Cases from cite.case.law:

In WHITE, v., 243 B.R. 498 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1999)

. . . Payments were then established at $402.20 per month. Mr. . . .

HERCULES INCORPORATED, v. UNITED STATES,, 26 Cl. Ct. 662 (Cl. Ct. 1992)

. . . . § 402.20). . . .

AT T TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 18 Cl. Ct. 315 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . CAS 402.20 states: “Adherence to these cost accounting concepts is necessary to guard against the overcharging . . . of some cost objectives and to prevent double counting.” 4 C.F.R. § 402.20. . . .

BOEING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 680 F.2d 132 (Ct. Cl. 1982)

. . . Boeing also claims that the assessment base method violates the anti-double counting provision in 402.20 . . . , 4 C.F.R. § 402.20 (1981). . . .

THE BOEING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 230 Ct. Cl. 663 (Ct. Cl. 1982)

. . . Boeing also claims that the assessment base method violates the anti-double counting provision in 402.20 . . . , 4 C.F.R. § 402.20 (1981). . . .

UNITED STATES BEARD, Jr. v. T. RUNDLE,, 434 F.2d 588 (3d Cir. 1970)

. . . With the fee of $300 which I should have received, I would be entitled to the sum of $402.20. . . .

VULCANITE PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 74 Ct. Cl. 692 (Ct. Cl. 1931)

. . . thereupon decided that plaintiff, after deducting set-offs in favor of defendant in the amount of $402.20 . . .

CITY OF CLEVELAND v. UNITED STATES CUNNINGHAM, 127 F. 667 (6th Cir. 1904)

. . . special directions were as follows: “(1) That the defendant below be required to pay over the sum of $402.20 . . . a judgment in accordance therewith was entered in the Circuit Court. ■ The defendant paid over the $402.20 . . .

CITY OF CLEVELAND, TENN. v. UNITED STATES, 111 F. 341 (6th Cir. 1901)

. . . .’ ” 'The proper judgment is this: (i) That the defendant below be required to pay over the sum of $402.20 . . .