Cases from cite.case.law:

PUEBLO OF JEMEZ, a v. UNITED STATES, 350 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (D.N.M. 2018)

. . . See Cohen's Handbook, supra note 8, § 15.09 at 1053. . . . Cohen's Handbook, supra note 8, § 15.09 at 1053. . . .

ZHAOQING TIFO NEW FIBRE CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES, DAK LLC,, 60 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015)

. . . per-unit rate (when it should have calculated the ad valorem rate) and that the correct dumping margin was 15.09% . . .

GEDEK, v. M. PEREZ, W. v. M. v. M. v. M. J. a v. v. E. v., 66 F. Supp. 3d 368 (W.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . . § 15.09. . . .

ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS, v. ALABAMA, v., 989 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (M.D. Ala. 2013)

. . . Clair, Jefferson, and Blount Counties, was overpopulated by 15.09 percent. . . .

HASKELL, v. CENTRACARE HEALTH SYSTEM- LONG PRAIRIE,, 952 F. Supp. 2d 838 (D. Minn. 2013)

. . . Haskell's regular hourly rate was $15.09. (Friederichs Aff. Ex. III.) . . . .

ROMAN, v. WESTERN MANUFACTURING, INCORPORATED,, 691 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . Galligan, Jr., Louisiana Tort Law § 15.09 (2004 ed.), at 15-17 to 15-18. . . .

In R. McMULLEN, S. B. v. LLC,, 441 B.R. 144 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2011)

. . . Barkley and Barbara Clark, 2 The Law of Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code, ¶ 15.09 . . .

BROWN BARK I, L. P. v. TRAVERSE CITY LIGHT POWER DEPARTMENT,, 736 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (W.D. Mich. 2010)

. . . project called “Brewery Creek Center” in Elmwood Township, Leelanau County, Michigan, on approximately 15.09 . . .

v., 133 T.C. 136 (T.C. 2009)

. . . 15.67% Amortized OID 0 6 5.10 4.34 3.68 3.13 2.66 2.36 Unamortized OID 40 34 28.90 24.57 20.88 17.75 15.09 . . . 15% 15% Amortized OID 0 6 5.10 4.34 3.68 3.13 2.66 2.26 Unamortized OID 40 34 28.90 24.57 20.88 17.75 15.09 . . .

GRILLS, Jr. v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., 645 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 990 (5th Cir.1981); Seagraves, 629 F.2d at 390; 3 Moore et al., supra, ¶ 15.09 . . .

v., 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 828 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . Commerce calculated amended dumping margins of 15.09% for Ziyang, 19.68% for FHTK, 14.20% for Harmoni . . .

TAIAN ZIYANG FOOD COMPANY, LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . Commerce calculated amended dumping margins of 15.09% for Ziyang, 19.68% for FHTK, 14.20% for Harmoni . . .

WEAVER, v. CCA INDUSTRIES, INC. v., 529 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . Galligan, Jr., Louisiana Tort Law § 15.09 (Release No. 4, 2nd ed.2007). . La. . . .

AYZELMAN, v. STATEWIDE CREDIT SERVICES CORP., 242 F.R.D. 23 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Under the settlement, those class members who did not opt out of the class will each receive $15.09, . . . calculations, this means that each class member who did not opt out of the settlement is entitled to receive $15.09 . . .

CHESWELL, INC. Co. v. PREMIER HOMES AND LAND CORPORATION,, 319 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D. Mass. 2004)

. . . Article 15.09, in turn, allowed Chesterfield to record a "Notice or Memorandum of Lease” in the registry . . .

AMGEN, INC. v. HOECHST MARION ROUSSEL, INC., 126 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. Mass. 2001)

. . . The patent also reports an erroneous Hexose value for the CHO derived EPO product (15.09) compared to . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY, LOCAL, 9 F. Supp. 2d 836 (N.D. Ohio 1998)

. . . In window 20, black pipe fitters make up 7.39% of the workforce but received 15.09% of the job referrals . . .

UNITED STATES v. PRINCE,, 110 F.3d 921 (2d Cir. 1997)

. . . The district court, in determining that Pirre was responsible for 15.09 kilograms of cocaine, relied . . .

UNITED STATES v. O. SHONUBI,, 895 F. Supp. 460 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . on possession of more than 15 kilograms of cocaine, when chemist estimated that the offense involved 15.09 . . .

FASA CORPORATION v. PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., 869 F. Supp. 1334 (N.D. Ill. 1994)

. . . independent user of a term, this is evidence that distinctiveness is lacking. 2 McCarthy On Trademarks § 15.09 . . .

RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, v. MAPLEWOOD INVESTMENTS, A D. A. H. H. RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, v. MAPLEWOOD INVESTMENTS, A D. A. H. H., 31 F.3d 1276 (4th Cir. 1994)

. . . Guide (MB) ¶ 15.09[3], at 15-27. . . .

RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, v. MAPLEWOOD INVESTMENTS, A D. A. H. H. RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, v. MAPLEWOOD INVESTMENTS, A D. A. H. H., 31 F.3d 1276 (4th Cir. 1994)

. . . Guide (MB) ¶ 15.09[3], at 15-27. . . .

FOLEY COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 11 F.3d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

. . . Nov. 4, 1993) (nonprecedential) ($360/unit contract price awarded despite $15.09/unit cost for excess . . .

FOLEY COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 11 F.3d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

. . . Nov. 4, 1993) (nonpreeedential) ($360/unit contract price awarded despite $15.09/unit cost for excess . . .

UNITED STATES v. McCUTCHEN,, 992 F.2d 22 (3d Cir. 1993)

. . . He appealed, contending that the estimated weight of 15.09 kilograms was so close to the 15 kilogram . . . that the government had proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the weight of the cocaine was 15.09 . . .

STANDARD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 25 Cl. Ct. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1991)

. . . . § 15.09 (1988), copies of Standard’s unsolicited proposals were marked with the appropriate proprietary . . .

UNITED STATES v. PIRRE,, 927 F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1991)

. . . the presen-tence report’s assignment of a base offense level of 34, based on an alleged net weight of 15.09 . . . After the hearing, the district court found that the government had proved the weight of the cocaine as 15.09 . . . DISCUSSION Pirre contends that because the estimated weight of 15.09 kilograms was so close to the 15 . . . any possibility of an over-estimate by dropping the tenths of a gram and rounding the figure down to 15.09 . . . In his view, the estimated total of 15.09 kilograms was a minimum figure, derived from a conservative . . .

J. WATKINS, v. LUJAN, Jr., 922 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1991)

. . . See generally 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 15.09 (2d ed. 1980). . . .

In JOINT EASTERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRICTS ASBESTOS LITIGATION. In JOHNS- MANVILLE CORPORATION, K. FINDLEY, C. Jr. v. M. BLINKEN, H. Jr. E. Jr. C., 120 B.R. 648 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . Alternatively, taking a price of $15.09 per share as a hypothetical premium value for the control of . . .

W. BROOKS, v. W. WEINBERGER,, 730 F. Supp. 1132 (D.D.C. 1989)

. . . hours worked $9.00 per hour =$ 769.5012 (2) Total Sunday and Night premium =$ 170.10 (3) 74.5 hours at $15.09 . . . per hour =$1,124.55 ($15.09 = one and one-half regular rate) Total pay entitlement: =$2,064.15 The key . . .

A. McCOY, M. J. A. v. HOLLYWOOD QUARRIES, INC., 544 So. 2d 274 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . of Florida Manual on Traffic Control and Safe Practices (MTCSP) which was incorporated into Rule 14-15.09 . . .

ODISHELIDZE, v. AETNA LIFE CASUALTY CO., 853 F.2d 21 (1st Cir. 1988)

. . . See Moore, supra, ¶ 15.09, at 15-102. . . .

CONCEPCION v. VEB BACKEREIMASCHENBAU HALLE v. EL INDIO PRODUCTS, INC., 120 F.R.D. 482 (D.N.J. 1988)

. . . See 2A Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 8.07[1]; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, HU 15.09 and 15 . . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, ¶ 15.09 (leave to amend should be denied if such . . .

GERRITSEN, v. DE LA MADRID HURTADO, G. De S., 819 F.2d 1511 (9th Cir. 1987)

. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶~f 15.09, 15.11 (1985). . . . .

In PENN HOOK COAL CO. INC. CREDIT ALLIANCE CORPORATION, v. PENN HOOK COAL CO., 68 B.R. 804 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1987)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.09 (2d Ed.1985), citing Wallace v. . . .

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AMERICAN COMBUSTION, INC. v. TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY,, 797 F.2d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1986)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice IT 15.09 (2d ed. 1985). . . . Moore, supra, ¶ 15.09; 13B C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, supra, § 3611. . . .

PHILIPP BROTHERS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, RMI Co., 640 F. Supp. 1340 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)

. . . Commerce initiated an investigation and found weighted-average dumping margins of 15.09% for plaintiff . . .

Co. Co. v. RMI Co., 10 Ct. Int'l Trade 485 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)

. . . Commerce initiated an investigation and found weighted-average dumping margins of 15.09% for plaintiff . . .

E. MAJD- POUR, v. GEORGIANA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., 724 F.2d 901 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . Harris, 629 F.2d 385, 390 (5th Cir.1980); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.09 (2d ed. 1983). . . .

P. GONZALEZ, C. E. S. v. ANDERSON B. a, 575 F. Supp. 1498 (D. Mont. 1984)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.09 (2d ed. 1983), states the rule with respect to amendments to . . .

ASHLAND, v. LING- TEMCO- VOUGHT, INC. a, 711 F.2d 1431 (9th Cir. 1983)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.09 (2d ed. 1982). . . .

SESSIONS, v. RUSK STATE HOSPITAL,, 648 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . See generally 3 Moore’s Federal Practice f 15.09 (2d ed. 1980). . . .

MOLL Y. v. SOUTHERN CHARTERS, INC. A McDERMOTT, J. v. SOUTHERN CHARTERS, INC. A DUNN v. SOUTHERN CHARTERS, INC. A, 81 F.R.D. 77 (E.D.N.Y. 1979)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.09 at 15-130-31 (2d Ed.1978). . . .

UNITED STATES v. G. REAMER,, 589 F.2d 769 (4th Cir. 1978)

. . . . § 15.09. . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. KIRK, M. D., 584 F.2d 773 (6th Cir. 1978)

. . . and Black-mar’s Federal Jury Practice and Instructions (Third Edition), at Section 15.12 and Section 15.09 . . .

EUSTER v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE HORSE RACING COMMISSION, 431 F. Supp. 828 (E.D. Pa. 1977)

. . . Section 15.09 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Racing provides, inter alia: “. . . and every person who is . . . Although there is no statute specifically authorizing the search, Rule 15.09 of the Commission clearly . . .

H. McLELLAN, v. MISSISSIPPI POWER LIGHT COMPANY,, 526 F.2d 870 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . , 313 U.S. 559, 61 S.Ct. 835, 85 L.Ed. 1520 (1941); 3 Moore, Federal Practice, § 15.08[2] at 878, § 15.09 . . .

CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE REALTY TRUST, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS v. M. PENDLEY, 405 F. Supp. 593 (N.D. Ga. 1975)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.09. . . .

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a v. H. TWITTY,, 319 So. 2d 141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . Moore $ 15.09 2) Cost of copy of deposition of Dr. . . .

ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. In JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 402 F. Supp. 262 (E.D. Pa. 1975)

. . . C-71, Sections 15.09 and 15.10). 32. MELCO, in its answers to interrogatories (App. . . .

BROWN v. TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Mr. N. H. WHITE v. TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, 392 F. Supp. 1120 (W.D. La. 1975)

. . . Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 1685; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶[ 15.09. . . . Rule 21, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.), Sections 15.09 . . .

C. HITCHCOCK v. A., 377 F. Supp. 1403 (D. Conn. 1974)

. . . Donnelly Garment Company, 121 F.2d 561, 563 (8th Cir. 1941); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ff 15.09, at . . .

AKRON BOARD OF EDUCATION C. v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OHIO, 490 F.2d 1285 (6th Cir. 1974)

. . . (See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.09). . . .

CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR, INC. v. CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY,, 349 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)

. . . See also 3 Moore’s Fed.Prac. para. 15.09, and cases there cited. . . .

In APPORTIONMENT LAW SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER REGULAR SESSION, Of, 263 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1972)

. . . .2d 501 (1967), invalidated a Florida plan of apportionment with maximum percentage deviations from 15.09% . . .

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL- CIO, v. MESKER BROS. INDUSTRIES, INC., 457 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1972)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 15.09 (2nd ed. 1968); 6 C. Wright and A. . . .

E. HENSLEY, a Ky. v. T. WOOD,, 329 F. Supp. 787 (E.D. Ky. 1971)

. . . The population variances ranged from 15.09% overrepresentation to 10.56% underrepresentation in the Senate . . .

NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a v. ASSOCIATED INDEPENDENT DEALERS,, 313 F. Supp. 816 (D. Minn. 1970)

. . . . ¶ 15.09 at 945. . . .

KELLY v. ECLIPSE MOTOR LINE, Co., 305 F. Supp. 191 (D. Md. 1969)

. . . See 3 Moore, Federal Practice § 15.09, p. 947, and cases cited therein. . . . .

R. CLAUSOHM, v. J. TWOMEY,, 226 So. 2d 226 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

. . . above estate, showed the following payments: March 22, 1967, to Tampa Electric Company, the sum of $15.09 . . . every instance, to insist upon the filing of a formal written claim in order to pay such claims as $15.09 . . .

CALLAHAN, v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO. Co., 47 F.R.D. 359 (E.D.N.Y. 1969)

. . . See, e.g., 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.09. . . .

T. COX, F. Ad T. E. Ad T. V. v. H. LIVINGSTON, Jr. H. III,, 407 F.2d 392 (2d Cir. 1969)

. . . See generally 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 15.09 (2d ed. 1968). . . .

JACKSON, v. CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, 31 Fla. Supp. 151 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1968)

. . . Subsection 6 adds an additional §15.09 to article 15. . . .

T. DORAN, III, a T. II, T. II, v. LEE, a s, 287 F. Supp. 807 (W.D. Pa. 1968)

. . . dropped, if they are not indispensible, and thereby perfect jurisdiction.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.09 . . .

JOHNSON, v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,, 287 F. Supp. 95 (E.D. Wis. 1968)

. . . complaint to allege properly the existence of federal question jurisdiction. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.09 . . .

DINIS v. A. VOLPE, L. RICHARDSON, H., 264 F. Supp. 425 (D. Mass. 1967)

. . . constitutionally valid although the senate districts ranged in population from 87,-595 to 114,053 or from 15.09% . . .

SWANN v. ADAMS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF FLORIDA,, 385 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1967)

. . . The senate districts range from 87,595 to 114,053 in population per senator, or from 15.09% overrepresented . . .

H. M. SWANN, v. ADAMS,, 258 F. Supp. 819 (S.D. Fla. 1965)

. . . , we find that the senate districts range from 87,595 to 114,053 in population per senator, or from 15.09% . . .

GKIAFIS, v. STEAMSHIP YIOSONAS, S. A., 342 F.2d 546 (4th Cir. 1965)

. . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 15; see 3 Moore, Federal Practice, § 15.09 (1963). . . .

BAKER v. CARR, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962)

. . . 2.65 3.45 Madison . 37,245 3.50 4.87 3.69 Sullivan. 55,712 3.00 4.07 5.57 Hamilton. 131,971 6.00 6.00 15.09 . . .

R. A. M. v. C. B. A. v., 32 T.C. 104 (T.C. 1959)

. . . 7,798.84 709.89 $306.09 2,765.73 $747.73 9,802.49 449.91 $201.90 2,646.80 76.59 Oil tanks. 192.67 55.87 15.09 . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. WATSON BROS. TRANSPORTATION CO., 165 F. Supp. 720 (D. Colo. 1958)

. . . And in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 837-838 (Para. 15.09), it is said that, “The new section does not eliminate . . .

TROUPE, v. CHICAGO, DULUTH GEORGIAN BAY TRANSIT COMPANY,, 234 F.2d 253 (2d Cir. 1956)

. . . . § 1653; 3 Moore, Federal Practice, § 15.09 (2d ed. 1949). . . . .

FINN v. AMERICAN FIRE CASUALTY CO. AMERICAN FIRE CASUALTY CO. v. FINN, 207 F.2d 113 (5th Cir. 1953)

. . . .; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.), Sections 15.09 and 15.15, pp. 836, et seq., and 850, et seq. . . .

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. ATLANTA METALLIC CASKET CO., 205 F.2d 931 (5th Cir. 1953)

. . . See. 15.09, p. 836. . . .

DUNNETT v. ARN ARN v. DUNNETT, 71 F.2d 912 (10th Cir. 1934)

. . . consideration received by both groups for 113,144 shares sold pursuant to the contract was $1,707,713.28, or $15.09 . . . in the plan had participated in the sale on an equal basis, the minority group would have received $15.09 . . .

MORNING JOURNAL ASS N v. DUKE, 128 F. 657 (2d Cir. 1904)

. . . . $75,000 Still to be paid and’divided... 15.09?’ . . .

GEORGE DEWEY v. THE UNITED STATES, 35 Ct. Cl. 172 (Ct. Cl. 1900)

. . . .); extreme draft, 4.6 m. (15.09 ft.); displacement, 1,159 tons; H. . . .

v., 7 F. 597 (S.D.N.Y. 1881)

. . . He is entitled to $11.09 wages, and $4 received by the vessel for his boots; in all, $15.09. . . . Decree for libellant for $15.09, without costs to either party. . . .

v., 13 Ct. Cl. 382 (Ct. Cl. 1877)

. . . . — Face of coupons. 174,545 00 15.09 premium. 27,752 66 - 202,297 66 1874. — Face of coupons. 173,250 . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)