Cases from cite.case.law:

In AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR- SUBCHAPTERS AND, 933 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 2006)

. . . . §§ 15.11— 15.18. . . .

P. MEDEIROS, v. J. VINCENT,, 431 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2005)

. . . Fisheries Council (RIMFC) duly implemented the latter provision of Amendment 3 as RIMFC Regulation 15.18 . . . In June 2000, over the strong objection of the Governor and the DEM, RIMFC repealed Regulation 15.18, . . . The Equal Protection Claim First, Medeiros claims that Amendment 3 and Regulation 15.18 violate the Equal . . . Regulation 15.18 was designed to ameliorate the unprecedented overfishing of Atlantic lobster stocks, . . . Amendment 3 and Regulation 15.18 reasonably “discriminate” by imposing “output controls” upon non-trap . . .

COBELL, v. NORTON,, 229 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2005)

. . . communications do not relate to the claims involved in the litigation .... ” 3 Newberg on Class Actions § 15.18 . . .

P. MEDEIROS v. ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION, 327 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.R.I. 2004)

. . . The Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council (“RIMFC”), through its enactment of Regulation 15.18, then . . . Regulation 15.18 was repealed by RIMFC in June 2000. Id., IF 13; Defs.’ . . . Regulation 15.18 provides: Landings of lobsters taken by gear or methods other than trap — Limits. . . . In Count I of his complaint, Medeiros contends that Amendment 3 and Regulation 15.18 are violative of . . . , Congress has impermissibly required the state to impose federal regulations, including Regulation 15.18 . . .

LIFTON v. CITY OF VACAVILLE v., 72 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.18 (3d ed.1999). . . .

T. Jr. S. v., 120 T.C. 358 (T.C. 2003)

. . . Discount The minority interest discount factors determined above yield a weighted average discount of 15.18 . . . average R.E. partnerships 29.4 23.3 6.85 Real estate 3.3 40.0 1.32 Oil and gas 1.2 33.5 0.40 Discount 15.18 . . .

CAESARS WORLD, INC. v. MILANIAN LLC,, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (D. Nev. 2003)

. . . 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996); see generally 3 Moore’s Federal Practice at § 15.18 . . .

G. SHARPE G. F. E. H. v. CURETON,, 319 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2003)

. . . meant that when he worked ten 24-hour shifts his hourly rate for overtime was $15.74, averaging out to $15.18 . . . Potter when it paid him overtime as Shift Chief; instead, it paid him time-and-a-half at the $15.18 rate . . . divided by the average number of hours he worked in each bi-weekly period (160), thus arriving at a $15.18 . . . Fire Department corrected this error by paying him time-and-a-half for all overtime (based on the $15.18 . . .

COBELL, v. A. NORTON,, 212 F.R.D. 14 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . specified by the court to protect the rights of absent class members. 3 Newberg on Class Actions § 15.18 . . .

In BIRRANE, v., 287 B.R. 490 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2002)

. . . Her book club expenses were listed as follows: $11.95 in March, $24.37 in April, $15.18 in June, $18.33 . . .

In A. HARDEN, L. P. v. A., 282 B.R. 543 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2002)

. . . the request [for admission] was properly served.” 2 Moore’s Manual: Federal Practice and Procedure § 15.18 . . .

N. COTTER, J. P. J. G. L. L. v. CITY OF BOSTON J. Jr., 73 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D. Mass. 1999)

. . . state discrimination laws,” id., and to prevent the percentage of “black” sergeants from dropping below 15.18% . . . Amended Complaint does not precisely indicate the importance' of keeping minority representation above 15.18% . . . The letter stated that the effort to keep the percentage of black sergeants above 15.18% was not acceptable . . . promoted, of course, the percentage of "black” sergeants actually decreased to 14.4%, lower than the 15.18% . . .

In J. PETERMAN COMPANY,, 232 B.R. 366 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 1999)

. . . The lease also contained a radius restriction in section 15.18 which reads as follows: RADIUS: Tenant . . .

W. A. MONCRIEF, Jr. W. A. W. A. Jr. O. III B. W. A. W. W. A. RWM J. J. s W. Jr. v. WILLISTON BASIN INTERSTATE PIPELINE COMPANY MDU, 174 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 1999)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.18[3], at 15-77 (1998) (stating that "a court may not amend . . .

D. TOURSCHER, v. McCULLOUGH D. C. No. D. v. Pa. D. C. No., 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999)

. . . Tourscher worked approximately 69 hours per month or less than 17 hours per week. (22 cents x 69 hours = $15.18 . . .

B. BLANCHARD, v. EDGEMARK FINANCIAL CORPORATION, A. A. I, II, 175 F.R.D. 293 (N.D. Ill. 1997)

. . . Complex Litigation, § 30.2 at 234 (3d ed.l995)(emphasis added); see also Newberg on Class Actions, § 15.18 . . .

C. LIDDELL, a LIDDELL, a D. a a St. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS, E. Jr. St. B. a V. a Dr. D. Sr. a G. a R. a Dr. P. a a M. a a G. a a Jr. C. J. St. W. A. E. R. M. M. F. D. E. V. B. St. St. St. H. St. St. St. AFT, AFL- CIO, C. LIDDELL, a LIDDELL, a D. a a St. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS E. Jr. St. B. a V. a Dr. D. Sr. a G. a R. a Dr. P. a a M. a a G. a a Jr. C. J. St. W. A. E. R. M. M. F. D. E. V. B. St. St. St. H. St. St. St. AFT, AFL- CIO,, 96 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 1996)

. . . 1162 10.70 1987-88 1370 11.90 1988-89 1652 12.92 1989-90 1866 13.94 1990-91 2242 14.73 1991-92 2304 15.18 . . .

FRANKEL, v. SLOTKIN, H. A. Jr. E. S. H. H. F. FMI Co., 984 F.2d 1328 (2d Cir. 1993)

. . . 1985, FMI Financial Corporation (FMI) purchased 1.1 million shares of UB stock on the open market for $15.18 . . . fungible, Frankel argues that the put constituted a sale of the 1.1 million shares FMI had acquired at $15.18 . . .

FRANKEL, v. SLOTKIN, H. A. E. S. H. H. F. FMI, 795 F. Supp. 76 (E.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . On May 21, 1985 FMI purchased on the open market 1.1 million shares of United Brands stock at $15.18 . . .

K. STRALEY, v. FRANK,, 585 So. 2d 334 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . In Florida Dissolution of Marriage § 15.18 (3d ed. 1990), the author states that a spouse seeking to . . . citing to Ball, and notes that Ball is still cited as the standard for determining a special equity. §§ 15.18 . . .

GILLIKIN, v. UNITED STATES, 764 F. Supp. 270 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . reviewed the submissions, this Court now finds that the appropriate rate of maintenance in this case is $15.18 . . . Fuel Oil 462.50 1.27 Virginia Power 345 .95 Home Owner’s Ins. 70.50 .19 Real Estate Taxes 397 1.09 $15.18 . . .

OLIVER, Sr. L. v. UNITED STATES OLIVER, Sr. L. P. v. UNITED STATES OLIVER, Sr. L. v. UNITED STATES v. P. BAKER, 921 F.2d 916 (9th Cir. 1990)

. . . $28,464.07, plus interest, and a judgment in favor of Herbert Oliver and against the United States for $15.18 . . .

CITY OF ORMOND BEACH, v. COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, a, 535 So. 2d 302 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Cannella, 458 So.2d 1075 (Fla.1984); 5 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, § 15.18; 12 Fla.Jur.2d, Municipal . . .

SHELL OIL COMPANY, a v. TRAILER TRUCK REPAIR CO. INC. a C. a a v. C. WOODCOCK, Jr. HERB C. ENTERPRISES, INC. No. TRAILER AND TRUCK REPAIR CO. INC. No., 828 F.2d 205 (3d Cir. 1987)

. . . 888 (1957); In re Solomon, 40 F.Supp. 62 (E.D.Pa.1941); see generally 3 American Law of Property § 15.18 . . .

MERCER, v. ARMONTROUT,, 643 F. Supp. 1021 (W.D. Mo. 1986)

. . . second-degree murder under MAI-CR2d 15.14 (Instruction No. 6), and on conventional manslaughter under MAICR2d 15.18 . . .

In OZARK RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT CO. INC. G. MIXON, v. ANDERSON, s G. MIXON, v. ANDERSON CAJUN S WHARF, G. MIXON, v. McILROY Ed, 61 B.R. 750 (W.D. Ark. 1986)

. . . As Blumberg, The Law of Corporate Groups: Bankruptcy Law, (Little Brown 1985) § 15.18, freely acknowledges . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. ANDERSON,, 739 F.2d 1254 (7th Cir. 1984)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions §§ 15.18 and 15.19 (3d ed. 1977) (alternative identification . . .

HECKLER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. CAMPBELL, 461 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1983)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18, at 198-206 (2d ed. 1980).” Id., at 298. . . . In § 15.18 of his treatise, Professor Davis addresses the question of administrative or official notice . . . The jobs should be identified, their characteristics should be stated. . . .” § 15.18, at 204 (emphasis . . .

P. SHERWIN, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 685 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982)

. . . Davis, 3 Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18 at 199 (1980). . . .

GEORGE S RADIO AND TELEVISION COMPANY, INC. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,, 536 F. Supp. 681 (D. Md. 1982)

. . . the average interest rate on such securities was 9.63% for 1979, 11.94% for 1980,14.17% for 1981, and 15.18% . . . with prejudgment interest from March 7,1979, at 9.63% for 1979,11.94% for 1980, 14.17% for 1981, and 15.18% . . .

P. GEOFFROY, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 663 F.2d 315 (1st Cir. 1981)

. . . Davis, supra, § 15.18 (Official Notice In Disability Cases); cf. . . .

A. WANDER v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 523 F. Supp. 1086 (D. Md. 1981)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18, at 198-206 (2d ed. 1980). . . .

M. HALL, v. R. HARRIS,, 658 F.2d 260 (4th Cir. 1981)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18, at 198-206 (2d ed. 1980). . . .

DECKER, v. HARRIS,, 647 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1981)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18, at 198-206 (2d ed. 1980). . . .

S. FALCON, v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF SOUTHWEST,, 626 F.2d 369 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . White Black Speaking Other 1973 155 37 1974 53 6 1975 (thru 7/30) 4 _§ _a _Q 212 52 20 2 (74.12%) (15.18% . . .

WEST SHORE FUEL, INC. v. UNITED STATES A. KOLB, v. UNITED STATES, 598 F.2d 1236 (2d Cir. 1979)

. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 15.18, at 61 (rev. 1974). . . .

UNITED STATES v. SCOTT,, 578 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1978)

. . . [A. 151] In our view, this instruction, Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 15.18 . . .

MILLS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 215 Ct. Cl. 536 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . In Gibraltar, the pre tax profit-to-sales ratio was 15.18%, while the average return during the historical . . .

MILLS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES, 571 F.2d 1162 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . In Gibraltar, the pre tax profit-to-sales ratio was 15.18%, while the average return during the historical . . .

GIBRALTAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 212 Ct. Cl. 226 (Ct. Cl. 1976)

. . . fiscal 1967, output rose to 53,616 sprockets, sales to $2,735,328.44 and pre-tax profit accounted for 15.18 . . . 30,1967, the first review year, plaintiff’s actual pre-tax profit of $415,-355;83 represented a return of 15.18% . . . As earlier noted, plaintiff achieved pre-tax profits of 15.18% and 23.02% on sales in f.y.e. 6/30/67 . . .

ORTHO PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, a v. AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, a, 361 F. Supp. 1032 (D.N.J. 1973)

. . . in testing it since 1960; and it has been marketing it since mid-1968 (Pollack J-34 p. 15.15-17 to 15.18 . . .

EDWARDS v. Dr. J. BETO,, 329 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Tex. 1970)

. . . Articles 15.16 and 15.18 (1966). Additionally, he asserts that Tex.Code Crim. Procedure Ann. . . .

REMCO INDUSTRIES, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 285 F. Supp. 117 (Cust. Ct. 1968)

. . . He further stated that the cotton weighed 11.32 grams and the rayon 15.18 grams (1.10.) . . .

v., 60 Cust. Ct. 565 (Cust. Ct. 1968)

. . . He further stated that the cotton weighed 11.32 grams and the rayon 15.18 grams. (1.10.) . . .

A. J. v., 49 T.C. 324 (T.C. 1968)

. . . Johnson Lumber Corporation, 12 T.C. 348, 363; 2 Mertens, Installment Sales, sec. 15.18; Rev. . . .

Jr. v., 45 T.C. 544 (T.C. 1966)

. . . for sellers,” 22 J. of Taxation 73 (Feb. 1965), and 2 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 15.18 . . .

V. v., 52 C.C.P.A. 62 (C.C.P.A. 1965)

. . . Canadian Cost Basis Export Cost Basis 00132 15.65 4.19 00586 14.38 3.89 00652 15.18 4.08 The Customs . . .

v. V., 52 Cust. Ct. 599 (Cust. Ct. 1964)

. . . Canadian Cost Basis Export Cost Basis 00132 15.65 4.19 00586 14.38 3.89 00652 15.18 4.08 The manufacturer . . .

UNITED STATES v. STAPF B. T. II, H. STAPF B. T. II, H. v. UNITED STATES, 309 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1962)

. . . Estate and Gift Taxation (1961), p. 710; Lown-des and Kramer, Federal Estate and Gift Taxes (1962), § 15.18 . . .

DAVID R. BALOGH, INC. v. PENNSYLVANIA MILLERS MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 307 F.2d 894 (5th Cir. 1962)

. . . This case involves the loss of a 15.18 carat emerald, valued at $10,626.00, and the liability vel non . . .

WARREN v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 128 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1942)

. . . Barnes paid the sum of $15.18 as the first premium to J. H. . . .

WARREN v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 37 F. Supp. 358 (W.D. La. 1941)

. . . Barnes paid the sum of $15.18 to J. H. . . . 1940, addressed to the next of kin of George Barnes, Jr., declined the policy and enclosed a check of $15.18 . . .

H. v., 32 B.T.A. 969 (B.T.A. 1935)

. . . The book value at this time was $15.18, the difference, $2.96, being due to accumulation of earnings. . . .

ROBINSON v. LEE, 122 F. 1012 (C.C.D.S.C. 1903)

. . . assessed upon it, both for state and county purposes, for the fiscal year 1900-1901, for the sum of $15.18 . . .