . In addition to the clear language of paragraph 104.15, supra, there is substantial evidence supporting . . .

DOYLE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 199 Ct. Cl. 150 (Ct. Cl. 1972)

. . . The contract provided as paragraph 104.15: SHADE EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR FURNISHED COMPONENTS. . . . In addition to the clear language of paragraph 104.15, supra, there is substantial evidence supporting . . .

CARPENTER v. WABASH RY. CO., 103 F.2d 996 (8th Cir. 1939)

. . . the above matter, the court costs hereinbefore referred to are hereby determined to be the sum of $104.15 . . . that he shall report to the court, “(a) That said claim to the extent of $10,000.00 principal, plus $104.15 . . .

E. v., 13 B.T.A. 837 (B.T.A. 1928)

. . . stipulated that the petitioner is entitled to further deductions for depreciation of $129.47 for 1920, and $104.15 . . .