Cases from cite.case.law:

DIALYSIS ACCESS CENTER, LLC Tr M. D. v. RMS LIFELINE, INC., 932 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . Because Provision 6.06 of AHLA rules authorizes the arbitrator to award attorneys' fees and pre-award . . . AHLA Rule 6.06 states in relevant part that "[t]he arbitrator may assess reasonable attorney's fees . . . .

N. SELF, v. CITY OF MANSFIELD, TEXAS,, 369 F. Supp. 3d 684 (N.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . . ¶ 6.06. . . .

OLIVER, v. JOHANSON DB LLC,, 357 F. Supp. 3d 758 (W.D. Ark. 2018)

. . . See Nimmer on Copyright § 6.06 (noting that "a joint work does not result, where at the time of creation . . .

A. CLEMONS, R. W. v. NORTON HEALTHCARE INC. RETIREMENT PLAN,, 890 F.3d 254 (6th Cir. 2018)

. . . Norton Plan § 6.06(b)(2)-(3). This language clearly invokes Firestone deference. . . .

DAVENPORT CHESTER, LLC, v. ABRAMS PROPERTIES, INC, 870 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2017)

. . . Section 6.06—The Tenant will not do or permit or suffer any waste ... to or upon the Demised Premises . . . claim for waste must also fail, because thé parties expressly contracted for that liability in Sections 6.06 . . .

ODONNELL, On v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS,, 251 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (S.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . Ex. 3, February 8, 2017, 6.41 at 37:36; November 2, 2016, 6.06 at 1:00:02; May 12, 2016, 9.49 at 24:41 . . . they’ll have to make up the difference, if you're going to get out on the bonds.”); November 2, 2016, 6.06 . . .

SEARS, v. UNITED STATES,, 132 Fed. Cl. 6 (Fed. Cl. 2017)

. . . parcel cluster has 3,000 additional linear feet of point'rows due to the right-of-way, which equals 6.06 . . .

PAYSYS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ATOS SE, WORLDLINE SA, ATOS IT SERVICES LTD. Se, SA, IT v., 226 F. Supp. 3d 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . registered as “CardPac—OLA:606:OAS100” to “CardPac—Online Authorization (OLA) Application System (Rel. 6.06 . . .

IN RE LIPITOR ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. v., 150 F. Supp. 3d 644 (D.S.C. 2015)

. . . In that study, diabetes developed in 8.71% of the Lipitor group versus 6.06% of the placebo group. . . .

OSBERG, v. FOOT LOCKER, INC., 138 F. Supp. 3d 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . lump sum would be immediately cashed out and invested by the Participant at the 417(e) interest rate (6.06% . . . Here, the § 417(e) rate in effect at the time of the Plan conversion was 6.06%—reflecting the average . . . entitlement to the enhancement was tied to the use of a 9% discount rate; had Foot Locker used a 6% or 6.06% . . .

CROWE, v. EXAMWORKS, INC., 136 F. Supp. 3d 16 (D. Mass. 2015)

. . . Code Regs. 6.06(2). . . . Code Regs, 6.06(2). . . . Code Regs. 6.06(2) (“The ultimate judgment regarding any specific procedure or treatment must be made . . .

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC. f k a Co. LLC, v. UNITED STATES,, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1278 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014)

. . . See generally USCIT R. 6(b)(1)(A); 1 Moore’s Federal Practice § 6.06[2], p. 6-32 (3d ed. 2014) (explaining . . . circumstances where an extension of time is timely sought, id,.; see also 1 Moore’s Federal Practice § 6.06 . . . Brief at 9-10; see generally, e.g., 1 Moore’s Federal Practice § 6.06[3], pp. 6-33 to 6-47 (surveying . . . neglect”), aff'd, 19 Fed.Appx. 340 (6th Cir.2001); see generally, e.g., 1 Moore’s Federal Practice § 6.06 . . . See generally 1 Moore's Federal Practice § 6.06[3][a], pp. 6-33 to 6-43 (stating that out-of-time motion . . .

ABRAMS v. MIMEDX GROUP, INC., 37 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (N.D. Ga. 2014)

. . . When MiMedx publicized the letter, its stock fell 36%, from $6.06 per share to $3.86 per share. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SALDANA- BELTRAN,, 37 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (S.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . Sinclair, Jr., Practice Before Federal Magistrate Judges (2013), § 6.06 Criminal “Removal” Hearings, . . .

SCHANE, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL NO. PENSION FUND PENSION PLAN,, 760 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . The suspension-of-benefits section, section 6.06, requires a pensioner to notify the trustees if he is . . . “Under § 6.06,” they write, “the Trustees would look at Appellant’s proposed employment and could determine . . . that ambiguity is resolved by looking to the accompanying suspension-of-benefits clause in section 6.06 . . .

ESSAR STEEL, LIMITED, v. UNITED STATES,, 753 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . subprograms identified as providing benefits in the form of a grant, Commerce assigned a net subsidy rate of 6.06% . . .

ESCUE, v. SEQUENT, INC., 568 F. App'x 357 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . The representations and warranties covered by this clause include those made in Sections 6.06, 6.08, . . . alleges that Sequent breached the merger agreement by stating “unambiguous falsehoods” in Sections 6.06 . . . In Section 6.06 of the merger agreement, Sequent represented that its audited financial statements conformed . . . required in its financial statements, Escue has not sufficiently shown that Sequent breached Section 6.06 . . .

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BAY AREA ROOFERS HEALTH WELFARE TRUST FUND, v. WESTECH ROOFING,, 42 F. Supp. 3d 1220 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . simple interest per annum, the daily rate on that amount is $3.03/per day, giving rise to interest of $6.06 . . .

LOPEZ, LOPEZ, v. ANDIE S, INC. a d b a, 137 So. 3d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Perhaps attempting to rectify the problems identified in Blankfeld, rule 6.06 of the AHLA rules was revised . . . Nevertheless, the revision did nothing to erode rule 6.06’s improper elevation of the burden of proof . . . We also find that the offending “portion” of the subject provisions in AHLA rule 6.06 is not severable . . .

HARRIS, v. CITY OF BALCH SPRINGS, Z. B. E., 9 F. Supp. 3d 690 (N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . the City of Rowlett as a result of the false allegations and publicity arising from her termination. 6.06 . . .

PRICE TRUCKING CORP. v. NORAMPAC INDUSTRIES, INC., 748 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2014)

. . . citation omitted); see also Remediation of Contaminated Materials Contract, Standard General Conditions § 6.06 . . .

SELECTIVE WAY INS. CO. v. NAT L FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD,, 988 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Md. 2013)

. . . Ex. 1,Contract, section 6.06.A.) . . . (Id., section 6.06.D (emphasis added).) . . . Ex. 1, Contract, section 6.06.D (emphasis added).) In a recent case, the U.S. . . .

A. CLEMONS, R. W. v. NORTON HEALTHCARE, INC. RETIREMENT PLAN,, 981 F. Supp. 2d 646 (W.D. Ky. 2013)

. . . Notably, the Plaintiffs’ do not dispute that the Plan affords this discretion. 6.06 of the plan provides . . . for this discretion: 6.06 Powers and Authority (a) Each Committee shall have all powers and discretion . . .

CHURCHILL DOWNS INCORPORATED v. TROUT, P. F. F. T. III,, 979 F. Supp. 2d 746 (W.D. Tex. 2013)

. . . . § 6.06(a). The Act further provides for the exact commissions to deducted from betting pools. . . .

TAPLEY v. LOCALS AND OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS- EMPLOYERS CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RETIREMENT PLAN,, 728 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . Section 6.06 of the Plan defines “Post-Retirement Service” as all employment that is: (a) within the . . . The plain language of the Plan imposes another clear constraint: “job classification” under Section 6.06 . . . (b) must be less encompassing than “industry” under Section 6.06(c), which refers to the broader types . . .

A. X. M. S. CORP. v. FRIEDMAN,, 948 F. Supp. 2d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . That provision states: 6.06 Deadlock Provision. . . . (Id. § 6.06.) . . . (Id. § 6.06.) . . . block’s decision to dissolve Masterpiece under section 6.06 required both blocks to vote their shares . . . (Stockholders Agreement § 6.06.) . . .

UNITED STATES v. GABRION, II,, 719 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . See Sixth Circuit Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions § 6.06 (2009). . . .

In LMR, LLC d b a, 496 B.R. 410 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2013)

. . . See Plan (dkt # 102, § 6.06). . . . See Plan (dkt # 102, § 6.06). . . . See Plan (dkt # 102, § 6.06). . . . See Plan (dkt # 102, § 6.06). 1. . . . See Plan (dkt # 102, § 6.06). . . .

UNITED STATES v. EXECUTIVE RECYCLING, INC., 946 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (D. Colo. 2013)

. . . PJI 6.06 and 6.07; see United States v. . . .

ESSAR STEEL LIMITED, v. UNITED STATES,, 908 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013)

. . . subprograms identified as providing benefits in the form of a grant, Commerce assigned a net subsidy rate of 6.06% . . .

CPS MEDMANAGEMENT LLC f k a LLC, v. BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, L. P. CPS LLC, v., 940 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D.N.J. 2013)

. . . . $7 million x 948/1095 = $6.06 million. . . . .

REINSDORF, v. SKECHERS U. S. A. a U. S. A. II, a, 922 F. Supp. 2d 866 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . portion of the joint work that was the sole creation of the other joint author.” 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.06 . . .

WILLARD, v. OHIO OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION PLAN,, 942 F. Supp. 2d 748 (S.D. Ohio 2013)

. . . benefits from the Pension Plan were being suspended effective September 1, 2011, under Article 6, Section 6.06 . . . Section 6.06(f). . . . benefits provision” and informed plaintiff that his benefits were being suspended pursuant to Section 6.06 . . . The letter cites Article 6, Section 6.06(a) of the Pension Plan, which provides that any benefit otherwise . . . Under Section 6.06(a) of the Pension Plan, the Administrator of the Plan must suspend pension benefits . . .

In T. HOFFMANN, J. v. T., 475 B.R. 692 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2012)

. . . Section 6.06 states that the agreement “shall not be placed on record in the county in which the Trust . . .

AKANTHOS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, CNH CA L. P. GLG PLC GLG UCITS GLG IV PLC GLG UCITS CC v. COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, G. J. III, R. Jr. W. K. K. J. III, G. J., 677 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . method and place of conducting any proceeding for any remedy available to the Trustee" and Section 6.06 . . .

In BANAYAN, In v. In v., 468 B.R. 542 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . becoming a guarantor of the Loan and obligations imposed by the Credit Agreement; (2) under Section 6.06 . . .

L. HUSTED, III, v. FORD MOTOR CO., 847 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (S.D. Ohio 2012)

. . . Specifically, Section 6.06 provides that “[t]he Participant may pursue and accept employment outside . . . (Doc. 29 at 342; Section 6.06 of the Plan, Doc. 29 at 366). . . . (Section 6.06 of the Plan, Doc. 29 at 366). Set-off is made for all earnings over $150 per week. . . . that Plaintiffs claim was denied because he worked while claiming disability in violation of Section 6.06 . . .

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, AND SUBSIDIARIES, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, L. L. C., 659 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 6.06. . . .

DENIM NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS, LLC, v. SWIFT TEXTILES, LLC, LLC, LLC,, 816 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (M.D. Ga. 2011)

. . . Operating Agreement § 6.06(b), ECF No. 14-14 at 26. . . .

AMBASE CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES,, 100 Fed. Cl. 548 (Fed. Cl. 2011)

. . . rates on three different dates: the interest rate on the $256 million October 1994 loan was set at 6.06% . . .

GLENN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC, v. BELL AEROSPACE SERVICES, INC., 785 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (M.D. Ala. 2011)

. . . . § 6.06(C)). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BANNISTER,, 786 F. Supp. 2d 617 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . Inst., Model Penal Code: Sentencing § 6.06 rep. note d, at 31-32 (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011) (not yet . . . adopted) (collecting sources critical of mandatory minimum sentencing); id. § 6.06 cmt. a, at 19 (“[ . . . Inst., Model Penal Code: Sentencing § 6.06(3) (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011) (not yet adopted) (“The court . . .

AKANTHOS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, v. COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS CORPORATION,, 770 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (N.D. Ga. 2011)

. . . Defendants argue that section 6.06 of the indentures (the “no-action clause”) bars this litigation because . . . Paragraph 6.06 of the “3.625% Convertible Senior Notes Due 2025 Indenture,” dated May 27, 2005, [20-1 . . . The indenture for the "5.875% Convertible Senior Notes Due 2035,” dated November 23, 2005, § 6.06, contains . . .

JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. v. J. FLAHERTY, P. A., 408 F. App'x 312 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . Section 6.06 of the Plan expressly provides, however, that when an employee receives benefits under the . . .

In ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE ERISA LITIGATION. v. LLC, v., 761 F. Supp. 2d 504 (S.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . . # 41, Osprey I OM, Harlow Deck Ex. 5 at § 6.06(c)(i) (describing consent rights of Certificateholders . . . I; Osprey I OM, Harlow Deck Ex. 6 at 13; Whitewing Management LLC Agreement, Harlow Deck Ex. 5 at § 6.06 . . .

UNITED STATES v. LEWIS,, 363 F. App'x 382 (6th Cir. 2010)

. . . Pattern Jury Inst. 6.06; 6.07. . . .

WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. v. LAKE OF THE TORCHES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,, 677 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (W.D. Wis. 2010)

. . . December 9, and December 11, the Trustee made further requests for documentation as required by Sections 6.06 . . . any covenant, condition, agreement or provision” of the Indenture Agreement (including Sections 5.01, 6.06 . . .

In ION MEDIA NETWORKS, INC. v. v., 419 B.R. 585 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . Governing Second Lien Notes with Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, dated Dec. 30, 2005) at § 6.06 . . .

In MERCEDES HOMES, INC., 431 B.R. 869 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Plan Supplement, Exhibit J, Section 6.06, at 62. . . .

UNITED STATES v. TILGHMAN,, 332 F. App'x 269 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . appears to be necessary under the circumstances,” Sixth Circuit Pattern Criminal Jwry Instructions § 6.06 . . .

KEY, v. ROBERTSON, 626 F. Supp. 2d 566 (E.D. Va. 2009)

. . . , Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 6.06(3)(e)); see also Strike Mem. at 3. . . . Eagle Fire, 2006 WL 1720681, at *4 (quoting Moore, supra, ¶ 6.06(3)(c)). . . .

AMBER RESOURCES CO. v. UNITED STATES, E P Co. LP, v. NYCAL v., 87 Fed. Cl. 16 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . In 1999, Delta acquired Whiting’s 6.06% working interest in Point Arguello and Whiting’s record title . . . Delta thus had a 6.06% working interest (its share of net profits) in the wells drilled on the eastern . . . the oil that will be produced from lease 451 including drainage from 452, is based on a 5.05% share (6.06% . . .

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS d b a a v. METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC. a, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Colo. 2008)

. . . Id. at 10 (Section 6.06). . Id. (Section 6.08). . See, e.g., E. Brunswick Sewerage v. E. . . .

GELOW, v. CENTRAL PACIFIC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,, 560 F. Supp. 2d 972 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . . § 6.06. Among the arbitrator’s authorities, he may “permit reasonable discovery.” Id. § 6.08. . . . B (employment contract of Jeffrey Just) §§ 6.06, 6.08, 6.09. Plaintiffs do not dispute this. . . .

SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. J. TRABULSE, L. P. ITD, 526 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . sound management of the trading activities, such expenses being charged against his share” (id. at § 6.06 . . . Exh. 24 at § 6.06). . . .

In DURA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC. A. v. Co. N. A., 379 B.R. 257 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007)

. . . Plaintiffs failed to allege in their complaint that they satisfied the procedural requirements of Section 6.06 . . . See Subordinated Notes Indenture, § 6.06. . . .

C. FISHER, v. UNITED STATES,, 78 Fed. Cl. 710 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

. . . Practice Guide § 6.06(18). . . .

J. WRIGHT, D. M. v. FRANKEL, a Jr. a a, 965 So. 2d 365 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Ordinance shall become effective either upon approval by the City Commission in accordance with Section 6.06 . . .

H. BANKS, v. UNITED STATES, J. J. B. v., 78 Fed. Cl. 603 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

. . . Practice Guide § 6.06(18). . . . Practice Guide § 6.06(18). . . . Practice Guide § 6.06(18). . . .

FLETCHER, v. HUNTINGTON PLACE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,, 952 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . We do not accept Huntington’s interpretation of the meaning of AHLA Rule 6.06. . . . .

E. ALMEIDA, v. AGUINAGA, 456 F. Supp. 2d 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . . ¶ 7, her hourly wage was $6.06 from November 1998 to April 2005 and $6.36 thereafter. . . .

O MALLEY, v. TOWN OF EGREMONT,, 453 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D. Mass. 2006)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 6.06(1)(a) (3d ed. 1997) (“In other words, federal courts may . . .

In LOYA, Jr. Jr. v., 358 B.R. 888 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . See e.g., Docket # 130, Plan at p. 9, para. 6.06 (providing that oversecured claim of Toyota Motor Credit . . .

SA- PG- OCALA, LLC, v. STOKES,, 935 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Section 6.06 of such rules provides, in part: [T]he arbitrator may not award consequential, exemplary . . .

DIXON v. UNITED STATES, 548 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2006)

. . . Branch, 91 F. 3d 699, 714, n. 1 (CA5 1996); Sixth Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions § 6.06 ( . . .

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a v. STANLEY CONTRACTING, INC. A. A. v. Of, 396 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Or. 2005)

. . . Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract, Sec. 6.06, Concerning Subcontractors, Suppliers . . .

ST. JOHN S MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, v. DELFINO, M. D., 414 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . See Rule 6.06 of the American Health Lawyers Association arbitration rules (“arbitrator may grant any . . .

ASHBAUGH, v. R. NICHOLSON,, 129 F. App'x 607 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

. . . Ashbaugh also relies on paragraph 6.06, which addresses claims for benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. . . . Therefore, paragraph 6.06 is inapplicable to Ashbaugh’s case. . . .

ASHBAUGH, v. R. NICHOLSON,, 129 F. App'x 607 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

. . . Ashbaugh also relies on paragraph 6.06, which addresses claims for benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. . . . Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, ¶ 6.06. 38 U.S.C. § 1151 pertains to disability or death . . . Therefore, paragraph 6.06 is inapplicable to Ashbaugh’s case. . . .

I. APODACKIS, v. R. NICHOLSON,, 19 Vet. App. 91 (Vet. App. 2005)

. . . The resulting percentage, 6.06%, is multiplied by the prevailing market rate, $120.00, to determine the . . .

AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY CO. v. ANIERO CONCRETE CO. INC. Co. A M. S. T. Co. s,, 404 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 2005)

. . . See Carlin Contract, General Conditions § 3.01 A, 4.01(B), 6.03, 6.04, 6.06. . . .

DEAN, Sr. v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,, 118 F. App'x 993 (7th Cir. 2005)

. . . .”); 1 Moore’s Federal Practice § 6.06[3][c] (3d ed.1997) (“Ignorance of when a time period expires does . . .

MEDINOL LTD. v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP., 346 F. Supp. 2d 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . .” § 6.06. . . . according to Medinol, was either disclosure of Medinol’s confidential information, breaching section 6.06 . . .

BLUE WATER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 60 Fed. Cl. 48 (Fed. Cl. 2004)

. . . On February 23, 2004, Envirocon was awarded the contract by BSA for $6.06 million. . . .

FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF ROCHESTER, v. UNITED STATES,, 58 Fed. Cl. 139 (Fed. Cl. 2003)

. . . Section 6.06. Purchase Right. . . .

UNITED STATES v. KHEDR,, 343 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2003)

. . . Sand, Modem Federal Jury Instructions ¶ 6.06, at 6-18 (2002) (citing Judge Friendly's decision in United . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. MILLS, MILLS, 66 F. App'x 273 (2d Cir. 2003)

. . . Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions ¶ 6.06, Instr. 6-17 (1996) (recommending that juries be . . .

In CALYPSO ZAMIAS L. P. IX, XI, WXI BUF W WXI BUF W, L. L. C. WXI MLM W WXI MLM W, L. L. C. MLM MLM L. L. C. MLM B MLM B L. L. C. MLM E v. L. P. L. P. L. P. d b a, 293 B.R. 668 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2003)

. . . Paragraph 6.06 of the agreements characterizes costs incurred with respect to ZSI’s principal office . . . To the contrary, recovery of such costs is expressly precluded by paragraph 6.06(b) of the leasing and . . .

In POPKIN STERN, v. J., 292 B.R. 910 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2003)

. . . against Ronald in the amount of $1,121,743, plus interest from the date of judgment at the rate of 6.06 . . .

SATURN DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, v. PARAMOUNT SATURN, LTD., 326 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . Ann. art. 4413(36), § 6.06(e) (Vernon Supp.2001) (“Each party to a franchise agreement owes a duty of . . .

In STONE WEBSTER, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 253 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D. Mass. 2003)

. . . the time S & W entered into the Credit Agreement, it was already in material default under Sections 6.06 . . .

M. MOORE, v. UNITED STATES,, 54 Fed. Cl. 747 (Fed. Cl. 2002)

. . . Nunnink’s determined the right of way parcel to be 6.06 acres and assigned it a value of approximately . . .

HERRING, Sr. Jr. v. TERADYNE, INC. a, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (S.D. Cal. 2002)

. . . the case of Sections 6.05 and 7.02, for the period set forth therein, (ii) in the case of Sections 6.06 . . . One of the carve out sections, Section ll.Ol(ii), provides that covenants set forth in Sections 6.06 . . .

SHRED- IT USA, INC. It v. MOBILE DATA SHRED, INC. I., 228 F. Supp. 2d 455 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Sections 6.05 and 6.06 of the Asset Purchase Agreement provided that it was the entire agreement of the . . . Section 6.06 Amendments and Waiver No modification of or amendment to this Agreement shall be valid or . . .

In SIMON II LITIGATION, 211 F.R.D. 86 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . See ALI Complex Litigation: Statutory Recommendations and Analysis (choice of law) § 6.06, comment a. . . .

SHRED- IT USA INC. v. MOBILE DATA SHRED,, 222 F. Supp. 2d 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Section 6.06 of the same agreement states that no modification or amendment shall be valid unless it . . .

In GANDY, USA, v., 299 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . Section 6.06 of the Revised Limited Partnership Act provides that: Subject to Sections 6.07 [prohibition . . . Section 6.06 makes Debtor, a partner, into a quasi-creditor of the partnership for a distribution that . . . Limited Partnership Act § 6.06, Source and Commentary (2001). . . . winding up" and that the rights of limited partners would be governed by section 8.05 rather than section 6.06 . . .

In GANDY, USA, v., 299 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . Section 6.06 of the Revised Limited Partnership Act provides that: Subject to Sections 6.07 [prohibition . . . Section 6.06 makes Debtor, a partner, into a quasi-creditor of the partnership for a distribution that . . . Limited Partnership Act § 6.06, Source and Commentary (2001). . . . winding up” and that the rights of limited partners would be governed by section 8.05 rather than section 6.06 . . .

GANT, v. SABINE PILOTS, E. R. L. G. E. J. D. S. J. L. R. M. H. J. H. O. R. E. M. A. C. B. K. I. D. M. M. D. C. A. E. K. A., 204 F. Supp. 2d 977 (E.D. Tex. 2002)

. . . Ex. 1 ¶ 6.06. . . .

In A. SALLEE M. A. M. v. N. A., 286 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . Ann. art. 4413, § 6.06(e) (Vernon 2001) (establishing a duty of good faith and fair dealing between parties . . . Ann. art. 4413, § 6.06(e) (Vernon 2001). . . . .

In A. SALLEE M. A. M. v. N. A., 286 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . Ann. art. 4413, § 6.06(e) (Vernon 2001) (establishing a duty of good faith and fair dealing between parties . . . Ann. art. 4413, § 6.06(e) (Vernon 2001). . . . .

CITY OF SPOKANE, a v. UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a a a, 190 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (E.D. Wash. 2002)

. . . Section 6.06 of the SCAPCA regulations further adds that, “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to cause . . . Regulation I, Article I, Sections 6.04 and 6.06. . . .

F. KAISER, Jr. v. D. BOWLEN, PDB a PDB a, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (D. Colo. 2002)

. . . The defendants also cite Section 6.06 of the Sale Agreement in support of their contention that the right . . . Section 6.06 of the Sale Agreement states: SECTION 6.06. Successors and Assigns. . . . According to the defendants, Section 6.06 demonstrates the parties contemplated Bowlen might transfer . . . The subsidiary-transfer language of Section 6.06 gives some support to the defendants’ argument, but . . . The plaintiff contends that Section 6.06 merely permitted Bowlen to transfer his purchaser rights to . . .

UNITED STATES v. GOODINE, 180 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D. Me. 2002)

. . . See First Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction: Criminal § 6.06 (1998); see also Allen v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. P. McELHINEY,, 275 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 2001)

. . . Pattern Jury Instruction §§ 6.03, 6.06 (1998 ed.); 5th Cir. . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. KEENE,, 158 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D. Me. 2001)

. . . See First Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction: Criminal § 6.06 (1998). . . .

WESTERN CAPITAL DESIGN, LLC, v. NEW YORK MERCANTILE EXCHANGE,, 180 F. Supp. 2d 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . “outside contracts,” and alleges that NYMEX, by failing to disallow them, violated NYMEX Floor Rule 6.06 . . .

SIMON E. v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED R. J. B. A. T. P. L. C. I, 124 F. Supp. 2d 46 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . See ALI Complex Litigation: Statutory Recommendations and, Analysis (choice of law) § 6.06, comment a . . .

In MIDLANDS UTILITY, INC., 253 B.R. 683 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2000)

. . . The Attachment also provides, under Section 6.06, that for a period of three years after the initial . . . the then current rate for an ‘Inside Sewer Customer.’ ” The three-year period specified in Section 6.06 . . . Finally, Section 6.08 of the Attachment provides: Following the three year period detailed in Section 6.06 . . .

UNITED STATES v. G. DISMORE,, 115 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D. Me. 2000)

. . . The Court then gave the'jury an “Allen” charge following the First Circuit’s Pattern Jury Charge 6.06 . . . See First Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction: Criminal § 6.06 (1998). . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)