Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE REPUBLIC AIRWAYS HOLDINGS INC., 598 B.R. 118 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . A § 17.02(c), Ex. B § 17.02(c), Ex. C § 17.02(c), Ex. D § 17.02(c), Ex. E § 17.02(c), Ex. . . . F § 17.02(c), Ex. G § 17.02(c) ). . . . A § 17.02(c), Ex. B § 17.02(c), Ex. C § 17.02(c), Ex. D § 17.02(c), Ex. E § 17.02(c), Ex. . . . F § 17.02(c), Ex. G § 17.02(c) ). . . . R § 17.02(a)-(b). . . .

DEACERO S. A. P. I. DE C. V. USA, v. UNITED STATES,, 353 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2018)

. . . On November 7, 2016, Commerce preliminarily calculated a 17.02% dumping margin for Deacero, relying on . . .

SAMELE, s v. ZUCKER,, 324 F. Supp. 3d 313 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . September 22, 2017, after the Plaintiffs initiated this action, the Commissioner issued MLTC Policy 17.02 . . .

IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC. v. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., 137 S. Ct. 1523 (U.S. 2017)

. . . Nimmer, Copyright § 17.02, p. 17-26 (2017). . . .

IN RE REPUBLIC AIRWAYS HOLDINGS INC., 565 B.R. 710 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . See Residco Objection at 5; see also Debtors’ Response to Residco Objection ¶ 17 (citing Leases § 17.02 . . . See Debtors’ Response to Residco Objection ¶ 17 (citing Leases § 17.02(c)). . . .

CS WIND VIETNAM CO. LTD. CS v. UNITED STATES,, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1273 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2017)

. . . Third Remand Results’s revisions, the antidumping duty margin on CS Wind’s towers was reduced from 17.02% . . .

ANNUNZIATO, v. COLLECTO, INC. EOS CCA,, 207 F. Supp. 3d 249 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . No. 17, ¶ 17.02 (1970)). . . .

HALO CREATIVE DESIGN LIMITED, v. COMPTOIR DES INDES INC., 816 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

. . . Nimmer on Copyright § 17.02; Tire Eng’g & Distrib., LLC v. . . .

FREDERICKS, v. UNITED STATES,, 125 Fed. Cl. 404 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

. . . See Felix Cohen, Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 17.02[4] (2012) (“Cohen’s Handbook”). . . . Long-Term Leasing Act, 25 U.S.C. § 415.” 66 Fed.Reg. 7068, 7079 (2001); see also Cohen’s Handbook § 17.02 . . . same” duties on the government as Part 162 does for leases. 66 Fed.Reg. at 7080; Cohen’s Handbook § 17.02 . . .

BOSTON, v. MOONEY,, 141 F. Supp. 3d 352 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.02 (3d ed.1977)). . . .

J. JOSEPH R. v. M. COOPER,, 539 B.R. 489 (W.D.N.C. 2015)

. . . See Webster’s Real Estate Law in North Carolina 17.02(3) (6th ed.) (citing Glass v. . . .

ATKINS, v. HEAVY PETROLEUM PARTNERS, LLC,, 86 F. Supp. 3d 1188 (D. Kan. 2015)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.02 (2d ed.1970)). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. GADSON, v., 763 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . from the Fouts house (1,977.4 grams of powder cocaine, 186 ecstasy pills, 31.5 grams of marijuana, 17.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. WRIGHT,, 567 F. App'x 564 (10th Cir. 2014)

. . . P. 17.02 addresses both complaints and indictments. . . . commentary to Rule 17 observes that “[t]he complaint under Rule 2.01 and the indictment under Rule 17.02 . . .

MYMEDICALRECORDS, INC. v. JARDOGS, LLC, 1 F. Supp. 3d 1020 (C.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . See 5-17 Chisum on Patents § 17.02 (noting that indirect infringement targets defendants who "appropriate . . .

XIAMEN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. Co. Co. v. UNITED STATES,, 953 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013)

. . . /kg., which Commerce then inflated to 17.02 Rs. . . .

LIVINGSTON, v. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION,, 966 F. Supp. 2d 208 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . and Rutledge’s comments, the price of Cablevision stock fell $2.50 per share, or 13%, to close at $17.02 . . .

KIRTSAENG, v. JOHN WILEY SONS, INC., 568 U.S. 519 (U.S. 2013)

. . . Nimmer, Copyright § 17.02, pp. 17-18, 17-19 (2012) (hereinafter Nimmer on Copyright) (noting that the . . . Nimmer, Copyright § 17.02, p. 17-18 (2012) (hereinafter Nimmer) (“[C]opyright laws do not have any extraterritorial . . .

UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ,, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . 2007 18.39 - 17.60 (2007 Processed Questionnaires .79 / 18.39 = 4.30% _Report) = .79%_ 2008 19.21 - 17.02 . . .

BALASANYAN v. NORDSTROM, INC. a v. a, 913 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (S.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . $73.39 for Balasanyan, $10.85 to $43.17 for Nalbandian, $10.85 to $35.38 for Maraventano, and $11.31 to $17.02 . . .

BRADY, v. GROUP LLC, 98 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.02 (3d ed. 2006); see also Weiss v. . . .

CASTELLANOS, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,, 98 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 17.02); see also Weiss v. . . .

N. MASELLO v. STANLEY WORKS, INC. ZAG, 825 F. Supp. 2d 308 (D.N.H. 2011)

. . . Friedman, Products Liability § 17.02[3][a] (1960 & 2011 supp.). . . . .

GREEN VALLEY INVESTMENT LLC, v. COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO,, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011)

. . . Section 17.02(3) instructs the Committee and the County Board of Adjustment to “prepare and adopt a public . . .

QPRO INC. v. RTD QUALITY SERVICES USA, INC., 761 F. Supp. 2d 492 (S.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . (Id., ¶ 17.02). On October 5, 2009, QPro filed its state-court suit against RTD (USA). . . .

UNITED STATES v. N. LUCK, a k a C-, 611 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. 2010)

. . . Brooks, 928 F.2d 1403, 1409 (4th Cir.1991) (quoting Devitt & Blackmar, Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.02 . . .

QPRO INC. v. RTD QUALITY SERVICES USA, INC., 718 F. Supp. 2d 817 (S.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . (Id., Ex. 1, ¶ 17.02). On October 5, 2009, QPro filed its state-court suit against RTD (USA). . . .

AURORA WORLD, INC. v. TY INC., 719 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . within the United States may be rendered liable under American copyright law.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright, § 17.02 . . .

TURNER, v. MURPHY OIL USA, INC., 582 F. Supp. 2d 797 (E.D. La. 2008)

. . . Pharmaceutical, Inc. 50 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1149 (D.Wyo.1999); Derfner & Wolf, Court Awarded Attorney Fees, ¶ 17.02 . . .

C. FERNANDEZ, v. B. MUKASEY,, 544 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2008)

. . . offense of possession of a controlled substance), and 2 Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction-Criminal 17.02 . . .

LITECUBES, LLC, R. v. NORTHERN LIGHT PRODUCTS, INC., 523 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Subafilms, 24 F.3d at 1098 (emphasis added); see 4-17 Nimmer on Copyright § 17.02 (“[A] distinction should . . .

STERLING SAVINGS BANK, v. AIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES CORPORATION, a v., 492 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (E.D. Wash. 2007)

. . . . 403, 407 (S.D.N.Y.1995))); 2 Clark & Clark, Law of Bank Deposits, Collections and Credit Cards, ¶ 17.02 . . .

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION U. S. PHILIPS CORPORATION, v. REMOTE SOLUTION CO. LTD. F K A Co., 411 F. Supp. 2d 479 (D. Del. 2006)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 17.02[7] (noting that "[flour of the five justices ... dissented on the knowledge . . .

CHUCK v. CITY OF HOMESTEAD POLICE DEPARTMENT, 888 So. 2d 736 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Smith, PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE OF FORFEITURE CASES, ¶ 17.02, 17-17 and 17-18, vol 2. (2003)’, this erroneously . . .

PALMER, s v. BRAUN,, 376 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2004)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 17.02 at 17-5). . . .

In FULTON BELLOWS COMPONENTS, INC. f k a JRGACQ, 307 B.R. 896 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004)

. . . decision of the Director of Human Resources, said decision shall be final and binding on both parties. 17.02 . . .

CIENEGA GARDENS, I, II, St. v. UNITED STATES,, 331 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

. . . Thomas, Thompson on Real Property § 17.02 (David A. Thomas ed., 2d ed.2000). . . . .

CIENEGA GARDENS, I, II, St. v. UNITED STATES,, 331 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

. . . Thomas, Thompson on Real Property § 17.02 (David A. Thomas ed., 2d ed.2000). . . . .

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL- CIO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 255 F. Supp. 2d 479 (E.D. Pa. 2003)

. . . The Local 13000 collective bargaining agreement contains the following provision: 17.02. . . . plaintiffs position that the December 12 and December 19, 2002 layoffs were in violation of Section 17.02 . . .

LEBER, v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC AND VIDEO DISTRIBUTION, INC., 225 F. Supp. 2d 928 (S.D. Ill. 2002)

. . . grievance procedure regarding the aforementioned breaches, and (5) violated §§ 12.02, 14.03 16.07 & 17.02 . . .

L. CHAO, v. HALL HOLDING COMPANY, INC. L. A. A. F., 285 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . Young, Business Organizations, § 17.02[3]). . . .

HEARTLAND BY- PRODUCTS, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 264 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

. . . Explanatory Note 17.02(B)(3), which provides examples of sugar syrups that fall under 1702 HTSUS, states . . . Id. at 1333 (quoting HTSUS Explanatory Note 17.02(B)(3)). . . . The court also cited Explanatory Note 17.02(B)(2), which states that “[jjuices and syrups obtained during . . .

SANDERS, v. JACKSON a, 209 F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 2000)

. . . No. 17, ¶ 17.02 (1970). . . . No. 17, ¶ 17.02. Goodwill can fluctuate significantly in the marketplace. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MATTHEWS, a k a a k a a k a, 209 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2000)

. . . O’Malley et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.02 (5th ed.2000). . . .

A. ARMSTRONG, d b a v. VIRGIN RECORDS, LTD., 91 F. Supp. 2d 628 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.02 (1999) [hereinafter “Nimmer”]. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MONZON- VALENZUELA,, 186 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 17.02 (1977). . . .

In COPLEY PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., 50 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Wyo. 1999)

. . . Wolf, Court Awarded Attorney Fees, ¶ 17.02 at 17-7 (1998); Conte, supra § 2.17 at 71. . . . Derfner & Wolf, supra ¶ 17.02 at 17-7 & n. 23. . . .

In ADAMS, In A., 229 B.R. 312 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . The reaffirmed debt is to be paid in twenty-four monthly instalments of $17.02. . . . The agreement also provides, among other things, that after Tolentino makes the first payment of $17.02 . . .

THE BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORPORATION,, 25 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . See 4 Nimmer § 17.02 at 17-20; accord, Subafilms, Ltd. v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. McVEIGH,, 153 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 1998)

. . . Devitt et al., Federal Jury Practice & Instructions § 17.02, at 606 (4th ed. 1992) (“Most federal criminal . . .

In CENTENNIAL TEXTILES, INC. M. HIRSCH, v. GERSTEN, MBL, 220 B.R. 165 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . 17.36 3,099,963 NOV 1995 15.28 2,996,094 JULY 1995 12.92 1,795,371 DEC 1995 10.14 3,526,586 AUG 1995 17.02 . . .

F. SHARPE E. v. FDIC,, 126 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1997)

. . . Clark & Clark, The Law of Bank Deposits, Collections and Credit Cards ¶ 17.02. . . .

BLACK DECKER US INC. v. CATALINA LIGHTING, INC., 953 F. Supp. 134 (E.D. Va. 1997)

. . . See Manville, 917 F.2d at 553; see also 3 Peter Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals § 17.02[2][a] (2d . . .

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, v. PHELPS DODGE REFINING CORPORATION, 950 F. Supp. 504 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . retention by the Escrow Agent, as defined in the Contract, of (a) the sum of $500,000.00 as provided in § 17.02 . . . shall be retained by said Escrow Agent to secure performance by Seller of its obligations under said § 17.02 . . .

YOUNT v. ACUFF ROSE- OPRYLAND, a a a A. Jr. B. B. YOUNT v. ACUFF ROSEOPRYLAND, a a a B. A. Jr. B. YOUNT v. ACUFF ROSE- OPRYLAND, a a a B., 103 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 1996)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 17.02 (1996). . . .

TOWNSHIP OF HADDON, v. ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, f n a a k a,, 929 F. Supp. 774 (D.N.J. 1996)

. . . Ostrager & Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 17.02 (8th ed.1995). . . .

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY,, 924 F. Supp. 704 (E.D. Va. 1996)

. . . Northwest argues that by that paragraph, the Authority expressly exempted Northwest from the operation of § 17.02 . . . Section 17.02 therefore now plainly applies to Northwest. . . . Instead, the premises reverted to the Authority and § 17.02 once again governed the premises. . . .

In TUTU WELLS CONTAMINATION LITIGATION. J. HARTHMAN, v. TEXACO INC., 909 F. Supp. 980 (D.V.I. 1995)

. . . The Law of Hazardous Waste, § 17.02[2][b], at 17-101 n. 14. . . .

CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY, LTD. a v. AZTECH SYSTEM PTE, LTD, a a, 61 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1995)

. . . See 3 Nimmer, supra § 17.02 at 17-21. . . .

W. EVANS F. v. R. BELL, a, 651 So. 2d 162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . At the time the initiative began, the city charter provided in section 17.02 for civil service board . . . charter, and the composition and method of selection of the career service board is addressed in section 17.02 . . .

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. HOSPITAL SAN RAFAEL, INC. De, 42 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 1994)

. . . Kheel, Labor Law § 17.02 (1994). . . .

KING COUNTY, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, a, 885 F. Supp. 1419 (W.D. Wash. 1994)

. . . known as the “Veazeyto-Cascade Junction line,” extending from MP 7.0 near Veazey in King County, to MP 17.02 . . .

SULTENFUSS, v. SNOW, Jr. T. H. O. J., 35 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1994)

. . . Id. at ¶ 8-17.02 through ¶ 8-25.02. . Id. at ¶ 8-17.02 and ¶ 8-26.01 (emphasis added). . . . .

NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, v. AEROPOWER COMPANY, LIMITED NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, v. AEROPOWER COMPANY, LIMITED, 34 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 1994)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyrights, § 17.02, at 17-19. . . .

W. WILSON, v. W. BELIN G., 20 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 17.02 (Vernon 1986). . . .

SUBAFILMS, LTD. v. MGM- PATHE COMMUNICATIONS CO. MGM UA Co. MGM UA SUBAFILMS, LTD. v. MGM- PATHE COMMUNICATIONS CO. MGM UA Co. MGM UA, 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994)

. . . act within the United States may be rendered liable under American copyright law. 3 Nimmer, supra, § 17.02 . . .

DIAL- A- MATTRESS OPERATING CORP. v. MATTRESS MADNESS, INC. d b a A- a, 841 F. Supp. 1339 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . by virtue of an assignment in gross, loss of distinctiveness, or non-use of the mark. 1 McCarthy, §§ 17.02 . . .

SULTENFUSS, v. SNOW, Jr. T. H. O. J., 7 F.3d 1543 (11th Cir. 1993)

. . . Id. at ¶ 8-17.02 and ¶ 8-26.01 (emphasis added). . Id. at 11 8-27.01 (emphasis added). . . . .

MBANK HOUSTON, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. ARMCO, INC. DEPOSIT INSURANCE BRIDGE BANK, A. W. H. I, v. ARMCO, INC., 1 F.3d 1439 (5th Cir. 1993)

. . . Section 17.02 of the Lease sets forth the landlord’s remedies in the event of a default by Armco. . . . special interrogatories, rejected Armco’s defenses to the Bank’s claim for rent pursuant to Section 17.02 . . . under the Lease, including the right to assert a cause of action against Armeo for damages under § 17.02 . . . First, as AWH concedes, it is not entitled to recover damages from Armeo pursuant to § 17.02 of the Lease . . . Only the Bank, as substitute landlord, had the right to collect damages from Armeo pursuant to § 17.02 . . .

COOK, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a a, 147 F.R.D. 237 (D. Colo. 1993)

. . . Cooke, The Law of Hazardous Waste § 17.02[2][b] (1992). Here, Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. . . .

In MORSE TOOL, INC. J. FERRARI, v. BARCLAYS BUSINESS CREDIT, INC. f k a, 148 B.R. 97 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1992)

. . . of mandatory retirement], or any employee who retires in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 17.02 . . .

M. VENDETTI, v. FIAT AUTO S. p. A. U. S. A., 802 F. Supp. 886 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure § 17.02(g), R.O. 560/84. See, Perry v. . . .

In PYRAMID OPERATING AUTHORITY, INC. a k a PYRAMID OPERATING AUTHORITY, INC. a k a L. v. CITY OF MEMPHIS,, 144 B.R. 795 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1992)

. . . At 17.02(h), the agreement provides that an event of default occurs on “the failure of the lessee to . . .

C. CRUDEN, a S. A. a v. BANK OF NEW YORK, a a a a a E. a a a a C. CRUDEN, a S. A. a v. IRVING TRUST COMPANY, a a E. a a, 957 F.2d 961 (2d Cir. 1992)

. . . reliance on the Simpson, Thacher opinions was unwarranted because the opinions failed to address ,§ 17.02 . . . Section 17.02 (and similar provisions in the Bank of New York and Irving Indentures) sets forth that . . . Thus, omission of any reference to § 17.02 did not render the opinions of counsel unworthy of reliance . . . Pursuant to § 17.02 of the Sterling Indenture — and similar provisions of the Bank of New York, Irving . . .

In MANLEY BRYAN, v. MANLEY,, 135 B.R. 137 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1992)

. . . Roberts, 267 U.S. 467, 45 S.Ct. 357, 69 L.Ed. 739 (1925), 1A Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1978) ¶¶ 17.02 . . .

INHABITANTS OF CITY OF SACO, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 779 F. Supp. 186 (D. Me. 1991)

. . . D & C Contract, ¶ 27; O & M Contract, ¶ 17.02. . . .

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. METROLOGIC INSTRUMENTS, INC. C., 771 F. Supp. 1390 (D.N.J. 1991)

. . . Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals § 17.02[2][a] at 17-25 (1991). . . . Rosenberg § 17.02[2][a] at 17-25. . . .

DANJAQ, S. A. a v. MGM UA COMMUNICATIONS, CO. a Co. a, 773 F. Supp. 194 (C.D. Cal. 1991)

. . . Hastings, 668 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.1981); see generally 3 Nimmer on Copyright, supra, at § 17.02. . . .

DE BARDOSSY, v. PUSKI, 763 F. Supp. 1239 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . Nimmer, Nimtner on Copyright, § 17.02 at 17-5. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. BROOKS, UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON,, 928 F.2d 1403 (4th Cir. 1991)

. . . district court to give the cautionary instruction for informer’s testimony as set forth in Section 17.02 . . .

R. STULL G. E. v. FUQUA INDUSTRIES, INC., 906 F.2d 1271 (8th Cir. 1990)

. . . the "direct result” language of paragraph Third of verdict directing instructions such as 17.01 and 17.02 . . .

AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY, v. J. HEIMANN D. W. J. a P., 904 F.2d 1405 (10th Cir. 1990)

. . . Kramer & Martin, supra p. 1410, § 17.02[5]. . . . Kramer & Martin, supra p. 1410, § 17.02[5][a] at 17-16. . . .

BEAN DREDGING CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES,, 19 Cl. Ct. 561 (Cl. Ct. 1990)

. . . Oper. 3 9.00 27.00 Welders 2 8.51 17.02 Oilers 3 6.23 18.69 Deckhands 8 6.00 48.00 Electrician 1 8.63 . . . Oper. 3 9.00 27.00 Welders 2 8.51 17.02 Oilers 3 6.23 18.69 Deckhands 8 6.00 48.00 Electrician 1 8.63 . . .

HOLBERT, v. WEST,, 730 F. Supp. 50 (E.D. Ky. 1990)

. . . Rule 17.02 of the Kentucky Rules of Civil procedure provides that a “married man or a married woman, . . . Rule 17.02. . . .

UNITED STATES v. K. BEVANS, 728 F. Supp. 340 (E.D. Pa. 1990)

. . . Blackmar, supra, § 17.02, at 524 (testimony of informer) (defining informer as one “who provides evidence . . .

M. BERSETT, v. K- MART CORPORATION,, 869 F.2d 1131 (8th Cir. 1989)

. . . on MAI 22.03, was improper under the circumstances of this case and that Instruction A, based on MAI 17.02 . . . indicates that MAI 22.03 is traditionally used for “slip and fall” or passive negligence cases, while MAI 17.02 . . .

J. T. IKONEN v. HARTZ MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, a, 122 F.R.D. 258 (S.D. Cal. 1988)

. . . Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 17.02. . . .

HODOROWSKI v. RAY,, 844 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1988)

. . . . § 17.02 on Friday, the day it took possession of the children, but claims that the court could not . . .

P D INTERNATIONAL, a v. HALSEY PUBLISHING COMPANY, a N. A. C. a k a a, 672 F. Supp. 1429 (S.D. Fla. 1987)

. . . Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, Section 17.02 at 17-5. . . .

HUNTINGTON BRANCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, L. v. TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, NEW YORK, C., 668 F. Supp. 762 (E.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . As of the 1980 census, census tract 1110.02 had a population of 79.44% white, 17.02% black, 11% Hispanic . . .

STRANDELL, v. JACKSON COUNTY, ILLINOIS,, 115 F.R.D. 333 (S.D. Ill. 1987)

. . . In the Northern District of Ohio, the SJT has been specifically provided for by Local Rule 17.02, a copy . . .

UNITED STATES v. VIGOA,, 656 F. Supp. 1499 (D.N.J. 1987)

. . . testimony of an ordinary witness”. 1 Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Section 17.02 . . .

TOWN OF NORTH BONNEVILLE, WASHINGTON v. UNITED STATES, 11 Cl. Ct. 694 (Cl. Ct. 1987)

. . . Paragraph 17.02 provides that in order to complete the relocation by May 1,1977, the final design must . . .

MYERS, A. C. G. J. v. HOISTING AND PORTABLE LOCAL AFL- CIO, AFL- CIO AFL- CIO F. AFL- CIO AFL- CIO C. AFL- CIO AFL- CIO AFL- CIO AFL- CIO,, 653 F. Supp. 500 (E.D. Mo. 1987)

. . . voting at such meeting shall decide this issue____ Section 17.01: Subject to the provisions of Section 17.02 . . . ..., there shall be a general membership meeting of this organization once each month____ Section 17.02 . . . Section 17.03: Special Meetings, general or as specified in Section 17.02, may be called by the Executive . . .

UNITED STATES v. R. RIDINGER,, 805 F.2d 818 (8th Cir. 1986)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.02 (1977). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOWMAN a k a a k a a k a J. D. S. a k a a k a, 798 F.2d 333 (8th Cir. 1986)

. . . See Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instruction, Instructions No. 17.02, 17.03, 17.-04, . . .

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

. . . Lucas, supra, ¶¶ 17.02, 17.07. The substantive law (the D.C. . . .

A. STUCKI COMPANY v. A. SCHWAM, 634 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals, § 17.02 at 17-10.1 (1985). . . . Id. at § 17.02[1] at 17-10.2, § 17.08 at 17-49 — 17.50.2. . . .

NORTH AMERICAN WATCH CORPORATION, a v. PRINCESS ERMINE JEWELS, a, 786 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir. 1986)

. . . See also 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 17.02 and 17.07 (1985) (discussing real party in interest standard . . .

In CERTAIN COMPLAINTS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY AN INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE OF JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. WILLIAMS L. L. v. MERCER, C. M. Jr. C. C. O a, 783 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . be served to compel attendance or production in grand jury proceedings. 8 Moore’s Federal Practice f 17.02 . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)