Cases from cite.case.law:

. . . Chamberlain stated that the implementation of a 17.56 percent cash deposit duty on fresh tomatoes from . . .

. . . The target fill weight for each vial is 17.92 grams, but the FDA-approved acceptable outer range is 17.56 . . .

. . . February 9, 2017, increased Debtor's confirmed plan payment in the amount of $800.00 retroactively by $17.56 . . .

. . . Section 17.56 governs payment for dialysis services provided pursuant to authorizations. . . . The version of § 17.56 effective from March 7, 2005 until February 14, 2011, provided: Payment for non-VA . . . may not impose any additional charge for any services for which payment is made by VA. 38 C.F.R. § 17.56 . . . In 2008, without amending 38 C.F.R. § 17.56, the VA announced that effective January 1, 2009, it would . . . the actual amount billed by the provider or the 75th percentile methodology set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 17.56 . . .

. . . The Court will therefore award 56.45 total hours for the preparation of Plaintiffs appellate brief: 17.56 . . .

. . . . § 17.56 (2008); RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC 12(b)(6). OPINION BUSH, Senior Judge. . . . Authorized Promulgation of Section 17.56 in 1998 a. . . . Id. § 17.56(c). . . . Id. § 17.56(a). b. . . . Valid Amendment of Section 17.56 in 2005 The parties agree that provisions of section 17.56 relevant . . .

. . . . § 17.56; Authorizations; Money-Mandating Regulation; Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can . . . under a regulatory scheme — not under a contract — by failing to pay the rates mandated by 38 C.F.R. § 17.56 . . . In the alternative, Defendant contends that 38 C.F.R. § 17.56 cannot serve as a basis for jurisdiction . . . The version of § 17.56 effective from 2000 until March 6, 2005, provided: Payment for non-VA physician . . . Plaintiff filed its complaint on May 12, 2011— after the VA had amended § 17.56. . . .

. . . that Farooqi’s claims against Carroll for fraudulent inducement and Carroll’s violation of section 17.56 . . .

. . . immediately before Compellent preliminarily announced its 1Q10 results — the share price had fallen to $17.56 . . .

. . . test, Defendants note that REMEC acquired Paradigm in the middle of the class period, which added $17.56 . . .

. . . . & Com.Code § 17.56(a). . . .

. . . mandatory respondents ranged from 10.26% to a high of 188.45%; and the “All Others” rate was calculated at 17.56% . . . mandatory respondents’ margins ranged from 10.26% to 188.45%; and the “All Others” rate was calculated at 17.56% . . .

. . . mandatory respondents ranged from 10.26% to a high of 188.45%; and the “All Others” rate was calculated at 17.56% . . . mandatory respondents’ margins ranged from 10.26% to 188.45%; and the “All Others” rate was calculated at 17.56% . . .

. . . vehicle would be subject to sale at public auction or disposal under the applicable provisions of Chapter 17.56 . . . Moreover, plaintiff’s general assertion during oral argument — that Exhibit 3, i.e., Chapter 17.56 of . . . policy and custom in dealing in this issue” — does not provide the missing specificity, because Chapter 17.56 . . . Among Chapter 17.56’s provisions is an important one of which plaintiff did not avail himself. . . .

. . . On April 30, 1998, the price per share of PHP Common Stock closed at $17.56 on the New York Stock Exchange . . . Court takes judicial notice that, on April 30, 1998, the price per share of PHP Common Stock closed at $17.56 . . .