Cases from cite.case.law:

GRICE, v. PEPSI BEVERAGES COMPANY,, 363 F. Supp. 3d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . Jan. 25, 2017) (per capita gross return of $ 115.15). . . .

GMAC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION, v. MAITLAND HOTEL ASSOCIATES, E., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . GMAC’s request to recover $9.560.30 should be GRANTED only to the extent of $9,445.15 (merely $115.15 . . .

A. HULSE A. v. OCWEN FEDERAL BANK, FSB, a a E. a, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Or. 2002)

. . . reconciliation statement shows $87.93 of the $203.08 being allocated to “Fees,” and the remainder, or $115.15 . . . Finally, it shows the extra $203.08 for August 1999 as divided between $87.93 for “Expense Payment,” and $115.15 . . . The balance of that $203.08, or $115.15, was then applied toward the owing late charges, which, as of . . .

UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON, 841 F. Supp. 464 (D. Conn. 1994)

. . . probation, with the following special conditions: (1) that the defendant pay restitution in the amount of $115.15 . . .

v., 15 Ct. Int'l Trade 548 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1991)

. . . (“Prosperity”) was assigned a final dumping margin of 115.15 percent. Id. . . . applied Comitex’ 5.86 percent antidumping margin to the “all others” rate and excluded Prosperity’s 115.15 . . . equal to the dumping margin calculated for Comitex, without including the affirmative dumping margin of 115.15 . . . alternative based upon the information submitted to disregard the best information available rate of 115.15 . . . Commerce acted within its discretion in excluding the Prosperity best information available rate of 115.15 . . .

NATIONAL KNITWEAR SPORTSWEAR ASSOCIATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 779 F. Supp. 1364 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1991)

. . . (“Prosperity”) was assigned a final dumping margin of 115.15 percent. Id. . . . applied Comitex’ 5.86 percent antidumping margin to the “all others” rate and excluded Prosperity’s 115.15 . . . equal to the dumping margin calculated for Comitex, without including the affirmative dumping margin of 115.15 . . . alternative based upon the information submitted to disregard the best information available rate of 115.15 . . . Commerce acted within its discretion in excluding the Prosperity best information available rate of 115.15 . . .

P. HULSEY, v. USAIR, INC., 868 F.2d 1423 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . Complaint 115.15. . . .

In GIORGIO BOYAJIAN, v. J. DeFUSCO,, 862 F.2d 933 (1st Cir. 1988)

. . . Litton, supra; 3 Collier, supra, at II 510.05; Weintraub & Resnick, supra, at 115.15. . . .

In GIORGIO BOYAJIAN, v. J. DeFUSCO,, 862 F.2d 933 (1st Cir. 1988)

. . . Litton, supra; 3 Collier, supra, at ¶ 510.05; Weintraub & Resnick, supra, at 115.15. . . .

RAYNOR BROTHERS, a v. AMERICAN CYANIMID COMPANY, a, 695 F.2d 382 (9th Cir. 1982)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 115.15[4.2], at 15-232 (2d ed. 1982). In Staren v. . . .

LEACHMAN, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, A, 694 F.2d 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 115.15[4.-1], at 15-220 (1982). . . .

SANTANA, v. HOLIDAY INNS, INC., 686 F.2d 736 (9th Cir. 1982)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 115.15[3], at 15-198 to 15-205 (2d ed. 1982). . . .

CLIPPER EXXPRESS, a v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU, INC. IML Co. T. I. M. E. D. C. N. W., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1982)

. . . See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice [115.15[3], at 15-194 (3d ed. 1980); Wright & Miller, 6 Federal Practice . . .

ROSE HALL, LTD. v. CHASE MANHATTAN OVERSEAS BANKING CORPORATION, 93 F.R.D. 858 (D. Del. 1982)

. . . 15(c) is also relevant to amendments substituting or adding plaintiffs. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice 115.15 . . .

HERNANDEZ JIMENEZ, v. CALERO TOLEDO, 604 F.2d 99 (1st Cir. 1979)

. . . co-executors of an estate. 6 Wright & Miller, supra, § 1499 at 518-19; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 115.15 . . .

S. VINTSON, v. A. CALIFANO, Jr., 592 F.2d 1353 (5th Cir. 1979)

. . . Russakoff conducted a pulmonary function test, which showed a MW (maximum voluntary ventilation) of 115.15 . . .

UNITED STATES v. PIERORAZIO, UNITED STATES v. CAPPS,, 578 F.2d 48 (3d Cir. 1978)

. . . Penal Law §§ 115.00-115.15. . . .

UNILEVER RAW MATERIALS LTD. v. M T STOLT BOEL M T MODENA, N. V. S. A. A S PARCEL TANKERS, INC. v. LEVER BROTHERS COMPANY, INC., 77 F.R.D. 384 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)

. . . of the more liberal interpretations by the 1966 amendment to the Rule. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶115.15 . . .

W. MARTZ, Jr. v. MILLER BROTHERS COMPANY, a, 244 F. Supp. 246 (D. Del. 1965)

. . . limitations which permitted him to somehow cause the plaintiff to be misled. . 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 115.15 . . .

BOWLES v. FIELD, 83 F. 886 (C.C.D. Ind. 1897)

. . . Bank in favor of Albert Williams to pay off a mechanic’s lien held by him against her property for $115.15 . . .