Cases from cite.case.law:

CAMPBELL, v. TRANSGENOMIC, INC., 916 F.3d 1121 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Technology $ ___ $ 4.78 $ 5.71 $ 6.86 $ 8.24 ______ ______ _______ _______ _______ Total 2.62 10.29 17.09 . . .

BRIGGS, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY,, 339 F. Supp. 3d 466 (E.D. Pa. 2018)

. . . for health insurance; $28.25 per month for dental insurance; $1.15 per month for life insurance; and $17.09 . . .

SMITH, J. D. v. CITY OF THOMASVILLE, GEORGIA, a a, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (M.D. Ga. 2016)

. . . Colson’s hourly rate went from $17.09 per hour to $12.21 per hour. (Id.). . . .

E. MILLER, v. COOPER, J., 116 F. Supp. 3d 919 (W.D. Wis. 2015)

. . . Code UWS § 17.09 (“[T]he university may discipline a student for engaging in, attempting to engage in . . .

TOWN OF BARNSTABLE, P. v. M. O CONNOR, A. LLC NSTAR n P. v. M. O A. LLC NSTAR, 786 F.3d 130 (1st Cir. 2015)

. . . . §§ 17.00-17.09, and the Massachusetts legislature subsequently removed the limitation from the statute . . .

PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES,, 120 Fed. Cl. 41 (Fed. Cl. 2015)

. . . Postlewaite, United States International Taxation ¶ 17.09. . . .

ESTATE OF L. ROWELL, v. WALKER BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER,, 290 F.R.D. 549 (N.D. Ala. 2013)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice V 17.09 (2d ed. 1982)); Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. . . .

STONINGTON WATER STREET ASSOC. LLC, v. HODESS BUILDING CO. INC. Co., 792 F. Supp. 2d 253 (D. Conn. 2011)

. . . Braspe tro, 369 F.3d at 59 (quoting 5 Construction Law ¶ 17.09[2], at 17-114 (Steven G.M. . . .

In GCP CT SCHOOL ACQUISITION, LLC,, 443 B.R. 243 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2010)

. . . four days of use and occupancy charges, namely, $2,965.32 for base rent, plus $118.38 for “Opex,” and $17.09 . . . 118.38 (4 Days Opex) . $ 128.14 (June Electric Charges) 4- 30 (Days in June) $ 4.27 (per diem) x 4 $ 17.09 . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. GRIFFIN,, 524 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2008)

. . . O’MALLEY ET AL., FEDERAL JURY PRACTICE AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS, CRIMINAL § 17.09, at 653 (5th ed.2000) . . .

COATES, v. HALL,, 512 F. Supp. 2d 770 (W.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . District Rule 17.09. . . .

KLACZAK v. CONSOLIDATED MEDICAL TRANSPORT,, 458 F. Supp. 2d 622 (N.D. Ill. 2006)

. . . Percentage Explained ALS N/A 68.43% 43.32% 66.96% 69.73% 50.01% Part B — Contract Rate BLS ($8.86) $13.35 $17.09 . . . Explained ALS Fully explained 56.04% 45.47% 60.48% 45.04% Part B — Contract Rate BLS $(8.86)_$13.35 $17.09 . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. ALSTON- GRAVES, a a, 435 F.3d 331 (D.C. Cir. 2006)

. . . O’Malley et al., FedeRal Juey PRACTICE AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS, CRIMINAL § 17.09, at 653 (5th ed.2000), . . .

In WORLDCOM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 352 F. Supp. 2d 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Id. at 17.09. The amortization period may not exceed forty years. Id. . . .

S. FREEDMAN, v. AMERICA ONLINE, INC., 329 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Va. 2004)

. . . Michael’s Credit Union, 880 F.2d 579, 585 (1st Cir.1989); Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 17.09 . . .

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY v. BRASPETRO OIL SERVICES COMPANY, S. A., 369 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2004)

. . . Co., 817 F.2d 956, 964 (2d Cir.1987); see generally 5 Construction Law ¶ 17.09[1], this is not to say . . . the contractor, at least to the extent of the surety's loss on th[e] contract.” 5 Construction Law ¶ 17.09 . . .

RYAN, v. GENERAL MACHINE PRODUCTS,, 277 F. Supp. 2d 585 (E.D. Pa. 2003)

. . . in January 1996 was $16.11 per hour; his wages were later increased to $16.59 per hour in May 1996; $17.09 . . .

DIONNE, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 230 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D. Me. 2002)

. . . reply brief in the instant EAJA litigation “is excessive and should be substantially reduced” and that $17.09 . . . However, for the reasons explained above, I recommend that postage expenses of $17.09 be disallowed. . . .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PETERSEN, 143 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Va. 2001)

. . . Id. at § 17.09. . . .

A. TRAMILL, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,, 10 F. App'x 250 (6th Cir. 2001)

. . . he would have worked forty hours per week at the hourly rate of either $18.87, as UPS suggests, or $17.09 . . . It further awarded back pay at $17.09 as a part-time rate between January 26, 1995 and July 31, 1998 . . .

PERRY, v. GLOBE AUTO RECYCLING, INC. J. M., 227 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2000)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09(1.-1) at 17-84) (now found at 4 James Wm. . . .

ALEMAN, A. v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY, B., 35 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Wis. 1999)

. . . . §§ 17.09(5), 17.11(1). . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. CAMUTI,, 78 F.3d 738 (1st Cir. 1996)

. . . Devitt, et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.09 (4th ed. 1992); Gabriele, 63 F.3d at 66 . . .

NORTHWINDS ABATEMENT, INC. v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU,, 69 F.3d 1304 (5th Cir. 1995)

. . . Act of Dec. 11, 1989, 71st Leg., 2nd C.S., Ch. 1, § 17.09(1) 1989 Tex.Gen.Laws 1, 117. . . . .

L. S. MULHOLLAND, v. UNITED STATES,, 28 Fed. Cl. 320 (Fed. Cl. 1993)

. . . 18.81% 18.81% 18.80% * 18.80% * 11.77% 11.77% 2 18.35% 17.90% 18.26% * 17.71% * 11.77% 11.77% 3 17.93% 17.09% . . .

AMGEN, INC. v. CHUGAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD. ORTHO PHARMACEUTICAL CORP. M. B. H. N. Y. S. A. R. L. G. M. B. H. S. P. A. LDA. S. A. AB, AG, AG v. GENETICS INSTITUTE, INC., 808 F. Supp. 894 (D. Mass. 1992)

. . . Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals § 17.09[1][b] at 17-151 (2d ed. 1975). . . .

WESCH, v. HUNT,, 785 F. Supp. 1491 (S.D. Ala. 1992)

. . . CENTREVILLE 2,116 1,681 433 100.00% 79.44% 20.46% 1 1 0 0.05% 0.05% 0.00% RANDOLPH 784 650 134 100.00% 82.91% 17.09% . . .

UNITED STATES v. NOONE,, 913 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1990)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.09 (3rd ed. 1977). . . .

GOLDEN VALLEY MICROWAVE FOODS, INC. v. WEAVER POPCORN COMPANY, INC., 132 F.R.D. 204 (N.D. Ind. 1990)

. . . Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals ¶ 17.09[4] (2d ed. 1990). . . .

BROCKLESBY TRANSPORT, A DIVISION OF KINGSWAY TRANSPORTS, LTD. v. EASTERN STATES ESCORT SERVICES, EASTERN STATES ESCORT SERVICES, v. NICKLE CITY ESCORT SERVICE, B M, 904 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1990)

. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09[2.-4], at 17-91 (2d ed. 1989). . . .

JONES INTERCABLE, INC. TV E F v. CITY OF STEVENS POINT, WISCONSIN,, 729 F. Supp. 642 (W.D. Wis. 1990)

. . . In addition, § 17.09(7) states the Grantee, by the acceptance of any franchise awarded hereunder, agrees . . .

In B. JACKSON, G. t a A In B. JACKSON, G. In B. JACKSON, E. B. a In R. LEONARD, Jr. v. WESSEL, S. t d b a A, 92 B.R. 987 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1988)

. . . MOORE, supra, § 17.09, at 17-30. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CONSERVATION CHEMICAL COMPANY, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION,, 681 F. Supp. 1394 (W.D. Mo. 1988)

. . . The present worth estimate for this alternative is $17.09 million. . . .

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)

. . . .-04, 17.08 and 17.09. . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. WELSH, O., 774 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. 1985)

. . . Cir.1975)); and conviction of a felony is admissible in determining the credibility of a witness (§ 17.09 . . .

CARPETLAND, U. S. A. v. J. L. ADLER ROOFING, INC., 107 F.R.D. 357 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . Hunt, 183 F.2d 417 (10th Cir.1950); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 [2.-1], at p. 108 (2d ed. 1985 . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 12.07 22.64 34.71 16.16 14.60 31.26 18.62 22.81 27.15 38.30 20.80 32.73 26.22 10.85 22.76 32.16 12.62 17.09 . . .

In H. BEHR WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, a v. H. BEHR, 42 B.R. 922 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1984)

. . . Aetna Acceptance Corp., 293 U.S. 328, 55 S.Ct. 151, 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934). 1 A Collier on Bankruptcy, § 17.09 . . .

PETERSEN MANUFACTURING CO. INC. v. CENTRAL PURCHASING, INC., 740 F.2d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1984)

. . . As stated in Moore’s Manual, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 17.09 (2d ed. 1984): Affidavits containing . . .

ITALIA DI NAVIGAZIONE, S. p. A. v. M. V. HERMES I, K. K. a k a Co., 564 F. Supp. 492 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)

. . . M/T Stolt Lion, 617 F.2d 907, 911 & n. 2 (2d Cir.1980); see generally 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶17.09 . . .

N. HESS, v. EDDY,, 689 F.2d 977 (11th Cir. 1982)

. . . . relation back instead, overriding] state practice to the contrary.” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 . . .

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT DISC CORPORATION, v. SANGAMO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT DISC CORPORATION, v. SANGAMO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT DISC CORPORATION, v. SANGAMO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 686 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1982)

. . . attorney, and not a collusive arrangement to create diversity jurisdiction, 3A Moore’s Federal Practice j[ 17.09 . . .

INGRAM, v. LINK BELT POWER SHOVEL CO. a FMC FMC, 94 F.R.D. 196 (W.D. Va. 1982)

. . . See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09[2.-1] (2d ed. Supp. 1981); United States v. . . .

A. C. DAVENPORT SON CO. v. UNITED STATES, 538 F. Supp. 730 (N.D. Ill. 1982)

. . . Berlin, 356 F.2d 269, 270 (5th Cir. 1966); 3A Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 17.09 [1.-2] at 17-101. . . .

AMERICAN TRITICALE, INC. v. NYTCO SERVICES, INC. a a J. H. a s a St. I XX I XX,, 664 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1981)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, H 17.09[1.1] (2d ed. 1979). . . .

JEFFERSON COUNTY PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES,, 656 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . ), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 959, 96 S.Ct. 1741, 48 L.Ed.2d 204 (1976); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, H 17.09 . . .

In CUMMINS, FIRST NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK, v. CUMMINS,, 11 B.R. 222 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1981)

. . . rights of another, and under mistake or apprehension, is dischargeable, 1A Collier on Bankruptcy, § 17.09 . . .

In DURAND MILLING COMPANY, INC. PICKLER v. DURAND MILLING COMPANY, INC. R., 9 B.R. 669 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1981)

. . . See also 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.09 (14th Ed.) for an exhaustive review of other illustrative cases . . .

In PILLOW, Jr. L. PILLOW, Jr. v. AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, In W. GEIGLE, W. GEIGLE, v. AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, In W. HORTON J. W. HORTON, v. AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, In J. REVELLO O. J. REVELLO O. v. AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES,, 8 B.R. 404 (Bankr. D. Utah 1981)

. . . Murphy, Creditors’ Rights in Bankruptcy, § 17.09 at 17-21 (1980). . . .

STANDARD LIME AND CEMENT COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES, 503 F. Supp. 938 (W.D. Mich. 1980)

. . . The meaning of such a requirement is explained in Moore’s, Federal Practice, 17.09(1) at 17-82: The primary . . . restructuring does not generally fall within the purview of the Claims Act as noted by Moore, supra, 17.09 . . .

GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. G. GORDON SYMONS CO. LTD., 631 F.2d 131 (9th Cir. 1980)

. . . the amounts they are entitled to receive by principles of subrogation. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 . . .

In F. DAY, Jr. MURRAY d b a C C Co. v. F. DAY, Jr. a k a, 4 B.R. 750 (S.D. Ohio 1980)

. . . Jensen, 170 F.2d 348, 351 (9th Cir. 1948); 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.09 at 1600-01 (1978). . . .

NISSHO- IWAI CO. LTD. v. M T STOLT LION, v. ANGLOMAR SUPERTANKERS, LIMITED,, 617 F.2d 907 (2d Cir. 1980)

. . . See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 at 17-82 (2d ed. 1979). . . .

NEW YORK GUARDIAN MORTGAGEE CORP. v. CLELAND,, 473 F. Supp. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)

. . . See generally, Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.09[l.-2] at 17— 100 n.2. . . .

BROWN v. JONES,, 473 F. Supp. 439 (N.D. Tex. 1979)

. . . . § 17.09. . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. LEVERING, Jr. v. T. MURPHY N., 455 F. Supp. 1165 (D. Del. 1978)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 17.09 at 542-43 (1958), the law in the Third Circuit remains that . . .

In VINES, BANK OF LEXINGTON, LEXINGTON, ALABAMA, v. VINES,, 430 F. Supp. 465 (N.D. Ala. 1977)

. . . reckless disregard of the rights of another, constitute wilful and malicious injuries. 1 A Collier, ¶ 17.09 . . .

INTERNATIONAL REDISCOUNT CORP. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY,, 425 F. Supp. 669 (D. Del. 1977)

. . . courts. 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure ¶¶ 1543, 1544; 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 . . . determining whether diversity exists.” 57 F.R.D. 503 at 505. .See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice Ufl 17.08 and 17.09 . . .

BAKER, A R v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION, a A R LUMBER SALES, INC. v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION, a, 542 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1976)

. . . .) § 17.09[2.-1], Southern Pacific did not object and A & R’s insurers were not indispensable parties . . .

MIDLAND NATIONAL BANK v. COUSINS PROPERTIES, INC., 68 F.R.D. 427 (N.D. Ga. 1975)

. . . jurisdictions that the assignee for collections is the real party in interest. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶[ 17.09 . . .

CALVIN v. B. CONLISK, Jr., 520 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1975)

. . . See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, If 17.08 at p. 262; If 17.09[1.-1], If 17.13[1]. . . .

DUDLEY v. P. SMITH,, 504 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice § 17.09 [2.-4] (2d ed. 1974). . . .

WHITE HALL BUILDING CORPORATION v. PROFEXRAY DIVISION OF LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CENTER CITY X- RAY LAB, INC., 387 F. Supp. 1202 (E.D. Pa. 1974)

. . . holding agrees with the position of the great majority of jurisdictions. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.09 . . . originally intended simply to allow ap^assignee to sue in his own name, 3A Moore's~Federal Practice § 17.09 . . .

MITCHELL- HUNTLEY COTTON COMPANY, INC. v. W. C. LAWSON v. ADAMS, 377 F. Supp. 661 (M.D. Ga. 1973)

. . . Rule 17(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 3A Moore’s Federal Practice jf|f 17.07, 17.09. . . .

In BENNETT, v. W. T. GRANT COMPANY,, 481 F.2d 664 (4th Cir. 1973)

. . . Kavanaugh, 242 U.S. 138, 37 S.Ct. 38, 61 L.Ed. 205 (1916), Collier on Bankruptcy, Vol. 1A ¶ 17.09 at . . .

S. GOODMAN, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 467 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

. . . Davis, supra, § 17.09 (1958). . . .

FOX- GREENWALD SHEET METAL CO. v. MARKOWITZ BROS. INC. Co. Co., 452 F.2d 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1971)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice J 17.09 [1-1] at 279 (2d ed. 1970). . . .

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

. . . Cases holding both ways on this question are collected in 3A Moore’s Fed.Prac. 2d ed. 369 ¶¶ 17.09 [2 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GEORGIA- PACIFIC COMPANY,, 421 F.2d 92 (9th Cir. 1970)

. . . E. g., Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 17.01-17.09 (1958) ; Berger, supra at n. 12, Pillsbury, . . .

DeWITT, v. QUARTERBACK SPORTS FEDERATION, INC. a, 45 F.R.D. 252 (D. Minn. 1968)

. . . United States, 287 F.2d 108 (10th Cir. 1961); 2 Barron & Holtzoff § 482; 3A Moore § 17.09 [1. — 1]. . . . Miller, 256 F.Supp. 15 (E.D.Pa.1966); 3A Moore. § 17.09. . . .

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

. . . Subsection 11 amends §17.09 in full. . . .

UNITED STATES v. W. H. COCKE, 399 F.2d 433 (5th Cir. 1968)

. . . See generally 2 Davis, Administrative Law §§ 17.01-17.09 (Chapter 17: “Estoppel and Stare Decisis”) ( . . .

DIXIE PORTLAND FLOUR MILLS, INC. v. DIXIE FEED SEED COMPANY, J. d b a, 382 F.2d 830 (6th Cir. 1967)

. . . collection under a valid assignment is the real party in interest under Rule 17(a). 3 Moore’s, Sec. 17.09 . . . makes a ‘loan’ agreement with its insured, the insured is the real party in interest. 3 Moore’s, Sec. 17.09 . . .

H. OBURN, Jr. L. v. M. FENTON E., 278 F. Supp. 185 (W.D. Pa. 1966)

. . . Hunt, 183 F.2d 417 (10th Cir. 1950); see: 3 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 17.09, pp. 1334-1335, 1346-1349 . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, a v. LANEY AND DUKE STORAGE WAREHOUSE COMPANY, a, 39 F.R.D. 607 (M.D. Fla. 1966)

. . . required the partial subrogee to be joined as a real party in interest. 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 . . .

BOROUGH OF NANTY- GLO WESTINGHOUSE CREDIT CORPORATION, v. FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY,, 250 F. Supp. 329 (W.D. Pa. 1966)

. . . Ill; 3 Moore, Federal Practice, 17.09, p. 1339; Wright, Federal Courts, pp. 257-258 (1963). . . .

DIXIE PORTLAND FLOUR MILLS, INC. a a v. DIXIE FEED SEED COMPANY, a J. d b a, 272 F. Supp. 826 (W.D. Tenn. 1965)

. . . collection under a valid assignment is the real party in interest under Rule 17 (a). 3 Moore’s, Sec. 17.09 . . . makes a “loan” agreement with its insured, the insured is the real party in interest. 3 Moore’s, Sec. 17.09 . . .

SEMAAN, v. L. MUMFORD,, 335 F.2d 704 (D.C. Cir. 1964)

. . . See generally 2 Davis, Admiuistbative Law Teeatise §§ 17.01, 17.02, 17.03, 17.09 (1958, Supp.1963). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CARGO SALVAGE CORPORATION,, 228 F. Supp. 145 (S.D.N.Y. 1964)

. . . Dingfelder, 111 F.2d 406 (2 Cir. 1940); see generally 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.09 p. 1341 (2 ed . . .

McNEIL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a v. LIVINGSTON STATE BANK, a, 300 F.2d 88 (9th Cir. 1962)

. . . Section 17.09, p. 1349, fn. 35; 157 A.L.R. 1261, 1263. . . . .

UNITED STATES FIDELITY GUARANTY CO. a a v. T. SLIFKIN, 200 F. Supp. 563 (N.D. Ala. 1961)

. . . Thus, 3 Moore, Federal Practice Par. 17.09, at 1349 (2d ed. 1948), states without qualifications: “An . . .

TEXAS SAN JUAN OIL CORPORATION, THE DEEPWATER, NO. v. AN- SON OFFSHORE DRILLING COMPANY,, 194 F. Supp. 396 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)

. . . Cf. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.09, pp. 1343-1345 (2d Ed. 1948). . . .

J. J. TYLER d b a a v. DOWELL, INC. a a, 274 F.2d 890 (10th Cir. 1960)

. . . United States, 5 Cir., 170 F.2d 199; 3 Moore Federal Practice, § 17.09, p. 1349. . . .

GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY v. COOK BROTHERS, INC. d b a, 23 F.R.D. 269 (S.D. Ind. 1959)

. . . See also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice par. 17.09, pp. 1346-1350. . . .

STRATE v. NIAGARA MACHINE AND TOOL WORKS, 160 F. Supp. 296 (S.D. Ind. 1958)

. . . law an insurer-subrogee is generally deemed a real party in interest. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 17.09 . . .

BORIS, d. b. n. c. t. a. F. C. v. R. MOORE a, 152 F. Supp. 595 (E.D. Wis. 1957)

. . . A footnote then refers to 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 17.09, pp. 1334-1351, and to Rogers v. . . .

PANZICH v. DUHART, 118 F. Supp. 415 (S.D. Cal. 1954)

. . . The subject now before this Court is discussed in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Edition, Section 17.09 . . .

NATIONAL GARMENT CO. v. NEW YORK, C. ST. L. R. CO., 173 F.2d 32 (8th Cir. 1949)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., § 17.09, pp. 1348, 1349. . . .

ELM CORPORATION v. E. M. ROSENTHAL JEWELRY CO., 161 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1947)

. . . .; Levy’s from 4.03 to 17.09 per cent.; and Saul Kaufmann’s from 4.03 to 23.58 per cent. . . .

BRIGIDO URBINO v. PORTO RICO RY. LIGHT POWER CO., 68 F. Supp. 841 (D.P.R. 1946)

. . . Ignacio de Leon was paid and received $13.07 and not $513.00; Eladio Nazario was paid and received $17.09 . . .

HIGGINS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 129 F.2d 237 (1st Cir. 1942)

. . . donor’s gross estate for purposes of the estate tax See Paul, Federal Estate and Gift Taxation (1942) § 17.09 . . .

B. v., 111 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1933)

. . . of s'aid property as found by the jury, and also his costs in this behalf expended, herein taxed at $17.09 . . . , for all of which said sums, to-wit: $17.09 costs and $25.00 damages for detention of said property . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)