Cases from cite.case.law:

F. CAMPBELL, v. STATE, 48 So. 3d 201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Campbell to serve 28.05 months in prison for these drug offenses. . . . Campbell serve the 28.05 month term in prison as the “longer” sentence. . . . The lowest permissible sentence for Campbell under the Criminal Punishment Code was 28.05 months in prison . . .

DRACUT SCHOOL COMMITTEE, v. BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, P. A. C. A., 737 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D. Mass. 2010)

. . . . § 1414(d)(1)(A)®; see also 603 Mass.Code Regs. 28.05(4) (establishing similar state regulations regarding . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. GALLION A. Jr., 257 F.R.D. 141 (E.D. Ky. 2009)

. . . CR. 28.05 (emphasis added). . . .

v., 30 Ct. Int'l Trade 1091 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006)

. . . covers the inorganic or organic compounds of yttrium, of scandium or of the rare-earth metals of heading 28.05 . . .

RHODIA, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006)

. . . covers the inorganic or organic compounds of yttrium, of scandium or of the rare-earth metals of heading 28.05 . . .

PARENTS OF DANIELLE, v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 430 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D. Mass. 2006)

. . . convened to create an Individualized Educational Plan (“IEP”) for her, see 603 Mass.Code Regs. 28.02, 28.05 . . .

USR v., 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 229 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)

. . . covers the inorganic or organic compounds of yttrium, of scandium or of the rare-earth metals of heading 28.05 . . . EN 28.05(C). . . . “This heading [i.e., heading 28.05] also covers scandium and yttrium which resemble the rare-earth metals . . .

USR OPTONIX, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)

. . . covers the inorganic or organic compounds of yttrium, of scandium or of the rare-earth metals of heading 28.05 . . . lanthanons comprise the elements with atomic numbers from 57 to 71 in the periodic system.... ” EN 28.05 . . . “This heading [ie., heading 28.05] also covers scandium and yttrium which resemble the rare-earth metals . . .

WATKINS, v. VANCE, De v., 328 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2004)

. . . Accordingly, counsel's work for .De’Metria Rice of September 22, 2000 ($28.05) and December 5, 2000 ( . . . $28.05) will not be compensated. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. ALLEGHENY LUDLUM CORPORATION,, 366 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. 2004)

. . . court awards with the suggestion that, since the statutory maximum penalty for ALC’s violations was $28.05 . . . In the case at bar, the statutory maximum penalty that could have been leveled against ALC was $28.05 . . . While $8,244,670 is approximately 29% of $28.05 million, a much larger proportion than the 9% approved . . .

UNITED STATES v. ALLEGHENY LUDLUM CORPORATION,, 187 F. Supp. 2d 426 (W.D. Pa. 2002)

. . . The statutory maximum penalty is $28.05 million. . . .

In R. PICH,, 253 B.R. 562 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2000)

. . . See Kootenai County Zoning Ordinance, Exhibit 9, at § 28.05 (providing for misdemeanor criminal prosecution . . .

STODGHILL, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INT L UNION, LOCAL AFL- CIO,, 13 F. Supp. 2d 960 (E.D. Mo. 1998)

. . . Section 1(4 & 5) of the International Constitution and Bylaws and Article XXVIII, Sections 28.04 and 28.05 . . .

CONNTECH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, v. UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT EDUCATION PROPERTIES, INC., 102 F.3d 677 (2d Cir. 1996)

. . . Similarly, section 28.05 of the MDA provides: “It is specifically understood and agreed that this is . . .

S. HOLZENDORF, v. R. BELL, CITIZENS PETITION AGAINST THE GARBAGE FEE, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE,, 606 So. 2d 645 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . A provision for referendum elections is found in section 28.05, “Method of Amendment of Charter,” which . . .

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN,, 964 F.2d 1017 (10th Cir. 1992)

. . . indicted on October 24, 1990 on one count of knowingly and intentionally distributing approximately 28.05 . . .

J. HASTERT, E. M. J. H. v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, J. M. A. E. E. D. L. NIEVES, Al D. L. D. Jr. V. A. v. ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS, J. M. A. E. E. D. L. COLLINS, N. S. B. L. v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, J. M. A. P. E. E. D. ROSEBROOK, v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, J. M. A. E. E. D. L. CHICAGO URBAN LEAGUE, R. C. v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, J. M. A. P. E. E. D. L., 777 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ill. 1991)

. . . Hispanic # (%) (%) Hastert 571,530 147,831 (25.87) 396,241 (69.33) 20,548 (3.60) -VAP 418,800 117,472 (28.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ABREU,, 747 F. Supp. 493 (N.D. Ind. 1990)

. . . jury charges the defendant, Andy Vasquez, with knowingly and intentionally distributing approximately 28.05 . . .

AIR CAL, INC. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a SFO SEIU SEIU, 865 F.2d 1112 (9th Cir. 1989)

. . . See 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 28.05 (3d ed. 1981). . . .

HEARST CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 13 Cl. Ct. 178 (Cl. Ct. 1987)

. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 28.05 (1980). . . .

In OWEN,, 70 B.R. 366 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1987)

. . . . § 34-2-28.05 (Burns Supp.1985). . . .

GOLDEN v. CIRCLE T. V. AND APPLIANCE, INC., 14 Fla. Supp. 2d 157 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985)

. . . Administrative Code; defendants fail to return replaced parts on repaired items in violation of Section 2-28.05 . . . The testimony of Chaffee Hallmark establishes violations of Sections 2-28.03(6) and 2-28.05, Florida . . .

In ANSCHUETZ CO., 754 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1985)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, 1f 28.05. . . . .

In M. GUCCIONE, M. GUCCIONE, v. FIRST FEDERAL SAYINGS LOAN ASSOCIATION OF SUFFERN,, 41 B.R. 289 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1984)

. . . Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 28.05 (1981). . . .

WILLIAMS, v. BENNETT,, 689 F.2d 1370 (11th Cir. 1982)

. . . .-04, 28.05, 28.06 (1973). . . .

UNITED STATES v. ZABADY, 546 F. Supp. 35 (M.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . reason of the comity existing between nations in ordinary peaceful times.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 28.05 . . .

WILLIAM INGLIS SONS BAKING CO. v. ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY, INC. WILLIAM INGLIS SONS BAKING CO. v. ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY, INC., 668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981)

. . . See, e. g., 4 J. von Kalinowski, supra note 51, § 28.05. . See, e. g., F. . . .

De PAIN, De v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. FRANTZEN, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. CHRISTOPHERSEN, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. KAHN, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. SIBTHORPE, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1980)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, t] 28.05. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. OLIN CORPORATION,, 465 F. Supp. 1120 (W.D.N.Y. 1979)

. . . fact, OLIN’s records show that the maximum mercury discharge for said period had been approximately 28.05 . . .

B L DRILLING ELECTRONICS, a B L v. TOTCO, a, 87 F.R.D. 543 (W.D. Okla. 1978)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 28.05 (1976). . . .

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 611 F.2d 883 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

. . . Comm’n 1958) (28.05% imputed as 45%); Re Mountain States Tel. & Tel. . . .

BERRY v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CITY OF BENTON HARBOR, 442 F. Supp. 1280 (W.D. Mich. 1977)

. . . Black had the following student-teacher ratios: School Students per Teacher Bard 25.8 Calvin Britain 28.05 . . .

RALPHO, v. J. BELL,, 569 F.2d 607 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law § 28.05 at 943 (1970 Supp.). . 376 U.S. at 481, 84 S.Ct. at 899, 11 L.Ed.2d . . .

ARIZONA POWER AUTHORITY No. v. C. B. MORTON, L., 549 F.2d 1231 (9th Cir. 1977)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Text § 28.05, at 515-16 (3d ed. 1972). . . .

JOHNSON, v. W. WYRICK,, 381 F. Supp. 747 (W.D. Mo. 1974)

. . . County; that he sought review of the denial of his motion under Rule 27.26 under Missouri Criminal Rule 28.05 . . .

JOHNSON, v. R. SWENSON,, 381 F. Supp. 741 (W.D. Mo. 1973)

. . . County; that he sought review of the denial of his motion under Rule 27.26 under Missouri Criminal Rule 28.05 . . .

B. T. HOLDER L. v. UNITED STATES, 444 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1971)

. . . See also Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, Vol. 5, § 28.05. . . .

CURRAN, AFL- CIO, v. R. LAIRD, 420 F.2d 122 (D.C. Cir. 1969)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.05 (1958); L. . . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.05, at 25 (1958); L. . . .

N. CHARLTON, Jr. v. UNITED STATES W. Jr. J. E., 412 F.2d 390 (3d Cir. 1969)

. . . employee discharge cases under the “substantial evidence” standard: 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.05 . . .

K. ZASSENHAUS S. v. EVENING STAR NEWSPAPER CO., 404 F.2d 1361 (D.C. Cir. 1968)

. . . See 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶¶ 28.04 at 1923, 28.05 at 1929-31 (2d ed. 1967). . . . .

NOBLE, v. R. SWENSON,, 285 F. Supp. 385 (W.D. Mo. 1968)

. . . petitioner’s Rule 27.26 motion was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Missouri de novo under former Rule 28.05 . . . .1968, 426 S.W.2d 67, reflects the basic change made in Missouri procedure by the repeal of former Rule 28.05 . . .

In W. STARKS,, 282 F. Supp. 25 (N.D. Ill. 1968)

. . . Id. at ff 28.05. § 1011 gives the court control over all of the debtor’s property and earnings. . . .

GOLDEN STATE TOWEL AND LINEN SERVICE, LTD. v. UNITED STATES, 373 F.2d 938 (Ct. Cl. 1967)

. . . approximations of losses are not sufficient. 5 Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation (Rev.), sec. 28.05 . . .

GOLDEN STATE TOWEL AND LINEN SERVICE, LTD. AND OAKLAND CALIFORNIA TOWEL COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 179 Ct. Cl. 300 (Ct. Cl. 1967)

. . . approximations of losses are not sufficient. 5 Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation (Kev.), sec. 28.05 . . .

WHITE, v. SWENSON,, 261 F. Supp. 42 (W.D. Mo. 1966)

. . . Missouri Supreme Court Rule 28.05 which expressly provides that “upon an appeal taken in a proceeding . . . Now Crim.Rule 28.05, V.A.M.R. . . .

SCHUYLKILL HAVEN TRUST COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 252 F. Supp. 557 (E.D. Pa. 1966)

. . . bookkeeping entry which did not reflect a parting with any assets. [5 Mertens, Federal Income Taxation, § 28.05 . . .

HAMDI IBRAHIM MANGO CO. LTD. v. RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 291 F.2d 437 (2d Cir. 1961)

. . . Term Rate A/P $22,440 2/6/48 to 3/ 8/48 STG. .25 $ 56.10 SR&CC .75 168.30 3/8/48 to 3/14/48 STG. .125 28.05 . . .

WRIGHT H. HUNTLEY v. THE UNITED STATES, 133 Ct. Cl. 226 (Ct. Cl. 1955)

. . . 1943_ 179. 750 Nov. 1942_ 62. 025 Oet. 1941_177.85 Dec. 1942_114. 575 Nov. 1941_ 692.975 Jan. 1943_ 28.05 . . .

UNITED STATES, v. HARVEY T. McELROY, U. S., 3 C.M.A. 606 (C.M.A. 1954)

. . . . $451.05 Cash taken from accused’s safe on 1 July 1952 . 28.05 Cash received for accused’s account on . . .

BRANYAN v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ N. V. ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES HOLLAND BARROWS v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ N. V. ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES HOLLAND GRATKE v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ N. V. ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES HOLLAND WERKLEY v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ N. V. ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES HOLLAND, 13 F.R.D. 334 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)

. . . the State Department and the proper procedure is described and discussed in Moore, op. cit. supra, §§ 28.05 . . .

W. F. YOUNG, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. W. F. YOUNG,, 120 F.2d 159 (1st Cir. 1941)

. . . Revenue, 1927, 8 B.T.A. 107; see Paul & Mertens, The Law of Federal Income Taxation (1934) §§ 28.04, 28.05 . . .

F. C. M. L v. B., 128 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1937)

. . . ditch; thence north 65 degrees 50 minutes, East 49.80 chains to a stake; thence south 25 degrees, east 28.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ONE BUICK COUPE AUTOMOBILE GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,, 58 F.2d 387 (D.N.H. 1932)

. . . fact that Treinish had not been convicted; that the cost of storage already amounted to the sum of $28.05 . . .