Cases from cite.case.law:

B. DIAMOND, LLP, v. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, B. LLP, v. LLP, B. LLP, v. LLP, B. LLP, v. LLP, B. LLP, v. LLP, B. LLP, v. LLP, B. LLP, v. LLP, B. LLP, v., 883 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2018)

. . . Code § 29-606.03(b)) governs the duties of dissociating partners. . . . has been recodified, and there appears to be an internal inconsistency in the cross-references. § 29-606.03 . . .

B. CAMPBELL, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 126 F. Supp. 3d 141 (D.D.C. 2015)

. . . District of Columbia, 899 F.Supp.2d 59, 67-69 (D.D.C.2012) (quoting D.C.Code § 1- 606.03(a)). . . .

McCORMICK, Jr. v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 752 F.3d 980 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

. . . D.C.Code §§ 1-606.03; 1-609.54(b). . . .

QUEEN, v. Ed SCHULTZ,, 747 F.3d 879 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

. . . Cfi D.C.Code § 29-606.03(a) (one partner’s dissociation does not necessarily result in dissolution of . . .

DELIVERMED HOLDINGS, LLC, v. SCHALTENBRAND,, 734 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2013)

. . . Copyright Office, Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, § 606.03 (1988) (“The Copyright Office will . . .

BADGETT, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 925 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . Section 1-606.03 of the CMPA governs the appeals procedure, including timing for the resolution of appeals . . . See D.C.Code § l-606.03(c). . . . According to § 1-606.03, the OEA is to make jurisdictional determinations within 45 days of the filing . . . See D.C.Code § l-606.03(c); Mpoy v. . . . D.C.Code § l-606.03(e). . . .

OWENS, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 923 F. Supp. 2d 241 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . Code § l-606.03(c) (2012), so publication was in fact one of the procedural safeguards that the CMPA . . .

STEINBERG, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 901 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . Code § l-606.03(d), “[a]ny employee ... may appeal the decision of [OEA] to the Superior Court of the . . . D.C.Code § 1-606.03(d). . . .

McCORMICK, Jr. v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 899 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . Code § l-606.03(a). . . . Code § l-606.03(b). . . . Code § 1-606.03. Almost by definition, judicial review satisfies the second Mathews factor. . . .

BREWER, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 891 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . See D.C.Code §§ 1-606.03, 1-624.04. . . .

OWENS, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 875 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . exhausted when a decision [of the Office of Employee Appeals] becomes final in accordance with [Section 1-606.03 . . . D.C.Code § 1—606.03(c); see also Hoey v. . . .

STEINBERG, v. C. GRAY,, 815 F. Supp. 2d 293 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . . ¶ 15; D.C.Code § l-606.03(c). . . . Id. ¶ 17; D.C.Code § 1 — 606.03(d) (“Any employee or agency may appeal the decision of the Office [of . . .

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 796 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . . § l-606.03(a). The D.C. . . .

BOWERS, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 883 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . District of Columbia, 772 A.2d 1154, 1156 (D.C.2001)); see also D.C.Code §§ 1-606.03, 1-616.52. . . . D.C.Code §§ l-606.03(c)-(d). . . .

WASHINGTON v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 680 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.D.C. 2010)

. . . See D.C.Code § 1-606.03(d). . . .

PAYNE, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 592 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . . § 1-606.03(d). . . .

L. JOHNSON, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 552 F.3d 806 (D.C. Cir. 2008)

. . . . § l-606.03(d), while an arbitration award under a CBA grievance procedure is appealable to the PERB . . . grievance procedure may, in the discretion of the aggrieved employee, be raised either pursuant to § 1-606.03 . . . Section 1-606.03 sets out the procedure for appealing to the OEA and then to the D.C. . . .

WASHINGTON v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 530 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . D.C.Code § 1 — 606.03(d). Thus, the defendant proposes that, either way, the D.C. . . .

McMANUS, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 530 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2007)

. . . Code §§ 1-606.03, -616.62. . . .

M. BAGENSTOSE, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 503 F. Supp. 2d 247 (D.D.C. 2007)

. . . Code § l-606.03(a) (2001). . . . Code § l-606.03(c). . . . Id. § 1-606.03(d). Plaintiff challenged the OEA’s final decision in D.C. . . .

MARQUEZ, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE a, 399 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 606.03(1)(b) (Joseph M. . . .

E. LUCAS, Jr. v. UNITED STATES, 268 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

. . . See D.C.Code §§ 1-606.03,-624.04; Washington Teachers’ Union Local 6 v. . . .

In LELAK, Jr. W. M. LELAK, v. LELAK W., 38 B.R. 164 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1984)

. . . At the time of that divorce, Angela was earning $216 per week and John was earning $606.03 per week from . . .

v. D. J. F. v., 2 T.C. 445 (T.C. 1943)

. . . net proceeds of $71,077.73. less the income and defense taxes allocated thereto in the amount-of $17,-606.03 . . .