Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE M. MCDOWELL, M. v. U. S., 549 B.R. 744 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2016)

. . . ECMC points out that an additional $115.13 on line 5(e) of schedule I is likely a duplicate. . . .

D. ZOLLICOFFER v. LIVINGSTON,, 169 F. Supp. 3d 687 (S.D. Tex. 2016)

. . . . § 115.13 (requiring “adequate levels of staffing,' and, where applicable, video monitoring, to protect . . .

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 81 Fed. Cl. 682 (Fed. Cl. 2008)

. . . This differs from the current regulation, § 115.13(e), which does not include alterations in the contract . . .

DUNN, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., 589 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1978)

. . . made at any time on the motion of any party, even at the appellate level. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 115.13 . . .

W. J. USERY, Jr. v. MARQUETTE CEMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,, 568 F.2d 902 (2d Cir. 1977)

. . . Moore, supra, 115.13[2], at 992. . . .

ORR G. v. UNITED STATES, 226 F. Supp. 809 (M.D. Ala. 1963)

. . . Orr, filed a joint return and claimed a charitable contribution of $24,-115.13. . . .

FARMERS NAT. BANK OF BURLINGTON, KAN. v. PRIBBLE, 15 F.2d 175 (8th Cir. 1926)

. . . On that day the People’s National Bank held cheeks and drafts against the Farmers’ Bank aggregating $115.13 . . . amount of the cheeks and drafts held by the Farmers’ Bank against it, and the Farmers’ Bank paid this $115.13 . . . It received no fund or money through the clearance, but paid to the People’s Bank the balance, $115.13 . . . On the other hand, it expended $115.13 to make the clearance by means of which it used this draft to . . .