Cases from cite.case.law:

O HARA, v. DIAGEO- GUINNESS, USA, INC., 370 F. Supp. 3d 204 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . . § 13.21 ; see also § 7.20. . . . statement, design, device, or graphic, pictorial, or emblematic representation that is prohibited by §§ 7.20 . . .

REID, v. INTERNATIONAL PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES INDUSTRY PENSION PLAN,, 358 F. Supp. 3d 714 (S.D. Ohio 2019)

. . . claimed for 1971 because, when dividing his total 1971 income of $ 1,724.13 by the 1971 wage rate of $ 7.20 . . .

KASEBERG, v. CONACO, LLC O, 360 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (S.D. Cal. 2018)

. . . registration invalid and thus forecloses the availability of statutory damages.' " 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20 . . .

FRANKFURT- TRUST INVESTMENT LUXEMBURG AG, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP., 336 F. Supp. 3d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . For 2015, Hayes projected "earnings per share of somewhere between $7.00 and $7.20, that's 3% to 6% growth . . . UTC revised its 2015 forecast downward from between $7.00 and $7.20 to $6.85 to $7.05 per share. . . .

O HARA, v. DIAGEO- GUINNESS, USA, INC., 306 F. Supp. 3d 441 (D. Mass. 2018)

. . . . § 13.21(a) ; see also § 7.20 ("No person engaged in business as a brewer, wholesaler, or importer of . . .

IN RE M. JONES, III, H. H. v. M. III,, 585 B.R. 465 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2018)

. . . Keith, however, testified that he understood that a demilitarization cost of $7.20 per weapon on the . . . Defendant also testified that the demilling cost per rifle was $7.20, but he indicated that the demilling . . . In any event, sometime later, Keith learned that in addition to demilling costs of $7.20 per unit, ARMACO . . . The letter then explained the demilling cost of $7.20 for each AMD-65 parts kit, as well as the costs . . . manipulated and shipped in lots of 800 units per month after immediate payment of (1) the original $7.20 . . .

J. GREDE, v. FCSTONE, LLC, f k a GHCO, IFX IPGL, LP, ABN AMRO LLC f k a LLC,, 584 B.R. 238 (N.D. Ill. 2018)

. . . (b) of the Plan ("the Section 7.20(b) Disputed Claims Reserve"). . . . The Section 7.20(b) Disputed Claims Reserve consists of amounts withheld from distributions the Trustee . . . The balance of the Section 7.20(b) Disputed Claims Reserve is $4,567,042. . . . Reserves and the Section 7.20(b) Disputed Claims Reserve. . . . (Liquidation Plan § 7.20(c)(i), 40.) . . .

ARCHIE MD, INC. v. ELSEVIER, INC., 261 F. Supp. 3d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . See 2 Nimmer § 7.20[B][1]. . . . that, at least prospectively,- only knowing errors can serve to invalidate a certificate.” 2 Nimmer § 7.20 . . .

J. GREDE, v. FCSTONE, LLC,, 867 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2017)

. . . Section 7.20(a) then creates an exception: “Pending a determination by the Court whether the assets held . . . Section 7.20(a)(i) prescribes the “Seg 1 Property Of The Estate Reserve” as follows: On the Effective . . . address the Seg 1 Objectors’ contention that certain funds are not property of the estate, see Plan § 7.20 . . . Section 7.20(c)(i) explains how the disputed funds should be disbursed if the court “determines that . . . if a reviewing court determines that the SEG 1 reserve is not property of the estate, Section 7.20(c . . .

J. GREDE, v. FCSTONE, LLC,, 867 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2017)

. . . Section 7.20(a) then creates an exception: “Pending a determination by the Court whether the assets held . . . Section 7.20(a)(i) prescribes the “Seg 1 Property Of The Estate Reserve” as follows: On the Effective . . . Section 7.20(c)(i) explains how the disputed funds should be disbursed if the court “determines that . . . The trustee argues that the final phrase of Section 7.20(c)(i)—“as determined by the Court”—authorizes . . . if a reviewing court determines that the SEG 1 reserve is not property of the estate, Section 7.20(c . . .

HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO. v. COOPER CARRY INC., 861 F.3d 267 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

. . . Agreement Art. 7.20, J.A. 35. . . .

IN RE KRAZ, LLC, LLC, v., 570 B.R. 389 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . Under the typical shared loss agreement, the FDIC would then reimburse the acquiring bank $7.20 (80% . . .

UNICOLORS, INC. a v. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. a LLC,, 853 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . (alteration in original) (quoting 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B][1])). . . .

ARCHITECTS COLLECTIVE, a v. PUCCIANO ENGLISH, INC. a, 247 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2017)

. . . Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20 (2015); see also Nimmer on Copyright § 3.01 (stating that “a work will be . . .

WE SHALL OVERCOME FOUNDATION LLC, v. RICHMOND ORGANIZATION, INC. TRO INC., 221 F. Supp. 3d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Rubie’s Costume Co., 891 F.2d 452, 456 (2d Cir. 1989) (citation omitted); see 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20 . . .

L. ROBERTS, II, v. GORDY,, 181 F. Supp. 3d 997 (S.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nim-mer on Copyright § 7.20[B][1] at 7-212.(4)(3)-(4) (ed. 2015). . . .

J. GREDE, v. FC STONE, LLC,, 556 B.R. 357 (N.D. Ill. 2016)

. . . Plan Section 7.20(a) states: (i) SEG 1 Property Of The Estate Reserve. . . . As of September 30, 2014, the Trustee has reserved' $3,684,606 in this “Section 7.20(b) Reserve.” . . . Plan §§ 4.4, 4.5 and 7.20(c)(ii). . . . Under Section 7.20(c)(i) of the Plan, therefore, I have discretion to distribute the Reserves to the . . . Plan §§ 4.4, 4.5, and 7.20(c). III. . . .

S. HUMPHREY, v. RAV INVESTIGATIVE SECURITY SERVICES LTD. ABC, 169 F. Supp. 3d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . See, e.g., ECF No. 37-23 at 1 (reflecting dues deductions of $7.20 and $6.40 for two different 2010 workweeks . . .

RIVERA, v. E. LYNCH,, 816 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2016)

. . . section 118 prohibits both perjurious testimony under oath (the elements are set forth in CALJIC No. 7.20 . . . Compare CALJIC 7.20 (2005 Revision) (“Perjury Under ‘Oath’ ”) with CALJIC 7.21 (2005 Revision) (“Perjury . . .

DOUGLAS, v. UNITED STATES, 814 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . Douglas was paid four days later, he received $7.20. . . .

LENNAR HOMES OF TEXAS SALES AND MARKETING, LTD. v. PERRY HOMES, LLC,, 117 F. Supp. 3d 913 (S.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . Nimmer & David Nim-mer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 7.20[B][1], at 7-212.4(5) (2015) (hereinafter Nimmer). . . . Nimmer § 7.20[B][1], at 7-212.4(8)(a). . . .

L. KOCH LLC, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,, 793 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

. . . Early in the day, Christanell told Koch that the “bid-ask spread for Cheviot was $7.20 to $7.48.” . . .

L. KOCH LLC, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,, 417 App. D.C. 147 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

. . . Early in the day, Christanell told Koch that the “bid-ask spread for Cheviot was $7.20 to $7.48.” . . .

SIMMONS, v. CROSSROADS BANK,, 533 B.R. 895 (N.D. Ind. 2015)

. . . Compl., subsections 7.4 and 7.20, ECF No. 2-3 at 91-92.) . . . .

CORRAL v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY,, 91 F. Supp. 3d 702 (D. Md. 2015)

. . . for preparing the complaint on August 9, 2012, and then nothing until October 15, 2012 when he spent 7.20 . . .

COPELAND, v. W. COLVIN,, 771 F.3d 920 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . In a disability report, she reported very low earnings, ranging from $86.40 to $4,719.38 per year ($7.20 . . .

UNITED STATES v. STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST CO. As PIK, 520 B.R. 29 (Bankr. D. Del. 2014)

. . . Ex. 187 Sched. 7.20.) . . . .

NIEDDU, v. LIFETIME FITNESS, INC. LTF LLC, LTF CMBS LTF, 38 F. Supp. 3d 849 (S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . . $388.58/54 = $7.20, which is lower that the federally mandated minimum wage rate of $7.25. . . .

E. BAUTISTA HERNANDEZ, v. TADALA S NURSERY, INC., 34 F. Supp. 3d 1229 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . Plaintiffs “regular rate” of pay, therefore, was $7.20 per hour ($464.23 compensation / 64.5 hours worked . . . = $7.20 per hour), and his overtime premium (extra half rate) was $3.60 per hour ($7.20 regular rate . . .

In NATIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC. R. v. In R. v. In D. v. In J. v., 510 B.R. 526 (E.D. Va. 2014)

. . . Section 7.20 implemented the Release and Exculpation provisions. Bankr.Dkt. No. 665. . . . .

GONZALEZ, s v. SEARS HOLDING COMPANY a k a s, 980 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.P.R. 2013)

. . . See ECF Nos. 35-1,1148; 51-1, ¶¶ 7.1-7.2, 7.20, 50; 63-1, ¶¶ 7.1-7.2, 7.20. . . .

AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION COMMITTEE, v. UNITED STATES,, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013)

. . . liquidation rates for the four mandatory respondents from the investigation were de minimis, 5.07 percent, 7.20 . . . Foodstuff, - CIT at -, 880 F.Supp.2d at 1334-35 (affirming reduction of the rate for "Red Garden” to 7.20 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR- SUBCHAPTER LAWYER ADVERTISING RULES, 108 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 2013)

. . . Promotion); 4-7.18 (Direct Contact with Prospective Clients); 4-7.19 (Evaluation of Advertisements); 4-7.20 . . . Bar 4-7.20(e), (g). . . . Subject to the exemptions stated in rule 4-7.20, any lawyer who advertises services shall file with The . . . filed for review pursuant to this rule, unless the advertisement is exempt from filing under rule 4-7.20 . . . Even where an advertisement is exempt from filing under rule 4-7.20, a lawyer who wishes to obtain a . . . RULE 4-7.20 EXEMPTIONS FROM THE FILING AND REVIEW REQUIREMENT The following are exempt from the filing . . .

SHANTOU RED GARDEN FOODSTUFF CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012)

. . . The Remand Redetermination assigned a 7.20% weighted average dumping margin to Red Garden. . . .

In BACHRACH CLOTHING, INC. v. H., 480 B.R. 820 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2012)

. . . Elson’s number of 7.20% came from aggregating stock market data stretching back to 1926. . . . premium of approximately 4.00%, which is lower than Ciancanelli’s 5.6% and much lower than Elson’s 7.20% . . .

In EBIX, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 898 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (N.D. Ga. 2012)

. . . The day Seeking Alpha published the Copperfield report, Ebix’s shares declined $7.20 per share (over . . .

FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC. v. UNITED FABRICS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v., 896 F. Supp. 2d 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Nimmer on Copyrights § 7.20[B][1] (emphasis added). . . . establish the copyrightability of the articles he claims are being infringed.”); Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20 . . . Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B][2] (internal quotations and footnotes omitted). . . . Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B][1] n. 25.2, 25.3. . . .

In NATIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC., 478 B.R. 216 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2012)

. . . Fourth Amended Plan contained certain Release, Injunction and Exculpation Provisions, at Sections 7.19, 7.20 . . . The releases, exculpation, and injunction provisions described in Sections 7.19, 7.20, and 7.21 of the . . . The Injunction Provisions (Section 7.20). . . . The Injunction Provisions of Section 7.20 give effect to both the Release Provisions of Section 7.19 . . . Finally, the Court finds that the record supports the Injunction Provisions of Section 7.20, insofar . . .

ROGERS d b a, I- v. BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF METROPOLITAN HOUSTON, INC., 887 F. Supp. 2d 722 (S.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . See 2-7 Nimmer on Copyright, § 7.20 (stating that the statutory amendment “is well in line with the construction . . .

MARTELLO, M. D. v. SANTANA,, 874 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D. Ky. 2012)

. . . SCR 3.130-5.4(a), which prohibits a lawyer from sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer; in SCR 3.130-7.20 . . . As noted above, SCR 3.130(7.20) provides, in part, as follows: (2) A lawyer shall not give anything of . . . SCR 3.130 (7.20). . . . to the Rule makes clear that, although a lawyer is allowed to pay for advertising permitted by Rule 7.20 . . . SCR 3.130 (7.20)(2009 Supreme Court Commentary, Comment 2). . . .

L. A. PRINTEX INDUSTRIES, INC. a v. AEROPOSTALE, INC. a Ms. a, 676 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . Canada, Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir.2010); Lamps Plus, 345 F.3d at 1145; 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20 . . . supporting an infringement action. 17 U.S.C. § 411(b); Lamps Plus, 345 F.3d at 1145; 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20 . . .

UNITED FABRICS INTERNATIONAL, INC. a v. LANE BRYANT, INC. a a As MOA MOA, K. E. S., 462 F. App'x 703 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B][1]. . . .

THERASENSE, INC. v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, LLC,, 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B][1] (rev. ed.2010) (“plaintiffs failure to inform . . . Register of Copyrights to refuse registration.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1); see also 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20 . . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B][1], at 7-212, 4(1) & n. 21 (rev. ed. 2010) ("If . . . See 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B][1], at 7-212.4(2) n. 25.2. . . .

LIFESTYLE ENTERPRISE, INC. LLC, s d b a LLC, Co. Co. Co. v. UNITED STATES,, 768 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2011)

. . . pesos to 30,000 pesos 9.00% Over 30,000 pesos to 40,000 pesos 8.25% Over 40,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos 7.20% . . .

OWEN, v. I. C. SYSTEM, INC., 629 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . On September 27, 2006, AAA imposed a 1.5% interest charge ($7.20) on Owen’s balance of $480.10, pursuant . . . $100.00 $680.10 8/08/06 Check $100.00 $580.10 8/25/06 Check $100.00 $480.10 9/27/06 Finance Charge 7.20 . . .

BARRUS, v. DICK S SPORTING GOODS, INC. s, 732 F. Supp. 2d 243 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . Id. at §§ 7.19-7.20. . . .

JEDSON ENGINEERING, INC. v. SPIRIT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., 720 F. Supp. 2d 904 (S.D. Ohio 2010)

. . . Seaman, 84 F.Supp.2d 522, 525 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (citing 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B]) (emphasis added . . .

RICH RICH PARTNERSHIP, v. POETMAN RECORDS USA, INC., 714 F. Supp. 2d 657 (E.D. Ky. 2010)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20, at 7-197-98)); see also Advisers, Inc. v. . . .

O CONNELL, v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,, 374 F. App'x 30 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . audit showed a payment of $15.92 instead of $140.83 (journal transaction 35 on March 17); a payment of $7.20 . . .

DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, INC. v. NIAGARA GROUP HOTELS, LLC,, 688 F. Supp. 2d 216 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . fee award for this case is: Fuller 26 hours, x $240 $6,240 Bacon 46.25 hours x $200 $9,250 Paralegal 7.20 . . .

BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO, INC. v. LATIN AMERICAN MUSIC CO. INC., 685 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D.P.R. 2010)

. . . the registration certificate incapable of supporting an infringement action.” 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20 . . .

SIERRA- PASCUAL, a k a MC v. PINA RECORDS, INC., 660 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D.P.R. 2009)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20, at 7-201 (“[A] misstatement or clerical error in the . . . thereby rebut the presumption of copyright validity, bears a heavy burden, see 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20 . . . Seaman, 84 F.Supp.2d 522, 525 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (cited in 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B][1] (2009)); see . . .

J. WILSON, v. BRENNAN,, 666 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (D.N.M. 2009)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B] (2008). . . . Unique Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 663, 667 (3rd Cir.1990); Nimmer, supra, § 7.20[B], Failing to disclose . . .

ROBINSON, v. MANAGED ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE CORPORATION, 654 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . Mac Intyre Cos., 238 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1169 (N.D.Cal.2002) (quoting CA BAJI 7.20). . . .

In SENTINEL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., 398 B.R. 281 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2008)

. . . . § 7.20(a)(iii).) . . .

EYAL R. D. CORP. v. JEWELEX NEW YORK, LTD., 576 F. Supp. 2d 626 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . Office to reject the application, then the registration may be ruled invalid. 2 Nimmer on Copyright, § 7.20 . . .

TORRES- NEGR N, v. J N RECORDS, LLC,, 504 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 2007)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B] (“If the claimant wilfully misstates or fails to state a fact that . . .

PROVEN METHODS SEMINARS, LLC, a LLC, a v. AMERICAN GRANTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING INSTITUTE, LLC, a LLC, a LLC, a T. Jr., 519 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (E.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20, at 7-147 (1985)). . . .

ROTHE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE U. S., 499 F. Supp. 2d 775 (W.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . Asian Americans represent 7.20 percent of the available construction subcontractors and received 2.19 . . .

LANARD TOYS LIMITED v. NOVELTY INC., 511 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B]. . . .

In DIMAS, LLC,, 357 B.R. 563 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2006)

. . . Davidsen Draft all spreadsheets to be used in calculating 7.20 fee application formats (1.8); obtain . . . Davidsen Prepare documents re categories for January 7.20 and February, 2005 invoices and highlight same . . .

ONE TREASURE LIMITED, INC. v. C. RICHARDSON,, 202 F. App'x 658 (5th Cir. 2006)

. . . Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1161 (1st Cir.l994)(citing 2 Nimmer § 7.20, at 7-201). . . . See 2 Nimmer § 7.20 (and cases cited therein). . . .

In ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 348 B.R. 136 (D. Del. 2006)

. . . ..........................207 7.19 Compensation of the Applicable Indenture Trustees ...........207 7.20 . . . performance of such duties to the same extent and in the same manner as provided in the related indenture. 7.20 . . .

M. DALLAS, v. GAMBLE, HSU M. v. HSU U. W., 448 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (W.D. Wis. 2006)

. . . period, petitioner has been receiving regular payments to his account in amounts ranging from $5.40 to $7.20 . . .

UNITED STATES v. STEIN,, 435 F. Supp. 2d 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . Analysis and Recommendations § 7.20, Reporter’s Note 1, at 278 (1994) (hereinafter "ALI”); see also Baker . . . ALI § 7.20, Reporter’s Note 3, at 279. . . . . . § 145(a); ALI § 7.20(a); see generally Pamela H. . . .

KING RECORDS, INC. v. R. BENNETT d b a KRB KRB, 438 F. Supp. 2d 812 (M.D. Tenn. 2006)

. . . Wiesen-Hart, Inc., 238 F.2d 706, 708 (6th Cir.1956); 2 Nimmer on Copyright, § 7.20[B], at 7-210. . . .

SHARIFF, v. GOORD,, 235 F.R.D. 563 (W.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . Id. at §§ 7.19-7.20. . . .

EXPRESS, LLC, a v. FETISH GROUP, INC. a, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (C.D. Cal. 2006)

. . . See 2-7 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B], Finally, the Court determines whether Express has successfully . . .

ENVIROKARE TECH, INC. v. PAPPAS,, 420 F. Supp. 2d 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . expenses. 2 American Law Institute, Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations § 7.20 . . .

In MIRANT CORPORATION,, 332 B.R. 139 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . Generating, LLC., level: $500 million of senior notes at 7.625% interest, $300 million of senior notes at 7.20% . . .

GALLUP, INC. d b a v. KENEXA CORPORATION, 149 F. App'x 94 (3d Cir. 2005)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §§ 7.20[B], 7.21[A] (2005). . . .

P. WINANS, v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, A., 385 F. Supp. 2d 917 (S.D. Iowa 2005)

. . . of $9,334.80, dental insurance at an annual value of $242.28, life insurance at an annual value of $7.20 . . .

BRANDAID MARKETING CORPORATION. v. S. S. v., 418 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . (JPTO ¶ 7.20; Sloan Direct ¶ 311.) Sloan referred Massey to Markus for further discussions. . . . (JPTO ¶ 7.20; Sloan Direct ¶ 312.) Massey and another businessman, Lawrence Artz, met with Markus. . . .

ASSOCIATION FOR DISABLED AMERICANS, INC. v. INTEGRA RESORT MANAGEMENT, INC. L. L. C. d b a v. v., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . The next day, he claims to have spent another 7.20 hours preparing for trial. . . .

In BOTT, v., 324 B.R. 771 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2005)

. . . factory and found employment at a meat processing plant where she worked for six (6) months earning $7.20 . . .

LONG ISLAND SAVINGS BANK, FSB, v. UNITED STATES,, 60 Fed. Cl. 80 (Fed. Cl. 2004)

. . . However, the risk-based capital requirement in effect at that date was 7.20%, and thus Syosset and Centereach . . .

LAMPS PLUS, INC. a v. SEATTLE LIGHTING FIXTURE CO. a S. A- LLC, a v. Co. a S. A- LLC, a v. Co. a S. A- LLC,, 345 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . Nimmer, 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20, at 7-147 (1985)) (“Absent fraud, ‘a misstatement or clerical error . . .

In A. GRIFFIN, 302 B.R. 1 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2003)

. . . for Motion to Abandon (03/10/03) 75.00 Copies 1,135 @ $.10 113.50 Facsimile charges 103.00 Postage 7.20 . . .

CANNON GROUP, INC. v. BETTER BAGS, INC., 250 F. Supp. 2d 893 (S.D. Ohio 2003)

JOSEPH, v. J. J. MAC INTYRE COMPANIES, L. L. C., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

. . . BAJI 7.20 (“The essential elements of this claim are: 1) the defendant intentionally intruded, physically . . .

In M. GALLAGHER,, 283 B.R. 342 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . there is a balance owed of $36,789.11 as of February 14, 2002, plus interest accruing at the rate of $7.20 . . .

In NAPSTER, INC. COPYRIGHT LITIGATION, 191 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[A] (2001) (“Nimmer”) (supplemental filing will not supercede the prior . . .

MORELLI, v. TIFFANY AND COMPANY,, 186 F. Supp. 2d 563 (E.D. Pa. 2002)

. . . Nim-mer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B], As our Court of Appeals observed, “[the] view . . .

In NWFX, INC., 267 B.R. 118 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2001)

. . . September 5, 1986 7.20 Attend O.S.C. hearing and status conference on pending AP’s; conference with J . . .

McBEAN, v. UNITED STATES, 147 F. Supp. 2d 820 (N.D. Ohio 2001)

. . . . $ 7.20 11. . . .

LZT FILLIUNG PARTNERSHIP, LLP, v. CODY BRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC., 117 F. Supp. 2d 745 (N.D. Ill. 2000)

. . . Nimmer, Copyright § 7.20[B] at 7-208/§ 7.18[C][1] at/ 7-201 (2000)(emphasis added). ’ 40. . . .

G. RODRIGUE, Jr. v. RODRIGUE,, 218 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2000)

. . . See also Katherine Shaw Spaht & Lee Hargrave, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Matrimonial Estates § 7.20 . . .

PRIORI, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA,, 92 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (M.D. Ala. 2000)

. . . face amount of the policy, $704.34 in annual dividends in the form of paid-up additional insurance, a $7.20 . . .

LENNON, v. SEAMAN,, 84 F. Supp. 2d 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B] at 7-207 (1997). . . .

RAQUEL, a v. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION a, 196 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 1999)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B] at 7-208 (“a misstatement ... in the registration . . . See also 2 Nimmer & Nimmer § 7.20[B] at 7-208 n. 19 (collecting cases). Indeed, in Baron v. . . .

R. IRWIN, v. T. MASCOTT,, 186 F.R.D. 567 (N.D. Cal. 1999)

. . . Newberg and Conte, Newberg on Class Actiom, 3rd Ed., § 7.20, citing Eisen v. . . .

R. IRWIN, v. T. MASCOTT,, 96 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 1999)

. . . Newberg and Conte, Newiberg on Class Actions, 3rd Ed., § 7.20, citing. Eisen v. . . .

NEHMER, v. UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (N.D. Cal. 1999)

. . . See VA Adjudication Procedures Manual M21-1, part VI, Change 52 (August 26, 1996), Section 7.20(d)(3) . . . Section 7.20(d)(3) of the Veterans Administration Adjudication Procedures Manual M21-1, Part VI, Change . . . See Stichman Decl., Exh. 26 at § 7.20(b)("Unless there is affirmative evidence to the contrary, a veteran . . .

APPLE CORPS LIMITED, MPL As v. INTERNATIONAL COLLECTORS SOCIETY, E. L. B. E., 25 F. Supp. 2d 480 (D.N.J. 1998)

. . . Badke. 10/24/97 8.30 Drafting and editing reply papers; correspondence. 4.15 10/31/97 7.20 Meetings with . . . Another entry reads as follows: 10/31/97 7.20 Meetings with D. Weber, L. Rug-geri, J. Mitnick, J. . . . However, the record does not indicate how many hours of the 7.20 hours billed were devoted to research . . .

MILLER, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARM SERVICES AGENCY, USDA,, 143 F.3d 1413 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 7.20. . . .

MORALES, v. NEW VALLEY CORPORATION, I. S., 999 F. Supp. 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . $19.875 to $22.875 per share; defendants then each sold their remaining 2,106 shares on October 5 at $7.20 . . .

In REYNOLDS, AT T UNIVERSAL CARD SERVICES CORP. v. REYNOLDS, In L. DAWSON, AT T UNIVERSAL CARD SERVICES CORP. v. L. DAWSON,, 221 B.R. 828 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1998)

. . . 136.15 0 1955.80 41.00 45.00 05/18/96 25.50 1510.85 (all but $300 casino) 3507.28 76.46 500.00 06/18/96 7.20 . . .

DILLARD, v. CITY OF FOLEY,, 995 F. Supp. 1358 (M.D. Ala. 1998)

. . . compensation for 381.90 hours, Still seeks compensation for 150.55 hours, and Bradley seeks compensation for 7.20 . . . fee-award litigation) at the court-approved billing rate; and (3) Bradley is entitled to recover for 7.20 . . . 80,875.00 39.75 hours x $125 = $ 4968.75 $ 85,843.75 Still: 135.90 hours x $250 = $ 33,975.00 Bradley: 7.20 . . . Gerald Hebert 381.90 x $325 $124,117.50 Edward Still 150.55 x $325 48,928.75 Neil Bradley 7.20 x $225 . . .

BLOCK STATE TESTING SERVICES, L. P. v. KONTRACTOR S PREP CORPORATION,, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (M.D. Fla. 1997)

URANTIA FOUNDATION, a v. MAAHERRA,, 114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997)

. . . See, e.g., Nimmer, § 7.20 at 7-201 and n. 6 (“[A] misstatement or clerical error in the registration . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)