Cases from cite.case.law:

McPHERSON, v. STATE, 198 So. 3d 675 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . McPherson’s presumptive sentence was 87.8 months’ prison (7.32 years), with a minimum sentence of 65,85 . . .

OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD. v. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, INC. Co. v. SA, Co. v. USA, Co. v. USA, LLC, Co. v. Co. v. FZE, USA, Co. v. Co. v. Co. v. Co. US U. S. LLC, Co. v. USA Co. v. USA, Co. v. Co. v. FZE, USA, Co. v. USA, Co. v. USA, LLC, Co. v. Sa, Co. v. USA Co. v. SA, Co. v. Co. v. Co. v. LLC, MSN Co. v. USA,, 151 F. Supp. 3d 525 (D.N.J. 2015)

. . . ppm (dd, J-8.4 Hz, J-2.4 Hz, 11.1), 7.04 ppin 7.32 . . .

R. DUVALL, v. INFINITY SALES GROUP, LLC,, 608 F. App'x 897 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . submitted an affidavit from its chief financial officer, Laresa McIntyre, that Duvall’s sales percentage of 7.32 . . .

E. McCLAIN, Sr. On v. IRADIMED CORPORATION, X., 111 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Iradimed’s stock price closed at $7.32 on September 17. . . .

JOCHIM v. JEAN MADELINE EDUCATION CENTER OF COSMETOLOGY, INC. d b a, 98 F. Supp. 3d 750 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . The examination tests theoretical knowledge and practical skills. 49 Pa.Code § 7.32(c). . . .

In METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER MTBE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. t v. Co., 33 F. Supp. 3d 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . used a different methodology than Plaintiffs’ other experts and calculated damages to be, on average, $7.32 . . .

UNION STEEL, LG LG Co. v. UNITED STATES,, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

. . . , United States — Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (“Zeroing”), ¶¶ 7.32 . . . See Panel Report, ¶¶7.32, 7.33. . . .

ADVANCED MULTILEVEL CONCEPTS, INC. v. BUKSTEL, F. v., 919 F. Supp. 2d 564 (E.D. Pa. 2013)

. . . In August 2010, Bukstel allegedly caused VitaminSpice to issue 7.32 backdated shares of VitaminSpice . . . They contended Bukstel fraudulently issued 7.32 million backdated shares of company stock “to his confederates . . .

D. STUCKEY, v. ONLINE RESOURCES CORPORATION,, 909 F. Supp. 2d 912 (S.D. Ohio 2012)

. . . Resulting Breach of Contract Damages Under Duncan Robak calculated damages to be $7.32 per share, using . . . Robak then multiplied $7.32 per share by the total number of ORC shares the ITS Stockholders elected . . .

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE CPR v. SALAZAR, U. S. M. U. S., 877 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (M.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . Defendants have also represented that since the 2007 decision, NPS has closed 7.32 miles of primaiy and . . .

FRIENDS OF CONGAREE SWAMP, v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,, 786 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (D.S.C. 2011)

. . . total, the Project will require the filling of 8.22 acres of wetland and will restore approximately 7.32 . . .

TECHNOLOGY PATENTS LLC, v. DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG,, 774 F. Supp. 2d 732 (D. Md. 2010)

. . . Plaintiff’s Terms 22, 22k, 22B; Defendants’ Terms 7.32-7.34 . . . .

U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. ABLES HALL BUILDERS, a A., 696 F. Supp. 2d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . result across the three payment streams would be that the entities would pay a net interest rate of 7.32% . . . In early July, Gelhausen spoke to Ronnie to lock in the combined interest rate of 7.32% on the entities . . .

HERNANDEZ, a TELLES- HERNANDEZ, v. UNITED STATES, 665 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . One hour after birth, Cruz Hernandez’ blood sample showed a pH of 7.32. RT 146:5-147:3 (Dr. . . .

RIVER BRIDGE CORPORATION v. AMERICAN SOMAX VENTURES, a AMERICAN HOME DEVELOPMENT CORP. MSF, 18 So. 3d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . He arrived at a 7.32% profit rate. . . . He took the number of actual closings and calculated the estimated profit at the 7.32% rate derived from . . . ASV accounted for estimated costs by applying the estimated 7.32% average per-home profit margin, which . . . He then applied that 7.32% profit margin to the gross sales price on the additional pods built by other . . . While ASV’s expert explained how he arrived at his 7.32% profit rate as it applied to Pod 1A, we find . . .

WESTERN HOLDING GROUP, INC. v. THE MAYAG EZ PORT COMMISSION,, 611 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.P.R. 2009)

. . . Section 7.32 notes that delinquent accounts have a 9% annual arrears rate. . . .

CARLSON, v. XEROX CORPORATION, KPMG LLP, A. G., 596 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D. Conn. 2009)

. . . . $ 460,000,000.00 $ 33,686,468.00 7.32% 15 Raytheon $ 460,000,000.00 $ 13,160,578.00 2.86% 16 Waste . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. NEIDIG Jr. Jr., 253 F. App'x 239 (3d Cir. 2007)

. . . R. 7.7, 7.32; M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 04-cr-00271 Docket No. 487. . . .

GREEN MOUNTAIN CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH DODGE JEEP s GMC v. CROMBIE, M. v. A. M., 508 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D. Vt. 2007)

. . . additional income in 2010 due to the fuel that the regulation will save; $4.76 billion in 2020; and $7.32 . . .

CORUS STAAL BV, v. UNITED STATES,, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . States—Laws, Regulations, and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (“Zeroing”), WT/ DS294/R, ¶¶ 7.32 . . .

BV, v., 31 Ct. Int'l Trade 826 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . States-Laws, Regulations, and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (“Zeroing”), WT/DS294/R, ¶¶ 7.32 . . .

SKF USA INC. SKF S. A. SKF SKF SKF S. p. A. v. UNITED STATES, U. S., 491 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . Panel Report, United States — Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins, ¶¶ 7.32 . . .

SKF USA SKF S. A. SKF SKF SKF INDUSTRIE S. p. A. v. U. S., 31 Ct. Int'l Trade 951 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . Panel Report, United States - Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins, ¶¶ 7.32 . . .

In NANOVATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v., 364 B.R. 308 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . the Davidson Notes with Nanovation stock and stock options even if the stock was valued as low as $7.32 . . .

SIEGEL v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, a BP a a, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . Regarding Defendants specifically, (1) Shell reported earnings of $7.32 billion in the second quarter . . .

GLENBROOK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, W. LLC LLC LLC v. W. LLC LLC LLC, v. W. LLC LLC LLC, v. W. LLC LLC LLC v. W. LLC LLC LLC, 425 F.3d 611 (9th Cir. 2005)

. . . interest the right to use, inter alia, the beach area “for those permitted uses designated in Section 7.32 . . .

BRANDAID MARKETING CORPORATION. v. S. S. v., 418 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . (JPTO ¶ 7.32.) On June 13 and 16, 2003, Biss filed various forms with the SEC. (JPTO ¶¶ 7.36-6.37.) . . .

OLD PERSON, v. BROWN,, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (D. Mont. 2002)

. . . Indeed, the 2000 census reveals that American Indians now constitute 7.32% of the total population of . . .

GFL ADVANTAGE FUND, LTD. a v. R. COLKITT, 272 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2001)

. . . National Medical stock at the average market price of $9.20 and an exchange or conversion price of $7.32 . . .

REID, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN AERONAUTICS CO. v. Co., 205 F.R.D. 655 (N.D. Ga. 2001)

. . . Barnow found that only 12 out of a total of 164 comparisons, or 7.32%, resulted in a statistically significant . . .

In CM HOLDINGS, INC. G. M. G. v. CM, 254 B.R. 578 (D. Del. 2000)

. . . 10.11% 10.74% 14.15% 3 8.98% 9.49%12.59% 4 8.38% 8.84% 11.79% 5 6.95% 7.31% 9.97% 6 8.77% 9.20% 12.23% 7 7.32% . . .

BRISTOL TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,, 114 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D. Conn. 2000)

. . . related expenses totaled $2.73 million in CY95, $5.01 million in CY96, $7.09 million in CY97, and $7.32 . . .

ANDERSON COLUMBIA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 43 Fed. Cl. 693 (Fed. Cl. 1999)

. . . 9504 $ 3.68 $ 6 $ 57,024 $ 34,975 0244 10 10.5 $40,463.08 $35,000 $367,500 $424,862 0247 5000 6019 $ 7.32 . . . For CLIN 0247, Tanner’s bid exceeded the government’s estimate by $0.32 ($7.32 — $7). . . .

MILLER, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARM SERVICES AGENCY, USDA,, 143 F.3d 1413 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 7.32, a designee of the Deputy Administrator held a two-day hearing and issued a report to the Deputy . . .

ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION, v. CITY OF ATLANTA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, USA TODAY, a v. CITY OF ATLANTA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION,, 6 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (N.D. Ga. 1998)

. . . of the Airport until further order of court. .Cleaning of newsracks and surrounding areas will cost $7.32 . . .

MILLER, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARM SERVICES AGENCY,, 966 F. Supp. 1087 (N.D. Ala. 1997)

. . . . § 7.32. . . .

MOORE, v. GLICKMAN, R., 113 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 7.32. . . .

ASAT, v., 108 T.C. 147 (T.C. 1997)

. . . Products, the MANA Research Bulletins show commission ranges of 6.97 percent to 12.19 percent in 1990 and 7.32 . . . Electrical/ Technical Products, the mana survey reported that commissions ranged from 12.3 percent to 7.32 . . .

In PARAGON DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, INC. PARAGON DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. REDDING BANK OF COMMERCE,, 201 B.R. 254 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1996)

. . . According to Redding’s October statement, the balance in the account at the end of October was $7.32 . . .

S. C. JOHNSON SON, INC. v. CLOROX COMPANY,, 930 F. Supp. 753 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . At 12 weeks, the RAID product achieved a mean reduction of 7.32%, while SuperBait achieved a mean increase . . . (p. 17 11b) for the proposition that RAID Max Plus with Dursban achieved "a mean reduction of only 7.32% . . .

In CASON, 190 B.R. 917 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1995)

. . . Lundin, Chapter IS Bankruptcy, V.2 § 7.32 (Supp.1992). . . .

WHITE, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PDB KMS B B NFL, 836 F. Supp. 1458 (D. Minn. 1993)

. . . court rejects the foregoing assertions of fact underlying the Eagles’ federal labor law challenge. 7.32 . . .

M. MOKOVER v. NECO ENTERPRISES, INC. MONDSCHEIN v. NECO ENTERPRISES, INC. M. MOKOVER, v. NECO ENTERPRISES, INC., 785 F. Supp. 1083 (D.R.I. 1992)

. . . Schreck 165.00 9.15 1.509.75 150.00 7.32 1,098.00 R. Karem 155.00 .58 89.90 125.00 .46 D.J. . . .

QUILTER, v. V. VOINOVICH,, 794 F. Supp. 695 (N.D. Ohio 1992)

. . . . — 105,024 18 - 14.70% 14 6.86% 7.92% 11 7.32% 8.54% 19 - 14.40% 19 3.71% 4.63% 18 6.03% 6.87% 13 4.99% . . . 114135 1.23 1.16 1.74 1.46 09 108063 6.05 5.14 1.86 1.57 10 109506 0.66 0.49 0.86 0.75 11 105670 8.54 7.32 . . .

In CHATEAUGAY CORPORATION, LTV LTV CORPORATION, LTV LTV LTV v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION,, 126 B.R. 165 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . Bodie testified that the internal rate of return (a proxy for the discount rate) ranged from 7.32 percent . . .

V. KRUEGER, Jr. v. E. LYNG, J. J. D., 927 F.2d 1050 (8th Cir. 1991)

. . . a hearing on any appeal or request for reconsideration filed with the Deputy Administrator. 7 CFR § 7.32 . . .

In ALLEGHENY INTERNATIONAL, INC. USA Al- Co., 118 B.R. 282 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1990)

. . . When this rate was applied, it resulted in the stock having a range of value from $5.73 to $7.32. . . .

In J. FITZGERALD, KLINE S SERVICE CENTER, INC. v. J. FITZGERALD,, 109 B.R. 893 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1989)

. . . The Semper account shows a balance at the end of May, 1988 of $7.32. . . .

In MUSHROOM TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., 90 B.R. 718 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1988)

. . . Peach 0 0 Personal o CD £>- 0 7.32 0 Custodial -a ^ CJi 3,839 William Cutaiar, III 1,745 0 3.33 0 Custodial . . .

AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, F. S. B. v. CHESHIRE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. J. a a, 693 F. Supp. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . Van Varick, executed Aug. 4, 1988 (the “Loan and Security Agreement”), at schedule 7.32. . . . that it possessed a 100% general partnership interest, see Loan and Security Agreement at schedule 7.32 . . . A to Van Varick Aff. at schedule 7.32 (CMC 100% general partner of CMC-Pickering Run Limited Partnership . . . Therefore, CMC was free to transfer or assign its partnership interest in all partnerships on Schedule 7.32 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CONSERVATION CHEMICAL COMPANY, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION,, 681 F. Supp. 1394 (W.D. Mo. 1988)

. . . and Crabtree, “Focus Feasibility Study for Conservation Chemical Company Site,” at 6.5-Ó.6 and 7.27-7.32 . . .

F. NETSKY, W. v. UNITED STATES, 652 F. Supp. 783 (E.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . s estate as part of Schedule B of the 706 return: (1) $200,000.00 Fayette County, PA Project Notes, 7.32% . . .

KETCHUM, v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,, 630 F. Supp. 551 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . Moved Out Total Changed As a % of New Ward Pop. 15 13,163 12,003 25,166 40.88% 18 2,742 1,699 4,441 7.32 . . .

CARRERAS, v. CITY OF ANAHEIM,, 768 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir. 1985)

. . . Anaheim, Cal., Code § 7.32 (1984). . . . Anaheim, Cal., Code § 7.32.-060(c) (1984). . . . Anaheim, Cal., Code § 7.32 (1984). . . . .

v., 84 T.C. 996 (T.C. 1985)

. . . 100 Darvon Compound 4.02 3.35 PU 368 500 Darvon Compound 19.10 15.92 PU 369 100 Darvon Compound-65 7.32 . . .

J. DONOVAN, v. TONY AND SUSAN ALAMO FOUNDATION,, 567 F. Supp. 556 (W.D. Ark. 1982)

. . . CLOTHING 6.15 9.01 8.17 7.55 10.26 4.58 MEDICAL 6.27 13.18 8.69 8.20 8.56 11.37 UTILITIES 10.15 6.61 7.32 . . .

In READING COMPANY,, 551 F. Supp. 1205 (E.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . Lacy, Trustees — Boston and Maine Corporation; 7.32% — Burlington Northern Inc.; 2.44% — Central of Georgia . . .

SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, 633 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1980)

. . . See Findings of Fact 7.30, 7.31, and 7.32. . . .

SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, a v. STATE Ci. V. I. C., 473 F. Supp. 996 (W.D. Wash. 1979)

. . . through the use of easily determined standards; and it makes for better home-school communication. 7.32 . . .

BALINO v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 362 So. 2d 21 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . . § 120.54 proceeding on the amendments to Rule 10c-7.32.” . . . Petitioners have also filed for rehearing seeking to have this Court hold Rule lOc-7.32 invalid. . . . for designation of a patient as a “skilled nursing facility (SNF) patient” and specifically Rule 10c-7.32 . . . On the administrative level, petitioners challenged Rule 10c-7.32 on the basis that it lacked essential . . . proceedings and final order issued October 19, 1976 providing in part as follows: “Rule 10c-7.21 [now 10c-7.32 . . . The HRS may thereafter make changes in, or additions to, the definitions in Rule 10c-7.32, or not, as . . .

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 208 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1975)

. . . amounting to $2.20 per share of common stock, if added to the $5.12, would bring total earnings to $7.32 . . . to compute the witness’ ratios are $3.19 or $3.44 per share, not $5.12 as would be more correct, or $7.32 . . .

H. L. MOORE, v. J. C. KNOWLES, 377 F. Supp. 302 (N.D. Tex. 1974)

. . . Exceptions may be made only in case of emergencies and on a temporary basis[.]” and Rule 7.32 which appears . . . Here it should be noted that it is a contention of the plaintiff that Rule 7.32 above sets forth the . . . Rule 7.32 affords no comfort to plaintiff. . . . Although many of the teachers and even the superintendent had the mistaken understanding that Rule 7.32 . . . It is concluded by this court that Rule 7.32 is solely for the purpose of stating the grounds for the . . .

H. BROWN v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, a, 385 F. Supp. 1128 (D. Nev. 1973)

. . . areas, and access to public and quasi-public beaches in urban core areas and settlement node areas. “7.32 . . .

CITY OF MIAMI, a v. I. SILVER, 257 So. 2d 563 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . Anderson, American Law of Zoning '§ 7.32 (1968). . . .

PACIFIC WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY JAMES G. WILEY CO. v. UNITED STATES, 277 F. Supp. 122 (Cust. Ct. 1967)

. . . 12296 (armchair frames) As stated in exhibit 1, each As calculated from invoice data each Ex-Factory $7.32 . . .

MICHEAL CHERNICK AND BELLE CHERNICK v. THE UNITED STATES, 178 Ct. Cl. 498 (Ct. Cl. 1967)

. . . The $73.20 per $1,000 was then translated into .0732 (7.32%) increase or decrease for each dollar increase . . .

In BLOOMFIELD STEAMSHIP COMPANY, STEAMSHIP LUCILE BLOOMFIELD,, 227 F. Supp. 615 (E.D. La. 1964)

. . . York by its berth agent and the bills of lading issued by the berth agent for such cargoes constituted 7.32 . . .

D. DUBA, O. N. Al v. SCHUETZLE, O. H. R. B., 303 F.2d 570 (8th Cir. 1962)

. . . Section 7.32 of the Regulations provides that the office of the County Committee “shall be located in . . .

SCHUETZLE, v. D. DUBA, O. N. Al, 201 F. Supp. 754 (D.S.D. 1962)

. . . Mound City to Herreid, another town in the same county, contrary to the provisions of sub-paragraph 7.32 . . . Subparagraph 7.32, supra, is specific on the point that “consideration shall be given to convenience . . .

UNITED STATES v. WESSEL DUVAL CO. THE EDWARD RUTLEDGE, 123 F. Supp. 318 (S.D.N.Y. 1954)

. . . alongside. 7.15 — Stand by engine, taking in lines. 7.22 — Slow ahead and navigating as per bell book. 7.32 . . .

Co. a c Co. v., 30 Cust. Ct. 512 (Cust. Ct. 1953)

. . . packed Item No. 7_ 9.57 per dozen, net packed Item.No. 5_ 3.99 " " " Item No. 2_ 6.26 " " " Item No. 9_ 7.32 . . . Item No. 7_ net packed 9.57 per dozen, Item No. 6_ 3.99 " " " Item No. 2___ 6.26 " " " Item No. 9_'_ 7.32 . . .

E. v., 1 T.C. 518 (T.C. 1943)

. . . I, Chap. 7, particularly §§ 7.16 ; 7.24; 7.25; 7.32. . . .

DE WALT v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF BLOOMINGTON, ILL., 111 F.2d 699 (8th Cir. 1940)

. . . On January 23, 1932, he paid the sum of $7.32 for the premium from January 23, 1932, to July 23, 1932 . . .

WESTERN GAS FIXTURE CO. v. JEFFERSON GLASS CO., 296 F. 128 (4th Cir. 1924)

. . . The District Court below was therefore in error in limiting the patentee’s recovery to $7.32, the amount . . .

Co. v. Co., 35 F. 570 (C.C.E.D. Ark. 1888)

. . . commerce: “Cider, highest average, 9.87, lowest, 5.21; Perry, average of four samples, 7.26; mead, 7.32 . . .