Cases from cite.case.law:

GORDON, v. DRAPE CREATIVE, INC. a, 909 F.3d 257 (9th Cir. 2018)

. . . See 2 MCCARTHY § 10:17.10 (noting that Rogers 's second prong does not hinge on the junior user "falsely . . .

SOARING WIND ENERGY, LLC, P. W. v. CATIC USA, INC. a. k. a. AVIC USA,, 333 F. Supp. 3d 642 (N.D. Tex. 2018)

. . . In support of its argument, AVIC USA cites to Section 17.10 of the Agreement which provides: 17.10 No . . . SWE Agreement at p. 55, ¶ 17.10. . . .

IN RE N. GRANT- COVERT,, 658 F. App'x 175 (3d Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 17.10[1], at p. 17-15 (3d ed. 2010)); see also In re Miller, 666 F.3d 1255, 1261 (10th Cir. 2012) . . .

IN RE N. GRANT- COVERT,, 658 F. App'x 175 (3d Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 17.10[1], at p. 17-15. (3d ed. 2010)); see also In re Miller, 666 F.3d 1255, 1261 (10th Cir. 2012 . . .

VENTURA, v. L. A. HOWARD CONSTRUCTION CO., 134 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D.D.C. 2015)

. . . was paid his regular hourly rate for those hours of overtime, and was thus entitled to an additional $17.10 . . .

BABIN, II G. Jr. v. BREAUX, L., 587 F. App'x 105 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . R. 17.10. . . . R. 17.10 (prior to June 3, 2009). . . . .

CONNOR B. VIGURS, S. R. S. T. D. v. L. PATRICK, I., 985 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D. Mass. 2013)

. . . From 2004 until March 2012, DCF’s foster care maintenance rates stagnated, lingering at $17.10 per day . . .

MEDA AB, v. COMPANY,, 969 F. Supp. 2d 360 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . CEPS set the price of Flécame LP at 17.10 per unit. (Forey Decl. ¶ 8). . . .

GILSTER, v. PRIMEBANK,, 884 F. Supp. 2d 811 (N.D. Iowa 2012)

. . . Therefore, when she was terminated in 2011, her salary was $16.80, not the $17.10 it would have been, . . .

In JERNIGAN, v. N. A., 475 B.R. 535 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2012)

. . . , economically or otherwise, is not necessarily a real party. 4-17 Moore’s Federal Practice-Civil § 17.10 . . .

ESTATE OF L. WASILCHEN, v. F. GOHRMAN,, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (W.D. Wash. 2012)

. . . Fourteenth Amendment rights; (4) violation of the Washington State Noxious Weed Statute, RCW Chapter 17.10 . . .

BRICKLAYERS AND MASONS LOCAL UNION NO. OHIO PENSION FUND, v. TRANSOCEAN LTD., 866 F. Supp. 2d 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . equipment functions properly” and that “BOP maintenance must meet or exceed the provisions of Sections 17.10 . . .

In FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP. FREDDIE MAC SECURITIES LITIGATION, 281 F.R.D. 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . a price of $25.99 per share, and purchased 5,500 additional shares on July 11, 2008, at a price of $17.10 . . .

In D. BLIXSETH, v. D., 459 B.R. 444 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2011)

. . . party who meets the standing requirements is a real party in interest.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practioe § 17.10 . . . See MooRe’s, supra, § 17.10[1], Was, for example, the plaintiff a party to the contract sought to be . . .

In VEAL, Jr. Jr. v. N. A., 450 B.R. 897 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011)

. . . party who meets the standing requirements is a real party in interest.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 . . . See Moore’s, supra, § 17.10[1]. . . .

MEINEKE CAR CARE CENTERS, INCORPORATED, v. RLB HOLDINGS, LLC H. G. a k a, 423 F. App'x 274 (4th Cir. 2011)

. . . Meineke points to Article 17.10 as further proof that the district court erred, observing that contract . . . (Appellant’s Opening Br. 21, quoting Article 17.10 at J.A. 75.) . . . RLB argues that Meineke's failure to raise the applicability of Article 17.10 in the district court precludes . . . Meineke does not dispute its failure to raise the application of Article 17.10 below, and defends its . . . circumstances in this case, we will not consider Meineke's argument and consider it waived as to Article 17.10 . . .

KNIT WITH, v. KNITTING FEVER, INC. V. V. G. Di C. J. Jr. v. Co., 742 F. Supp. 2d 568 (E.D. Pa. 2010)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10[1] (3d ed. 2010) (internal references omitted). . . .

RK COMPANY, v. R. SEE,, 622 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2010)

. . . Texor Petroleum Co., Inc., 521 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir.2008); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 (3d. . . .

BENDER, v. NEWELL WINDOW FURNISHINGS,, 725 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. Mich. 2010)

. . . docket no. 229A1, Plaintiffs’ Master Ex. 17.9, at 43, 79-81; docket no. 229-5, Plaintiffs’ Master Ex. 17.10 . . .

NATIONAL JUNIOR BASEBALL LEAGUE, v. PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. P. P., 720 F. Supp. 2d 517 (D.N.J. 2010)

. . . 2008, see Id. at ¶¶ 158-63, the price of its stock fell from $28.86 per share on April 30, 2008, to $17.10 . . .

NICKENS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 694 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2010)

. . . status: Thus, the attorney-in-fact cannot bring suit in its own name.” 4 Moore's Federal Practice § 17.10 . . .

In R. FREEMAN, v. R., 446 B.R. 625 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2010)

. . . 1990) (applying HRCP 17(a), which is identical to Federal Rule 17(a)); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 . . .

MOORE, v. HEXACOMB CORPORATION,, 670 F. Supp. 2d 621 (W.D. Mich. 2009)

. . . classifications, ranging from highest to lowest in terms of seniority and pay: (1) Natural Team Lead ($17.10 . . .

In BILL HEARD ENTERPRISES, INC. s, 400 B.R. 813 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2009)

. . . Section 17.10 of the dealer franchise agreements includes a netting provision that allows GM to debit . . . Section 17.10 of the agreement provides that: All monies or accounts due Dealer are net of Dealer’s indebtedness . . . deduct the amount of its damages, once determined, from the open accounts pursuant to the terms of § 17.10 . . .

In NATURE S SUNSHINE PRODUCT S INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 251 F.R.D. 656 (D. Utah 2008)

. . . , and another 6.11% on March 27, 2006; when Nature was named in a class action suit, it shares fell 17.10% . . .

MECKLENBURG FARM, v. ANHEUSER- BUSCH, INC., 250 F.R.D. 414 (E.D. Mo. 2008)

. . . Moore, et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10[1] (3d ed.2007). . . . in that both address a party’s right to pursue an action as claimant.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.10 . . .

ICE CORPORATION, v. HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION S. A. S., 245 F.R.D. 513 (D. Kan. 2007)

. . . Defendants’ Master Terms Agreement (“MTA”) with Artus, dated November 14, 2005 provides: 17.10 Certain . . .

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

. . . District Rule 17.10. . . . District Rule 17.10 states that “a decision of the Board concerning a hearing matter may be appealed . . .

In HAMILTON, v. U. S., 361 B.R. 532 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2007)

. . . From $4.91 to $17.10. . . . .

In ADVANCED MARKETING SERVICES, INC. a v., 360 B.R. 421 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007)

. . . Specifically, Section 17.10 provides that: Each Borrower hereby ratifies, adopts, confirm and agrees . . . DIP Loan Agreement at § 17.10 (emphasis added). . . .

BREWER, v. QUARTERMAN,, 474 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2006)

. . . SteRN et al., SUPREME Court PRACTICE § 17.10, at 769 (8th ed.2002). . . .

INTERNATIONAL EQUITY INVESTMENTS, INC. LLC, L. P. f. k. a. CVC L. P. v. OPPORTUNITY EQUITY PARTNERS, LTD. f. k. a. CVC, 411 F. Supp. 2d 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . possessing the right or interest to be enforced through the litigation.'' 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 . . . 3d Cir.1996) ("There may be multiple real parties in interest for a given claim”); accord 4 Moore § 17.10 . . . See id. § 17.10(1], at 17-13. . See, e.g., VTech Holdings Ltd. v. . . .

CELTA AGENCIES, INC. v. DENIZCILIKSANAYI VE TICAARET, A. S., 396 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D.P.R. 2005)

. . . persons or entities possessing the right or interest to be enforced through the litigation.” 4 Moore’s § 17.10 . . . also to ensure that the judgment in the action will have preclusive res judi-cata effect.” 4 Moore’s § 17.10 . . . against the real party in interest representative is binding on the person represented.” 4 Moore’s § 17.10 . . .

J. MORIARTY, v. B. MUZYKA,, 379 F. Supp. 2d 935 (N.D. Ill. 2005)

. . . March 1995 through February 1996 — 162 trips at $17.10 each; e. . . . October 1995 — 2 trips at $17.10 each; . b. . . .

SYSTEM FUELS, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 65 Fed. Cl. 163 (Fed. Cl. 2005)

. . . Coquillette et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10[2] (3d ed. 2004) (The Rule “is intended to protect . . .

FREEDOM HOLDINGS, INC. d b a, v. SPITZER, J., 447 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . ; %) Total SPMs (billions; %) 1998 455.22 96.5% 14.12 2.43 0.5% 471.77 00 ^ 1999 422.00 92.3% 18.00 17.10 . . .

CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. v. NAXOS OF AMERICA, INC., 372 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004)

. . . See Nim-mer § 17.10[A], at 17-54. . . .

SCHUMACHER, P. D. v. TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC. L. L. C., 221 F.R.D. 605 (D.S.D. 2004)

. . . Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 17.10 (3d ed.1992).” Mejdrech v. . . .

ALDRIDGE, v. UNITED STATES,, 59 Fed. Cl. 387 (Fed. Cl. 2004)

. . . every party who meets standing requirements is a real party in interest. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.10 . . .

LITTLETON GAS COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,, 300 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2003)

. . . ) that contained the following handwritten notations. in column format: “7.38 [ + ] 9.72 spread [=] 17.10 . . .

In iPCS, INC. iPCS iPCS iPCS, iPCS iPCS v. L. P. L. P., 303 B.R. 527 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2003)

. . . The provision at issue states as follows: 17.10 Waiver of Jury Trial EACH PARTY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST . . . Management Agreement, Section 17.10. . . .

APCC SERVICES, INC. v. AT T CORPORATION,, 281 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2003)

. . . Indeed, “[generally real parties in interest have standing,” Moore, supra § 17.10[1]. . . . MOORE, supra § 17.10[1]. The injury that has generated the suit is theirs to vindicate. . . .

SMITH, v. C. K. PLILER,, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . (CALJIC No. 17.10.) . . .

MEJDRECH, v. MET- COIL SYSTEMS CORP., 319 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2003)

. . . Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 17.10 (3d ed. 1992). . . .

XCO INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, v. PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC COMPANY,, 255 F. Supp. 2d 825 (N.D. Ill. 2002)

. . . On April 2, 2001, XCO quoted Pacific a price of $17.10 per foot for the 2,000 feet of cable. . . . On April 21, 2001, Pacific submitted a purchase order to XCO for the 2,000 feet of cable at $17.10 per . . .

KARRAS, PRP v. TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (S.D. Cal. 2002)

. . . United States, 463 U.S. 110, 103 S.Ct. 2906, 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 17.10 . . . party is a real party in interest with respect to that right or interest. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 . . .

THERATX, INC. v. DUNCAN, S., 234 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2000)

. . . TheraTx was bought by Vencor, Inc. on a tender offer of $17.10 per share in March 1997. B. . . . shares sold in the range of $13,311 to $18,750 per share until the shares were proffered to Vencor at $17.10 . . . TheraTx was bought by Ven-cor, Inc. on a tender offer of $17.10 per share in March 1997. (3) The questions . . .

J. PAGLIARULO, v. J. HENDERSON,, 119 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D. Mass. 2000)

. . . See Keeton, Judging in the American Legal System, at §§ 16.2, 17.10. . . .

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 47 Fed. Cl. 514 (Fed. Cl. 2000)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, 3d ed., Vol. 4, Sec. 17.10[I]. See Cinema North Corporation v. . . .

GONZALEZ, a By GONZALEZ, v. RENO,, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (S.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.10[1] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) . . . See also 4 Moore's Federal Practice, § 17.10[3][c] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) . . .

LANS, v. GATEWAY INC., 84 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 1999)

. . . Moore’s at ¶ 17.10[1]. . . .

In C. DAVIS, D. v. C., 194 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . suit as the real party in interest on behalf of a decedent’s estate. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.10 . . .

In C. DAVIS, D. v. C., 194 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . suit as the real party in interest on behalf of a decedent’s estate. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.10 . . .

LOCAL UNION NO. OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, v. OKONITE COMPANY,, 34 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D.N.J. 1998)

. . . Jones 1/5/98 17.10 UPS to R. Delello, Esq. . . . The 5 January 1998 UPS charge of $17.10 was expended on forwarding revised papers to counsel for Okonite . . .

CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORPORATION, v. WEST FARGO PLUMBING HEATING, INC., 145 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 1998)

. . . See 4 American Law of Property § 17.10 at 560 (James Casner ed., 1952). . . .

OLIVA, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION,, 978 F. Supp. 685 (S.D. Tex. 1997)

. . . Serv., 556 F.2d at 404; see also 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra 17.10[1]. . . .

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE, a a a a s a v. CHRISTOPHER, E. G. A., 942 F. Supp. 597 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . unable to either decipher adequately or otherwise to approve: Ex.B Page Date Listed Amount 32 8/8/94 $ 17.10 . . .

a a a a s a v. E. G. A., 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1221 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)

. . . unable to either decipher adequately or otherwise to approve: Ex.B Page Date Listed Amount 32 8/8/94 $ 17.10 . . .

FIRST SAVINGS BANK, F. S. B. v. FIRST BANK SYSTEM, INC., 902 F. Supp. 1366 (D. Kan. 1995)

. . . retains its impact and symbolizes a continuing commer-eial impression.” 2 McCarthy on Trademarks § 17.10 . . . abandonment where the key elements of the mark continues through new formats.” 2 McCarthy on Trademarks § 17.10 . . . “the dropping of a background design and continuing use of a word mark.” 2 McCarthy on Trademarks § 17.10 . . .

AIRLINES REPORTING CORPORATION, v. S AND N TRAVEL, INC. d b a, 857 F. Supp. 1043 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . Wallick, 306 U.S. 282, 59 S.Ct. 557, 83 L.Ed. 653 (1939); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10 (1993). . . .

CARTER, Jr. Co. v. GOODMAN GROUP MUSIC PUBLISHERS,, 848 F. Supp. 438 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . See also 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 17.10[A] at 17-54 (1993); Filmvideo Releasing Corp. v. . . . See 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 17.10[A] at 17-54 (1993). . . .

GOODWIN, v. A. DEBEKKER,, 807 F. Supp. 101 (D. Colo. 1992)

. . . extend to federal claims brought in federal court....” 7 Miller, Colorado Personal Injury Practice § 17.10 . . .

UNITED STATES v. S. KOMOROUS,, 33 M.J. 907 (A.F.C.M.R. 1991)

. . . by the appellant, and the assertion that the appellant owed the additional amounts of $194.96 and $17.10 . . .

UNITED STATES, v. W. DICKERSON, XXX- XX- XXXX, 32 M.J. 1008 (A.C.M.R. 1991)

. . . military pay received by the appellant during the unauthorized absence to which he pleaded guilty, and a $17.10 . . . by the appellant, and the assertion that the appellant owed the additional amounts of $194.96 and $17.10 . . .

In L. GRABOWSKI, L. SAPIR L. v. GRABOWSKI, 126 B.R. 24 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . Vestal, P, Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

In AGSY, INC. A- In CGRE, INC. A- DYNASTY EXPRESS CORP. d b a A- v. C. KURTZMAN AGSY, CGRE, BGIN,, 120 B.R. 313 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

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

. . . Section 17.10(1) of this ordinance permits the city to revoke a cable television franchise if a grantee . . . plaintiff to reinstate USA Network and WWOR within 30 days or face franchise revocation proceedings under § 17.10 . . .

In MELBOURNE, a k a MILBOURNE, a k a v. MID- PENN CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY,, 108 B.R. 522 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1989)

. . . 89.76 56.85 4/23/85 6.84 4.33 19.51 12.36 8/29/85 92.79 61.54 178.85 118.62 9/17/85 13.22 5.99 37.22 17.10 . . .

In NYACK AUTOPARTSTORES HOLDING COMPANY, INC. SKULSKY, v. NYACK AUTOPARTSTORES HOLDING COMPANY, INC., 98 B.R. 659 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

In ICS CYBERNETICS, INC., 97 B.R. 736 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . contemporaneous time records submitted by Hodgson, Russ indicate, however, that they seek compensation for some 17.10 . . .

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF KING, v. R. PIERCE, t, 701 F. Supp. 844 (D.D.C. 1988)

. . . . § 17.10 et seq., HACK requested a hearing in Washington and the production of relevant documents pursuant . . . representations, the “recapture” of the excess subsidies would not be effected pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 17.10 . . . pursuant to § 990.110(e), HUD would not be bound by the administrative review provisions of 24 C.F.R. § 17.10 . . . required by law to afford HACK the administrative procedures contained in the Act and at 24 C.F.R. § 17.10 . . .

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, MANUAL OF FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 17.10[3] (1987 ed.). . . .

In STONE, STONE, v. STONE,, 90 B.R. 71 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . Vestal, P, Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

In COHOES INDUSTRIAL TERMINAL, INC. E. PITTER, v. C. BAKER, a, 89 B.R. 377 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . Vestal, P, Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

In J. BABO L. J. WHITE, v. J. BABO, 81 B.R. 389 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1988)

. . . . § 17.10 of the Plan provides: Benefits payable under this Plan shall not be subject in any manner to . . .

In STEIN AND DAY INCORPORATED, a k a HENDERSON, v. STEIN AND DAY INCORPORATED,, 80 B.R. 297 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . Kurkland, Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 17.10 at 17-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

BEAMON, v. CITY OF RIDGELAND, MISSISSIPPI, ANDERSON, v. MADISON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 666 F. Supp. 937 (S.D. Miss. 1987)

. . . Andalman $ 21.00 $ 21.00 Process Server Craig 121.40 $ 121.40 Parking Fees Andalman 17.10 $ 17.10 A request . . .

SIERRA CLUB, v. PENFOLD, P. F. E. A., 664 F. Supp. 1299 (D. Alaska 1987)

. . . AMA Exhibits 17.5, 17.10, and 17.18, cited in AMA’s brief, do not relate to the Birch Creek basin. . . .

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)

. . . 434 U.S. 903, 98 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977); 8 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.01[1], at 17-4; ¶ 17.10 . . .

In HENNING d b a, 52 B.R. 350 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1985)

. . . WHITE 17.10 hrs. at $75/hr. (Reduced from $100/hr.). $ 1,282.50 R. . . .

PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA VAN DE KAMP, v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY,, 766 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1985)

. . . Section 17.10(2). . TSR does not directly challenge this provision. . . .

In CORPORATION OF WINDHAM COLLEGE, I. MEYERS, v. TOWN OF PUTNEY,, 34 B.R. 408 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1983)

. . . Moore’s Manual, § 17.10(2) and cases cited at page 17-34 nn. 3, 4 (1981). . . . 2d Cir.1976), cert. den., 430 U.S. 906, 97 S.Ct. 1175, 51 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977); see, Moore’s Manual, § 17.10 . . . Cities Service Corp., 391 U.S. 253, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968); see, Moore’s Manual, § 17.10 . . .

In D. H. OVERMYER TELECASTING CO. INC. HADAR LEASING INTERNATIONAL CO. INC. v. D. H. OVERMYER TELECASTING CO. INC., 23 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1982)

. . . Overmyer Ex. 2) 17.10. Leases Starting Before the Equipment Became Operational. . . .

HOEL- STEFFEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 684 F.2d 843 (Ct. Cl. 1982)

. . . Robert Flack, the project’s CO, to substitute Condaire for Rock Hill, pursuant to paragraph 17.10 of . . . list its subcontractors and may make a change only with the CO’s consent in accordance with paragraph 17.10 . . . of the subcontractor’s listing clause which states: 17.10 No substitutions for the individuals or firms . . . As paragraph 17.10 states, a CO will allow a contractor to substitute subcontractors after award of the . . . substitution of subcontractors within the context of an “unusual situation” as discussed in paragraph 17.10 . . .

HOEL- STEFFEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 231 Ct. Cl. 128 (Ct. Cl. 1982)

. . . Robert Flack, the project’s CO, to substitute Condaire for Rock Hill, pursuant to paragraph 17.10 of . . . list its subcontractors and may make a change only with the CO’s consent in accordance with paragraph 17.10 . . . of the subcontractor’s listing clause which states: 17.10 No substitutions for the individuals or firms . . . As paragraph 17.10 states, a CO will allow a contractor to substitute subcontractors after award of the . . . substitution of subcontractors within the context of an "unusual situation” as discussed in paragraph 17.10 . . .

In WHITE MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, Co., 14 B.R. 584 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1981)

. . . Jurisdiction Volvo and White have agreed in paragraph 17.10 of their Agreement that the District Court . . .

RICHTER CONCRETE CORP. v. HILLTOP BASIC RESOURCES, INC., 547 F. Supp. 893 (S.D. Ohio 1981)

. . . Richter bid highest of all at $17.10 p.c.y. Hilltop won the contract. 8. . . .

NORMAN v. ST. CLAIR NORMAN, v. ST. CLAIR WILLIAMS v. ST. CLAIR, 610 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . standard allowance for spouse’s 78.00 needs Less allowance for minor child ($65.00- 268.16 $47.90) 17.10 . . . Norman 140.00 325.16 Less allowance for unmet needs of Thomas ($65.00-47.90) - 17.10 Equals “Medicaid . . .

HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION, a a v. MINISTRY OF ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION,, 85 F.R.D. 134 (E.D. La. 1980)

. . . Lumber, supra refused to apply the de minimus rule and voided an attachment secured by a bond that was $17.10 . . .

B. COX, v. GUY F. ATKINSON COMPANY, a, 468 F. Supp. 677 (N.D. Ind. 1979)

. . . very discretionary nature of a motion for summary judgment. 2 Moore, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 17.10 . . .

KLOCKNER- HUMBOLDT- DEUTZ AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, KOLN, v. HEWITT- ROBINS DIVISION OF LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., 486 F. Supp. 283 (D.S.C. 1978)

. . . The agreement provides at 17.10: In the event of termination of this agreement prior to July 1984, HR . . .

S. LINSEMAN v. WORLD HOCKEY ASSOCIATION, 439 F. Supp. 1315 (D. Conn. 1977)

. . . Birmingham Bulls signed Linseman before the date of the annual draft in violation of Operating Regulation 17.10 . . .

FIVE PLATTERS, INC. v. PURDIE, 419 F. Supp. 372 (D. Md. 1976)

. . . McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 17.10 (1973); Drexel Enterprises, Inc. v. . . .

G. RICKER v. UNITED STATES, 417 F. Supp. 133 (D. Me. 1976)

. . . Bailey, 79 Me. 195, 9 A. 122 (1887); IV American Law of Property § 17.10 (A. Casner ed. 1952). . . .

TORRIENTE, v. E. STACKLER,, 529 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1976)

. . . This procedure comports with the Medical Practice Act, § 17.10, which provides, in pertinent part, to-wit . . .

In LAW RESEARCH SERVICE, INC. v. CROOK,, 524 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1975)

. . . covered by claimant’s security interest”, see 3 Collier, Bankruptcy 157.07[3.3], at 181— 82; 9 id. 17.10 . . .

HONEY v. GEORGE HYMAN CONSTRUCTION CO., 63 F.R.D. 443 (D.D.C. 1974)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ¶[ 17.10, at 402-03 (2d ed. 1974). . . .

PALLADIO, INC. v. A. DIAMOND, J. P. S. R., 321 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)

. . . . §§ 17.10, 17.11, in 35 Fed.Reg. 8493 (June 2, 1970). . . .

MARSH III, F. S. a d b a v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 436 F.2d 132 (D.C. Cir. 1970)

. . . . § 17.10(b) and § 17.17 (1970).) . . .

W. WIRTZ, v. MUSKOGEE JONES STORE COMPANY,, 293 F. Supp. 1034 (E.D. Okla. 1968)

. . . different additions to weekly base.salary were as follows: NAME AMOUNT Habeck $15.22 Lockler None Waid $17.10 . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)