Cases from cite.case.law:

DECKER, OREGON STATE FORESTER, v. NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, 568 U.S. 597 (U.S. 2013)

. . . facilities” is “[facilities classified as Standard Industrial Classifications 24 (except 2434).” § 122.26 . . . The term includes (in addition to logging) “active or inactive mining operations,” § 122.26(b)(14)(iii . . . ); “[IJandfills” and “open dumps,” § 122.26(b)(14)(v); “automobile junkyards,” § 122.26(b)(14)(vi); and . . . “Construction activity including clearing, grading and excavation,” § 122.26(b) (14)(x). . . . ‘point source.’” 40 CFR §122.2; see, e.g., § 122.26(b)(14)(iii) (referring to mines as “facilities”). . . . related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant.” 40 CFR § 122.26 . . . manufactured products, waste material, or by-products used or created by the facility .. . .” 40 CFR § 122.26 . . . raw materials” required NPDES permits under the earlier version of the Industrial Stormwater Rule. § 122.26 . . . related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant.” 40 CFR § 122.26 . . . See § 122.26(b)(14)(iii) (mining); § 122.26(b)(14)(v) (landfills receiving industrial waste); § 122.26 . . .

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., 568 U.S. 78 (U.S. 2013)

. . . See 40 CFR § 122.26(b)(8) (2012). . . . See also § 122.26(b)(13) (“Storm water means storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff . . . C. §§ 1311(a), 1342(p)(2)(C), and (D); 40 CFR §§ 122.26(a)(3), (b)(4), (b)(7). . . .

WISCONSIN RESOURCES PROTECTION COUNCIL, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. FLAMBEAU MINING COMPANY,, 903 F. Supp. 2d 690 (W.D. Wis. 2012)

. . . . § 122.26, which states that § 402 Clean Water Act permits are not required for discharges from mine . . .

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a v. ALL STAR AUTO WRECKING, INC. a Sr. Jr., 860 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . Id., citing 40 CFR 122.26(c), 122.28, 123.25; 60 Fed.Reg. 50804-01. . . .

J. DAVIS, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, IV, St., 443 F. App'x 394 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 122.26(l)(b) for this assertion. . . . . § 122.26(I)(b) defines a "co-permittee” as "a permittee to a NPDES permit that is only responsible . . . Dist.App. 1 (MS4 Permit issued solely to the City)), and he is not a co-permittee as defined by section 122.26 . . .

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES D., 673 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 122.26(a)(7), (b)(8). . . . See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(9) (“Outfall means a point source ... at the point where a municipal separate . . . combined sewer; and (iv) Which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).... 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . responsible for permit conditions relating to the discharge for which it is operator.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . .

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, v. WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT,, 791 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . . § 122.26, define a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (“MS4”) as a conveyance or system of conveyances . . . industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes, used for collecting or conveying storm water. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(a)(7), (b)(8). . . .

RESURRECTION BAY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE v. CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA,, 640 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 122.26(c)(1). . . . . § 122.26(c)(l)(i)(A)-(D). . . .

NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, v. BROWN,, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 122.26. . . . classified as SIC 24 are among “those considered to be engaging in ‘industrial activity.’ ” 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . material, or by-products used or created by the facility; material handling sites;.... 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . ‘industrial activity,’ ” including mines, landfills, junkyards, and construction sites. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . The reference to the Silvicultural Rule in 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14) does not, indeed cannot, exempt . . .

A. KERN, R. v. WAL- MART STORES, INC., 804 F. Supp. 2d 119 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(13). . . . .

ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, 803 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(13). Storm water runoff is not inherently a nonpoint or point source of pollution. . . .

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES D., 636 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 122.26(a)(7), (b)(8). . . . See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(9) (“Outfall means a point source ... at the point where a municipal separate . . . combined sewer; and (iv) Which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).... 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . responsible for permit conditions relating to the discharge for which it is operator.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . .

CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, INC. v. PATRICK, 767 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D. Mass. 2011)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(16)(iii), and these storm sewer discharge systems require a general or individual NPDES . . .

GULF RESTORATION NETWORK, v. HANCOCK COUNTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC,, 772 F. Supp. 2d 761 (S.D. Miss. 2011)

. . . . § 122.26(a)(6)®. It is undisputed that Hancock did not apply for or obtain such a permit. . . . Storm water means storm water run off, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.” 40 C.F.R.. § 122.26 . . . taken place in the past and significant materials remain and are exposed to storm water.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb five acres or more. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . .

NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, v. BROWN,, 617 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 122.26. . . . classified as SIC 24 are among “those considered to be engaging in ‘industrial activity.’ ” 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . material, or by-products used or created by the facility; material handling sites;.... 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . ‘industrial activity,’ ” including mines, landfills, junkyards, and construction sites. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . The reference to the Silvicultural Rule in 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14) does not, indeed cannot, exempt . . .

KOPACZ v. HOPKINSVILLE SURFACE AND STORM WATER UTILITY, 714 F. Supp. 2d 682 (W.D. Ky. 2010)

. . . . §§ 122.26 and 122.28; KRS 224.10-100 and KRS 224.16-050 and Kentucky Storm Water permit KYR10. . . .

SERVICE OIL, INC. v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 590 F.3d 545 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 122.26(c)(1). . . . . § 122.26(b)(14)(x). . . . EPA’s permit regulations provide that operators of facilities described in § 122.26(b)(14)(x) shall submit . . . start of construction, or when required by an applicable general permit. 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.21(c)(1), 122.26 . . . for an enforcement action for failure to apply for a storm water permit as required by 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CUEVAS- REYES,, 572 F.3d 119 (3d Cir. 2009)

. . . . §§ 122.26, 122.61 (2007), however because the women paid for their transportation to the Dominican . . .

SANTA MONICA BAYKEEPER, a v. KRAMER METALS, INC. a a LLC, a R P LLC, a LLC, a LLC, a, 619 F. Supp. 2d 914 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . . §§ 122.26(c), 122.28, 123.25; see also 60 Fed.Reg. 50804-01. . . .

SANTA MONICA BAYKEEPER, a v. INTERNATIONAL METALS EKCO, LIMITED, a, 619 F. Supp. 2d 936 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . . §§ 122.26(c), 122.28, 123.25; see also 60 Fed.Reg. 50804-01. . . .

R. THOMPSON J. v. HORSHAM TOWNSHIP, 576 F. Supp. 2d 681 (E.D. Pa. 2008)

. . . . ¶ 33-34; 40 C.F.R. pts. 122.26-37; 64 Fed.Reg. 68,748. . . .

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION, v. CITY OF DALLAS,, 529 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 122.26. . . .

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 526 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 122.26). . . . First, at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(l)(iii), the Phase I rule codified the conditions that would be considered . . . EPA stated that when it promulgated the Phase I rule (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(1)(iii)) in 1990 . . . EPA justified the challenged final rule, see 71 Fed.Reg. 33628, and regulation, see 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . Clearly, EPA’s June 12, 2006, storm water discharge rule, codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, represents . . .

NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, v. BROWN, a, 476 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Or. 2007)

. . . . § 122.26(a)(9)(I). B. NEDC’s Theories of Liability NEDC has two theories of liability. . . . forest roads, the NPDES permit exemption for unregulated stormwater discharges codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . .

TEXAS INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS AND ROYALTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 435 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(15).” Texas Indep. Producers, 4,10. F.3d at 968. . . .

SIERRA CLUB v. EL PASO GOLD MINES, INC., 421 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . See 40 C.F.R § 122.26(b)(14)(iii) (stating “active or inactive mining operations” are among the industrial . . . sites that are not being actively mined, but which have an identifiable owner/operator. ” 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . .

TEXAS INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS AND ROYALTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 410 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(15). . . .

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 346 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D.D.C. 2004)

. . . discharges from municipal storm sewers ... may be issued on a system or jurisdiction-wide basis”); 40 C.F.R. 122.26 . . .

WATERKEEPERS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, a v. AG INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING INC. E. a v. AG E., 375 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 122.26(c); Envtl. Def. Ctr., 344 F.3d at 853 (describing the general permit model). . . .

CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, v. HANNAFORD BROS. CO. s J. C. Jr., 327 F. Supp. 2d 325 (D. Vt. 2004)

. . . . § 122.26(a)(9)®. . . . exercise their residual designation authority to require a permit from the Burlington Plaza. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . .

JONES, v. E. R. SNELL CONTRACTOR, INC., 333 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (N.D. Ga. 2004)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(14)(x); The State Route 20 improvement project involved construction activities and more . . .

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER, a v. PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY, a LLC, a a EPA, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2004)

. . . discharges composed entirely of storm water from silvicultural activities that are designated under 40 CFR 122.26 . . . (requiring a designation under section 122.26(a)(1)(v), 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(a)(1)(v)); see 33 U.S.C. § . . . See 38 U.S.C. § 1342(p); 40 C.F.R. § 122.26. . . .

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, INC. v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, v. v., 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . . §§ 122.26(a)(9)(i)(A)-(B). . . . Id. at § 122.26(c). . . . Id. at § 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C)-(D). D. . . . Id. at §§ 122.33(b)(2)(h), 122.26(d). . . . See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(d). . . .

NORTH CAROLINA SHELLFISH GROWERS ASSOCIATION v. HOLLY RIDGE ASSOCIATES, LLC, A., 278 F. Supp. 2d 654 (E.D.N.C. 2003)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(14)(x). . . . See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14)(x). . . . onstruction activity including clearing, grading and excavation” of five or more acres of land. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . .

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER, a v. PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY, a LLC, a a EPA, 266 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . (requiring a designation under section 122.26(a)(l)(v), 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(a)(l)(v)); see 33 U.S.C. § . . . discharges composed entirely of storm water from silvicul-tural activities that are designated under 40 CFR 122.26 . . .

CITY OF ABILENE, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, v., 325 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 122.26. . . . The Cities, which have populations between 100,000 and 250,000, operate “medium” MS4s, 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . 7)©, and were required to participate in the two-phase permit application process under 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . management programs (“SWMPs”) describing how they would reduce the discharge of pollutants. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . Ill The Cities do not contend that 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p) or 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(d) are, by their own terms . . .

MISSISSIPPI RIVER REVIVAL, INC. v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA St., 319 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 122.26(e)(7)(ii)-(iii). . . .

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, INC. v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, v. v., 319 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B), (D). . . . Id. at § 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B). . . . Id. at § 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(D). . . . . §§ 122.26(a)(9)(i)(A)-(B). . . . may be sought without requiring the operator to regulate third parties, id. at §§ 122.33(b)(2)(ii), 122.26 . . . Id. at § 122.26(c). . . . Id. at § 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C)-(D). D. . . . An MS4 could prevent illicit discharges as required by § 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B) simply by sealing off points . . .

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, a v. HENRY BOSMA DAIRY, a H S H S B M a a v. a H S H S B M a, 305 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(14)(i) & (v). . . .

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE, v. DIABLO GRANDE, INC., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (E.D. Cal. 2002)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(14)(x), is a point source activity.” Id. . . . development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb five acres or more. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . .

MISSISSIPPI RIVER REVIVAL, INC. v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MN, v. St. MN,, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Minn. 2001)

. . . . § 122.26(e)(7)(ii). . . .

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL J. v. SOUTHWEST MARINE, INC., 236 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2000)

. . . . $ 122.26. . . .

ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION v. PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY,, 230 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2000)

. . . Ch. 1 § 122.26(b)(13). . . .

MISSISSIPPI RIVER REVIVAL, INC. v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, St. v., 107 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (D. Minn. 2000)

. . . . § 122.26(d). . . . . § 122.26(e)(3). . . . . § 122.26(e)(7)(ii). According to Plaintiffs, St. . . . Paul as large MS4s. 40 C.F.R. ¶ 122.26(b)(4)(i) and app. F. . . . .

UPPER CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVERKEEPER FUND, v. CITY OF ATLANTA, v., 98 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (N.D. Ga. 2000)

. . . . § 122.26; DNR Rule 391 — 3—6—.16(2). . . .

UNITED STATES v. TGR CORPORATION,, 171 F.3d 762 (2d Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(8). . . .

WASTE ACTION PROJECT v. CLARK COUNTY,, 45 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (W.D. Wash. 1999)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(7), and that EPA has determined that Clark County is subject to the NPDES permit requirement . . .

Na O AHA INO, a v. O. GALIHER, T., 28 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (D. Haw. 1998)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(14)(x). . . . whether Defendants’ activities constitute “construction activities” within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . Construction, as described in 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14)(x), is a point source activity. . . . still were not required to secure NPDES permits prior to undertaking these activities. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . “Larger Common Plan of Development” In order to fall within the exception of 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14 . . .

PATTERSON FARM, INC. a C. v. CITY OF BRITTON, SOUTH DAKOTA, a, 22 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (D.S.D. 1998)

. . . . § 122.26(a), (b). . . .

R. VANDERGRIFF, v. CITY OF CHATTANOOGA,, 44 F. Supp. 2d 927 (E.D. Tenn. 1998)

. . . . §§ 122.1(b)(1), 122.2, 122.26. . . . , The City of Chattanooga is required by federal law, particularly 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p) and 40 CFR § 122.26 . . . National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES) and applicable regulations (40 CFR § 122.26 . . .

D. HUGHEY, v. JMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, D. HUGHEY, v. JMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,, 78 F.3d 1523 (11th Cir. 1996)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(14)(x) (industrial activity includes construction, which in turn encompasses clearing, . . . of total land area which are not part of a larger common plan of development or sale." 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . .

MOLOKAI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, a a a v. KUKUI MOLOKAI INC. a a Co. a, 891 F. Supp. 1389 (D. Haw. 1995)

. . . . §§ 122.26(a)(1), 122.26(b)(14)(x). . . . . § 122.26(c)(1). . . . . § 122.26(c)(l)(v). . . .

APPALACHIAN ENERGY GROUP v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 33 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(14)(x) and 40 C.F.R. § 122.-26(c)(l)(iii)), concluding that permits are required for storm . . . Part 122.26(b)(14)(x), regardless of its affiliation with an oil and gas operation. . . . See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(l)(iii). . . . Finally, the group pointed out that, in comments to 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14)(i-x), which require storm . . . The EPA relies on 26 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14)(x) to justify its requiring a permit for all construction . . .

CONCERNED AREA RESIDENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, v. SOUTHVIEW FARM, 834 F. Supp. 1422 (W.D.N.Y. 1993)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(13) as “storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.” . . . the EPA, means “storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . .

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 966 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1992)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(8)). This definition echoes the language of 33 U.S.C. § 1362(4). . . . . § 122.26(b)(4), (7)). . . . However, for the “light industry” categories identified in 40 C.F.R. §. 122.26(b)(14)(xi), stormwater . . . codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(e)(2)(iii)). . . . (c)(l)(iv). .The requirements for permit applications are set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(d). . . . . § 122.26(b)(14). . . . materials, byproducts, or industrial machinery at these facilities are exposed to storm water.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14). . . .

AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 965 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1992)

. . . . § 122.26(b)(14)(iii)), because it requires storm water discharge permits for “inactive mining operations . . . does not come into contact with any overburden, raw material, byproduct, or waste product. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 . . . See 53 Fed.Reg. at 49,468 (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14)). . . .

COLORADO STATE BANK OF WALSH, v. UNITED STATES, 18 Cl. Ct. 611 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . amount of $263,836.03 accrued to January 11, 1985, and further interest from that date at the rate of $122.26 . . .

SILLER BROTHERS, INCORPORATED v. UNITED STATES, 655 F.2d 1039 (Ct. Cl. 1981)

. . . contract, based on the contract price of the timber at the time of termination (September 30, 1977) of $122.26 . . . terminated on September 30, 1977, was $414,461.40, based upon the then “Current Contract Rate” of $122.26 . . .

SILLER BROTHERS, INCORPORATED v. THE UNITED STATES, 228 Ct. Cl. 76 (Ct. Cl. 1981)

. . . contract, based on the contract price of the timber at the time of termination (September 30, 1977) of $122.26 . . . terminated on September 30, 1977, was $414,461.40, based upon the then "Current Contract Rate” of $122.26 . . .

H. FORD T. v. UNITED STATES F. TAYLOR C. v. UNITED STATES BOGGS v. UNITED STATES, 311 F.2d 951 (Ct. Cl. 1963)

. . . incorrectly determined that the total adjusted basis of the plantation at the time of the sale was $98,-122.26 . . .

REID v. UNITED STATES, 211 U.S. 529 (U.S. 1909)

. . . This is a suit for $122.26, alleged to be due to the plaintiff in error as an enlisted man in the regular . . . As to the jurisdiction of this court: The amount involved is $122.26. . . .