Cases from cite.case.law:

CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., 88 So. 3d 224 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Shoreline Committee that it had previously claimed under oath to the City that the parcel size was 17.13 . . . court held that substantial competent evidence on this matter would be “evidence that Publix never had 17.13 . . . year later, Publix filed an amended Letter of Intent, this time indicating that the parcel size was 17.13 . . . was therefore alleging that Publix had not provided adequate evidence as to Publix’s ownership of the 17.13 . . .

ELAVON, INC. v. WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (N.D. Ga. 2011)

. . . The Alliance Agreement also contains a force majeure clause: Article XVII—Miscellaneous 17.13 Force Majeure . . .

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

. . . : 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.13 and . . . According to § 17.13(6)(c)(4)(c), an “adult cabaret” is an adult establishment. . . . See § 17.13(6)(c)(11). . . . Section 17.13 is entitled B-3 General Business District. . . . Sections 17.13 (6)(c)(7), 17.13(6)(c)(8) and 17.13(6)(c)(10)(a) are stricken inasmuch as they relate . . .

A. BENAVIDEZ, v. IRVING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, TEXAS,, 690 F. Supp. 2d 451 (N.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . Therefore, Hispanics made up only 17.13% of the district’s eligible voters. . . . In other words, only 17.13% of the district’s citizen voting age population (“CVAP”) in 2000 was Hispanic . . .

TITAN TIRE CORPORATION OF BRYAN, v. LOCAL UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,, 673 F. Supp. 2d 582 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

. . . Article XVII, Section 17.13 of the CBA states “[ajnyone reporting to work in violation of the parties . . .

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

. . . rate 15% 16.54% 19.82% 24.73% 32.85% Amortized OID 6 5.63 5.63 5.63 Unamortized OID 40 34 28.38 22.75 17.13 . . .

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

. . . only to the determination of proper parties and the capacity to sue. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.13 . . .

BRUMBAUGH, v. WAVE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,, 416 F. Supp. 2d 239 (D. Mass. 2006)

. . . investigation relating to Defendants’ misleading statements “shocked the market, with shares falling 17.13% . . .

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

. . . See also 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.13[1] (“Rule 17 does not affect jurisdiction. . . .

IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, v. BOER, K W, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (D. Idaho 2004)

. . . regulations that are not part of a federally approved program.” 3 Gerrard, Environmental Law & Practice § 17.13 . . .

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

. . . Lack of real-party-in-interest status is not a jurisdictional defect. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 17.13 . . .

OSCAR GRUSS SON, INC. P v. HOLLANDER,, 337 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2003)

. . . of proper parties and the capacity to sue. 4 James William Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.13 . . . Moore’s Federal Practice, supra § 17.13[2][b]. This distinction animates Airlines Reporting Corp. . . .

In GI NAM v. Gi U. S., 273 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2001)

. . . 245 n. 8, 109 S.Ct. 1026; Kelly, 479 U.S. at 44-46, 107 S.Ct. 353, quoting 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.13 . . .

In GI NAM v. Gi U. S., 273 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2001)

. . . 245 n. 8, 109 S.Ct. 1026; Kelly, 479 U.S. at 44-46, 107 S.Ct. 353, quoting 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.13 . . .

SCHONFELD, v. HILLIARD,, 218 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2000)

. . . portion of the offer, Curtis concluded that the total purchase price agreed to in the Cox Agreement was $17.13 . . .

In Gi NAM, v. Gi, 255 B.R. 149 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1999)

. . . flatly that ‘fines and penalties are not affected by a discharge.’ citing 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.13 . . .

MATHIAS, v. ADDISON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO., 43 F. Supp. 2d 916 (N.D. Ill. 1999)

. . . October 5, 1997, the Fire Protection District paid Plaintiffs a regular hourly rate between $14.86 and $17.13 . . .

In L. MAXWELL, v. L., 229 B.R. 400 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1998)

. . . affected by a discharge.’ ” Id., 479 U.S. at 46, 107 S.Ct. at 359 (quoting 1A Collier on Bankruptcy Sec. 17.13 . . .

ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. UNITED STATES, 998 F. Supp. 351 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . ., Federal Practice and Procedures, § 1556 at 424 (2d- ed.1990); 4 Moore’s Federal Civil Practice § 17.13 . . .

STATE v. FAMILY BANK OF HALLANDALE,, 667 So. 2d 257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . We note that section 17.13, Florida Statutes (1985), requires the comptroller to issue a duplicate warrant . . .

In PRIETO CLIFFORD ELECTRONICS, INC. v. PRIETO,, 169 B.R. 22 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1994)

. . . Id. at 46,107 S.Ct. at 358, quoting 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.13, pp. 1609-1610, and n. 10 (14th . . .

In WANG LABORATORIES, INC. STEEL HECTOR DAVIS v. WANG LABORATORIES, INC., 155 B.R. 289 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1993)

. . . Agreement § 17.13. SH & D argues that its consent was required. . . . language controls, the provision of the Master Lease evidences the prior written consent required by § 17.13 . . .

LADISH COMPANY, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, DISTRICT NO., 966 F.2d 250 (7th Cir. 1992)

. . . The labor agreement, at section 17.13(A), also provides that the Plan “shall continue in effect as a . . . The Company, however, argued that section 17.13 makes clear that the labor agreement does not govern . . . Because section 17.13 contains no direct or indirect mention of the effect of layoffs on pensions, the . . . arbitrator continued, nothing in section 17.13 conflicts with section 5.01. . . . The silence of 17.13 on the subject merely indicates that the parties have not bargained a. change in . . .

S. p. A. v., 14 Ct. Int'l Trade 334 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990)

. . . The administrative review which is the basis of this action established a margin of 17.13 percent for . . . during the time May 1974 to May 1980, which the ITA aggregated in setting a weighted-average margin of 17.13 . . .

NUOVE INDUSTRIE ELETTRICHE LEGNANO S. p. A. v. UNITED STATES,, 739 F. Supp. 1567 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990)

. . . The administrative review which is the basis of this action established a margin of 17.13 percent for . . . during the time May 1974 to May 1980, which the ITA aggregated in setting a weighted-average margin of 17.13 . . .

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE v. DAVENPORT, 495 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1990)

. . . S., at 46, quoting 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.13, pp. 1609-1610, and n. 10 (14th ed. 1978). . . .

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, v. J. DAVENPORT, 110 S. Ct. 2126 (U.S. 1990)

. . . affected by a discharge.’ ” Kelly, 479 U.S., at 46, 107 S.Ct., at 359, quoting 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.13 . . .

CARLOCK, Co. T. I. C. E. v. PILLSBURY COMPANY, Co. HDF HDI WSC DWYER, Co. v. PILLSBURY COMPANY, Co. HDF HDI WSC, 719 F. Supp. 791 (D. Minn. 1989)

. . . Tulare San Francisco 17.78 17.03 Seattle 17.78 17.22 Portland 18.16 17.60 Boise 17.90 17.70 Denver 17.42 17.13 . . .

G. HEILEMAN BREWING COMPANY, INC. v. ANHEUSER- BUSCH, INC., 873 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1989)

. . . Callmann, The Law of Unfair Competition Trademarks and Monopolies §§ 7.01, at 2 & 17.13, at 58 (4th ed . . .

In ELTER s ELTER, v. GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION,, 95 B.R. 618 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1989)

. . . Moore’s Manual, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 17.13 at pp. 17-64 to 67. . . .

SKIP KIRCHDORFER, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 14 Cl. Ct. 594 (Cl. Ct. 1988)

. . . average labor cost was calculated by dividing the total figure by the 7,532 sample cards to yield $17.13 . . . per service call, as follows: material, $10.71 (including a 30-percent mark-up); labor and burden, $17.13 . . .

MESSER, Jr. v. KEMP,, 831 F.2d 946 (11th Cir. 1987)

. . . Shapiro, supra, § 17.13. . . .

J. KELLY, s v. ROBINSON, 107 S. Ct. 353 (U.S. 1986)

. . . See 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.13, pp. 1609-1610, and n. 10 (14th ed. 1978). . . . prevailing view that “fines and penalties are not affected by a discharge,” 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶[ 17.13 . . .

KELLY, CONNECTICUT CHIEF STATE S ATTORNEY, v. ROBINSON, 479 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1986)

. . . See 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶17.13, pp. 1609-1610, and n. 10 (14th ed. 1978). . . . long-prevailing view that “fines and penalties are not affected by a discharge,” 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶17.13 . . .

ANHEUSER- BUSCH INCORPORATED, v. STROH BREWERY COMPANY,, 750 F.2d 631 (8th Cir. 1984)

. . . Callmann, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks, and Monopolies §§ 17.01, at 2 & 17.13, at 58 (4th . . .

L. BOALS, v. H. GRAY,, 577 F. Supp. 288 (N.D. Ohio 1983)

. . . have accrued 2.3 hours of sick leave and 1.54 hours of vacation time at a rate of $4.46 per hour, or $17.13 . . .

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)

. . . Klein, 31 Tr. 2982-3020, 32 Tr. 3026-89) 17.13.The Overmyer Formula. . . . (Findings of Fact 17.13, supra pp. 73-74) v. . . .

S. E. BASTIDA, v. E. BATCHELOR, 418 So. 2d 297 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . North River Insurance Company, 411 So.2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982): 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 17.13 . . .

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

. . . substitution was arbitrary and capricious but that the exculpatory language contained in paragraph 17.13 . . . We do not agree, however, that paragraph 17.13 precludes plaintiff’s recovery. . . . Defendant relies on paragraph 17.13, a contract clause, to give it the same effect as if it were sound . . . then the creation of new contract or property rights occurred without any restriction by paragraph 17.13 . . . Accordingly, we conclude that paragraph 17.13 is an attempt to accord finality to an administrative decision . . .

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

. . . substitution was arbitrary and capricious but that the exculpatory language contained in paragraph 17.13 . . . We do not agree, however, that paragraph 17.13 precludes plaintiffs recovery. . . . Defendant relies on paragraph 17.13, a contract clause, to give it the same effect as if it were sound . . . then the creation of new contract or property rights occurred without any restriction by paragraph 17.13 . . . Even as a clause limiting liability on the occurrence of contingencies, paragraph 17.13 would be subject . . .

J. DONOVAN, v. KENTWOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., 549 F. Supp. 480 (D. Md. 1982)

. . . The amounts due are as follows: Carlos Lance Allen $ 49.38 Mates Appollon 45.00 Kenneth Blankenship 17.13 . . .

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, v. NORTON,, 18 B.R. 380 (D. Md. 1982)

. . . Sotelo, 436 U.S. at 271 n. 4, 98 S.Ct. at 1798 n.4; 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 17.13. . . .

STANLEY FINE FURNITURE, INC. d b a v. NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 411 So. 2d 210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Reversed and remanded with directions. . 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 17.13[1] (2d ed. 1979), in discussing . . .

MARATHON OIL COMPANY, v. MOBIL CORPORATION, 669 F.2d 378 (6th Cir. 1981)

. . . 20.44% in the State of Michigan; 17.80% in the State of Illinois; 17.44% in the State of Wisconsin; 17.13% . . .

MARATHON OIL COMPANY, v. MOBIL CORPORATION,, 530 F. Supp. 315 (N.D. Ohio 1981)

. . . lead to the following sales percentages and rankings: 17.80 percent of all sales in Illinois, second; 17.13 . . .

D. KUHLMANN, v. BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP,, 521 F. Supp. 1242 (E.D. Wis. 1981)

. . . RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Bloomfield, Walworth County, Wisconsin that, pursuant to Section 17.13 . . . Wis.Stat. § 17.13(1). The Supreme Court has addressed this argument directly. In Elrod v. . . .

In E. MORRIS, IOWA STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, v. E. MORRIS,, 10 B.R. 448 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 1981)

. . . Company, 224 U.S. 152, 32 S.Ct. 457, 56 L.Ed. 706 (1912); 1A Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1978) ¶ 17.13 . . .

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

. . . Hamlin, 277 F.2d 384, 387 (1960), citing 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 17.13 (2d ed. 1974). . . .

T. DUNLOP, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 522 F.2d 504 (3d Cir. 1975)

. . . own laws relating to compensation of state employees, the state of New Jersey amended N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.13 . . . N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.13: “The work week for basic annual salary for employees in the State service, insofar . . . As originally enacted in 1951, N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.13 provided either compensatory time off or wages at . . .

In CRISP, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE AND CONTROL, v. CRISP,, 521 F.2d 172 (2d Cir. 1975)

. . . S.2d 5, 202 Misc. 197 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co. 1952); 1A Collier, supra, ¶ 17.13 (rev. 1975). . . .

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

. . . .-1], If 17.13[1]. The district court correctly permitted the counterclaimants to proceed. . . .

CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, v. P. CROWLEY, Sr., 393 F. Supp. 644 (E.D. Wis. 1975)

. . . Cf., Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶[ 17.13 [1], at 501 (2d ed. 1974). E. . . .

J. BRENNAN, D. v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 364 F. Supp. 156 (D.N.J. 1973)

. . . Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.13, the State of New Jersey, through the defendant hospitals, has compensated . . . defendant, State of New Jersey, further alleges that the New Jersey overtime statute, N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.13 . . . As such, the compensatory overtime scheme enacted under N.,T.S.A. 52:14-17.13 is not preserved under . . . N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.13: “The work week for basic annual salary for employees in the State service, insofar . . .

H. DUNMAR, v. AILES,, 348 F.2d 51 (D.C. Cir. 1965)

. . . Regulation 17.13 provides generally for separations for violations of the Cadet Honor Code as follows . . . Like Regulation 17.13, this paragraph contains no provision for the assistance of counsel, or for the . . . The Superintendent of the Academy apparently followed Regulation 17.13 in offering Appellant his choice . . . received more in the way of procedural protections than is required by the bare language of either 17.13 . . .

WARSHAW, v. LOCAL NO. INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL- CIO,, 325 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1963)

. . . See 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Par. 17.13 at 1370 (2d ed.). . . .

LOCAL UNION NO. OF AMALGAMATED BUTCHER WORKMEN, v. CAPITOL PACKING COMPANY, a, 32 F.R.D. 4 (D. Colo. 1963)

. . . party to a contract may sue thereunder for the benefit of a third person. 3 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 17.13 . . . prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, has been discussed in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 17.13 . . .

In STECKLER. STECKLER v. UNITED STATES, 195 F. Supp. 879 (S.D. Ind. 1961)

. . . The defendants cite 1 Collier, Bankruptcy f 17.13 (14th ed. 1956); 3 Collier, if 63.12, and other authorities . . . Id. at j[ 17.13. . . .

PRUDENTIAL OIL MINERALS COMPANY, a H. M. v. G. HAMLIN,, 277 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1960)

. . . applicable to the case and, as Professor Moore indicates in his Federal Practice, Second Edition, sec. 17.13 . . .

UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, DIVISION OF DISTRICT UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, v. ELECTRO CHEMICAL ENGRAVING COMPANY, 175 F. Supp. 54 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)

. . . party to a contract may sue thereunder for the benefit of a third person. 3 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 17.13 . . .

WESTERN CONTRACTING CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 144 Ct. Cl. 318 (Ct. Cl. 1958)

. . . Representing 17.13 percent of the value of all equipment used. . . .

v., 31 Cust. Ct. 322 (Cust. Ct. 1953)

. . . On entry, the importer added $17.13 to make dutiable value of $49.63 per unit. . . . been established as the so-called freely offered price in Canada to wholesalers; that this price was $17.13 . . .

D. P. v., 38 B.T.A. 387 (B.T.A. 1938)

. . . One of them placed a value of $17.13 per share on the class A common stock, while another testified that . . . This resulted in establishing a value of $17.13 per share for the class A common. . . .

H. v., 25 B.T.A. 60 (B.T.A. 1931)

. . . Section 17.13 (1), Wisconsin Statutes, 1929. . . .

v., 24 B.T.A. 102 (B.T.A. 1931)

. . . inadmissible assets is of the amount of admissible and inadmissible assets held during the taxable year is 17.13 . . .

BALTIMORE CAROLINA S. S. CO. v. NORTON, 40 F.2d 271 (E.D. Pa. 1929)

. . . year immediately preceding the injury in a similar employment, as to whieh there was any proof, was $17.13 . . .

THORN v. BROWNE, 257 F. 519 (8th Cir. 1919)

. . . 200 bales at 16.83 cents per pound 400 16.84 27 200 17.06 29 400 17.08 800 16.88 30 200 16.93 31 300 17.13 . . .

SOUTHERN PAC. CO. v. BARTINE, 170 F. 725 (C.C.D. Nev. 1909)

. . . operating expenses for Nevada freight traffic (excluding the cost of conducting transportation) are hut 17.13 . . . The difference between 31.37 per cent, and 17.13 per cent, of $159,791.40 is more than $32,000. . . .

S. BROWN ALLEN v. THE UNITED STATES, 36 Ct. Cl. 44 (Ct. Cl. 1901)

. . . Branscomc... 17.13 Item 7. Case v. Carieo. 17.13 Item 8. Case v. Edmunds. 8.88 Item 9. Case v. . . .