Cases from cite.case.law:

K. HUERTAS DEL PINO, v. E. HUERTAS DEL PINO,, 229 So. 3d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Gross and Ciklin, JJ., concur. , As of 2016, Florida's minimum wage was $8.05, See-Florida Minimum Wage . . .

IN RE SANDIA TOBACCO MANUFACTURERS, INC., 571 B.R. 449 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2017)

. . . See also Model Business Corporation Act, commentary to § 8.05(c) (explaining "that a decrease in the . . .

IN RE AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO v. GSK, 238 F. Supp. 3d 723 (E.D. Pa. 2017)

. . . . § 1441 (providing bases for removal). .See 1-8 Moore's Federal Practice and Procedure § 8.05 (2015) . . .

AGUILAR a LTD O O a v. PNC BANK, N. A., 853 F.3d 390 (8th Cir. 2017)

. . . reimburse us for any loss we may incur as a result of such directions, actions or failures to act. 8.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CARDENA,, 842 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2016)

. . . When the defendant is charged under Section 104(a)(1), give this instruction and Instruction 8.05. . . .

CALDERONE, v. SCOTT,, 838 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . Department of Economic Opportunity (October 15, 2015), goo. gl/iLRkJT (setting Florida’s minimum wage at $8.05 . . .

ALLCO RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED, v. MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY d b a O, 208 F. Supp. 3d 390 (D. Mass. 2016)

. . . . §§ 8.03, 8.05, are inconsistent with PURPA and therefore invalid (Count II). . . . Id. § 8.05. . . . Id. § 8.05(2)(a). . . . Code Regs. § 8.05(2)(a), the P-Rate Tariff states that “QFs that have a design capacity of 1 [megawatt . . . Code Regs. § 8.05(2)(a). . . .

IN RE ADKINS SUPPLY, INC. v. L. T. Jr., 556 B.R. 285 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2016)

. . . . ¶ 8.05. • Defendants termed these charges “commissions” as a device to avoid usury laws. . . .

REDEEMER COMMITTEE OF HIGHLAND CREDIT STRATEGIES FUNDS, v. HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L. P., 182 F. Supp. 3d 128 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . See id. at 1-2, citing Joint Plan at ¶¶8.04, 8.05. . . . Joint Plan at § 8.05. . . .

HURST, v. W. COLVIN,, 639 F. App'x 1018 (5th Cir. 2016)

. . . the pre-hearing brief and at the hearing that Hurst’s impairments met or were equivalent to sections 8.05 . . . Section 8.05 is the listing for “dermatitis ... with extensive skin lesions that persist for at least . . . Although the ALJ failed to cite section 8.05 in her decision, she did cite considerable evidence that . . . We thus conclude that the ALJ’s failure to explicitly consider section 8.05 was harmless error. . . . Appendix 1, § 8.05. . 501 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir.2007). . Id. . Id. . . .

RECOVERY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. WRECKED AND ABANDONED VESSEL S. S. CENTRAL AMERICA, T. Jr., 790 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2015)

. . . permitted Robol to use the materials for his own purposes, citing Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 8.05 . . . Rules of Profl Conduct R. 1.9(c)(1) (similar); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 8.05 & cmt. b (prohibiting . . .

GREENLIGHT REINSURANCE, LTD. v. APPALACHIAN UNDERWRITERS, INC., 34 F. Supp. 3d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . . (§ 8.05.) . . .

In H M OIL GAS, LLC, J. v. A. III,, 514 B.R. 790 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Section 8.05, in turn, permits the Manager to employ “such agents, attorneys and employees as he deems . . . Id. at § 8.05. . . .

COLUMBUS- AMERICA DISCOVERY GROUP, INC. v. UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED AND ABANDONED SAILING VESSEL,, 34 F. Supp. 3d 595 (E.D. Va. 2014)

. . . Restatement (Third) Of Agency §§ 8.09 cmt. b, 8.05 (2006). . . .

IN RE MAGNUM HUNTER RESOURCES CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 26 F. Supp. 3d 278 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . price increased, from a low of $2.37 on April 22 to a high of $8.12 on October 21, 2013 and a high of $8.05 . . .

SYNTHES, INC. USA HQ, USA, LLC, USA LLC, USA LLC, v. EMERGE MEDICAL, INC. P. W. Q. v. UUS HQ, USA, LLC, USA LLC, USA LLC,, 25 F. Supp. 3d 617 (E.D. Pa. 2014)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 8.04 and 8.05 (2006). . . .

GARDEN CATERING- HAMILTON AVENUE, LLC, v. WALLY S CHICKEN COOP, LLC,, 30 F. Supp. 3d 117 (D. Conn. 2014)

. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 8.05 (2006) (“An agent who has possession of property of the principal . . .

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

. . . Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 [102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396] (1982). 8.05 Such discrimination by Defendants . . . Compl. ¶¶ 8.01-8.05. . . .

GENTRY, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 741 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . P, app. 1, § 8.05. . . . P, app. 1, §§ 8.00(C)(1), 8.05. . . .

WILSON, v. SENTRY INSURANCE, v., 993 F. Supp. 2d 662 (E.D. Ky. 2014)

. . . Post, 437 S.W.2d at 521 (quoting Frumer-Friedman, Products Liability, § 8.05). . . .

In OXYCONTIN ANTITRUST LITIGATION. L. P. v. USA,, 994 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . . *, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989) (quoting 3 Chisum on Patents § 8.05, p. 8-67 (1988)). . . .

WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CREDIT, v. J. HINDMAN,, 734 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2013)

. . . of the corporation shall be managed by or under the direction of the board of directors,” 805 ILCS 5/8.05 . . .

HENNING, v. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, n k a N. A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D. Mass. 2013)

. . . Henning also cites Code of Massachusetts Regulations, title 940, section 8.05(2), which purports to regulate . . .

IN RE RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC,, 497 B.R. 720 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . (See, e.g., Ex. 114 § 8.05(b)) (requiring Debtor to “indemnify the Trustee for, and to hold the Trustee . . .

In OXYCONTIN ANTITRUST LITIGATION. L. P. P. F. L. P. Gr v. LLC, L. P. P. F. L. P. v. LLC, L. P. P. F. L. P. Gr v. L. P. P. F. L. P. Gr v. L. P. Gr v. L. P. P. F. L. P. Gr v. L. P. Gr v. L. P. P. F. L. P. Gr v. USA, L. P. Gr v. USA,, 965 F. Supp. 2d 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Chisum, Patents § 8.05 at 8-67 (1988)). . . .

BOCEK, M. D. PHD, v. JGA ASSOCIATES, LLC P. v., 537 F. App'x 169 (4th Cir. 2013)

. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 8.05(2) (“An agent has a duty ... not to use or communicate confidential . . .

GREENLIGHT REINSURANCE, LTD. v. APPALACHIAN UNDERWRITERS, INC., 958 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Because the extent of losses under insurance policies changes over time, § 8.05 provides for so-called . . . A-C, § 8.05).) . . .

CEPHALON INC. CIMA v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., 962 F. Supp. 2d 688 (D. Del. 2013)

. . . solutions were also tested, one with a pH of 7, and one with a target pH of 8.5 but that reached a pH of 8.05 . . .

JEAN- BAPTISTE, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 958 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . The prime rates were 7.96% in 2006, 8.05% in 2007, 5.09% in 2008, and 3.25% in 2009 through 2012. . . .

M. TORSIELLO, M. D. v. STROBECK,, 955 F. Supp. 2d 300 (D.N.J. 2013)

. . . June 26, 2009) (not precedential); see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 8.05 (2006) (agent’s duty . . .

J. MALMSTEEN, v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC. UMG, 940 F. Supp. 2d 123 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . . § 8.05(a), which, as this Court found in a previous decision, bars Malmsteen from asserting any claims . . .

CHYTKA, v. WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC., 925 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Colo. 2013)

. . . D, Employee Stock Ownership Plan & Trust Agreement [# 115-4] § 8.05. . . .

A. FORD, v. OWENS- ILLINOIS, INC., 961 F. Supp. 2d 857 (N.D. Ohio 2012)

. . . One amendment provided that § 8.05 of the SRP, which created the RIF benefits, would no longer be available . . . amendments, plaintiff asked 01 for written assurance that the SRP amendments (including the amendment to § 8.05 . . . suit is that OI, when it paid RIF benefits to the plaintiff, did so on the basis of the amendment to § 8.05 . . . OI contends that the amendment to § 8.05, not the December 18, 2003 agreement and the December 28, 2004 . . . Under § 8.05 of the OI plan, the benefit at issue was both contingent on an employees retirement and . . .

In BACHRACH CLOTHING, INC. v. H., 480 B.R. 820 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2012)

. . . capital structure is advocated in Contested Valuation in Corporate Bankruptcy: A Collier Monograph, ¶ 8.05 . . .

ASSURED GUARANTY MUNICIPAL CORP. f k a v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB ABS, LLC,, 892 F. Supp. 2d 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Historical Model produced an expected loss of 1.74%, and the RMG Model produced an expected loss of 8.05% . . .

A. BOYLAN, v. J. ASTRUE,, 32 F. Supp. 3d 238 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . should have determined that her impairments met or medically equaled the impairment set forth at § 8.05 . . . Section 8.05 of the Listings Impairments listed in Appendix 1 of the Social Security Regulations are . . . The impairment set forth at § 8.05 of the Listings (Dermatitis) involves “extensive skin lesions that . . . However, the ALJ concluded, without detailed explanation, that Plaintiff did not satisfy Listing § 8.05 . . . As such, Plaintiffs psoriasis meets or medically equals the impairment set forth in § 8.05 of the Listings . . .

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. J. OBUS, F. L. P. L. P. I,, 693 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2012)

. . . such information ... by an employee violate[s] a fiduciary duty”); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 8.05 . . .

In U. S. FIDELIS, INC., 481 B.R. 503 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2012)

. . . Section 8.05 Notices. . . .

GREENLIANT SYSTEMS, INC. v. XICOR LLC,, 692 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Chisum, Chiswn on Patents § 8.05 (1988)). . . .

COE, v. TOWN OF BLOOIMING GROVE,, 880 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . this Court rules that all of the time spent by Ullrich, 0.5 hours, and the law firm’s paralegal staff, 8.05 . . . Bergstein 125.88 56.58 50% 28.29 $350.00 $ 9,901.50 Ullrich 0.50 0.50 50% 0.25 $350.00 $ 87.50 Paralegals 8.05 . . . 8.05 50% 4.025 $ 50.00 201.25 Korenbaum 54 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PEES $10,190.25 SECOND APPEAL TOTAL FEES . . .

S. CLAYBROOK, v. UNITED STATES,, 104 Fed. Cl. 680 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

. . . See, e.g., Restatement (Third) of Agency § 8.05, Rep. . . .

WOODFORDS FAMILY SERVICES, INC. v. CASEY Me LLC., 832 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D. Me. 2011)

. . . employment relationship, Woodfords cites no Maine cases, but only the Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 8.04, 8.05 . . . to the Restatement provision on the use of confidential information, Restatement (Third) of Agency § 8.05 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,, 836 F. Supp. 2d 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . for its actions lacked credibility due to inconsistencies); Lex Larson, Employment Discrimination § 8.05 . . .

ELLINGTON CREDIT FUND, LTD. v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., 837 F. Supp. 2d 162 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . (PSA § 8.05(b).) . . .

SCANLAN, v. UNITED STATES v., 825 F. Supp. 2d 941 (N.D. Ill. 2011)

. . . Income Security Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. 1-8 Corbin on Contracts Desk Edition § 8.05 . . .

RAMOS, v. SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP,, 796 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . Ex. 6 (requiring that the contractor pay prevailing wages, if applicable); Brooklyn Apple contract ¶ 8.05 . . .

In MAE, v. U. S. N. A., 460 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011)

. . . The second part of Count V, under G.L. c. 93A and 940 CMR 8.05 (defining certain acts and practices as . . . as to the Count V claim under RESPA, • granted as to the Count V claim under G.L. c. 93A and 940 CMR 8.05 . . . Debtor’s motion in this proceeding to enjoin the foreclosure was denied. .The reference to 940 CMR 8.05 . . . This is not in substance a count under 940 CMR 8.05. . . .

WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. v. SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA COMMUNITY, 787 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Wis. 2011)

. . . S at 6 (citing Indenture § 8.05.)) . . .

BNP PARIBAS MORTGAGE CORPORATION BNP v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. AG, v. N. A., 778 F. Supp. 2d 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . See Depositary Agreement § 8(g); Security Agreement § 8.05. . . .

CLEMMAN, Jr. v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST- PRISON SUPERVISION,, 407 F. App'x 143 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . barred by Oregon’s appellate fugitive disentitlement rule (Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure (ORAP) 8.05 . . . surrender” and “ha[d] no difficulty deciding that a defendant has not ‘surrendered’ for purposes of ORAP 8.05 . . . 588, 138 P.3d 57, 58 (2006) (per curiam), the Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal pursuant to ORAP 8.05 . . .

TRUST FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THE MERRILL LYNCH MORTGAGE PASS- THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES LLC, v. LOVE FUNDING CORPORATION,, 736 F. Supp. 2d 716 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . The Repurchase Price equals the principal plus interest at the non-default rate of 8.05% from and after . . . 30, 2002 totaled $7,654,056.11, representing $6,282,671.16 in principal, $339,979.77 in interest at 8.05% . . .

UNITED STATES v. BONDS,, 608 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 8.05 cmt. c. . . .

In AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 265 F.R.D. 157 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . to indict AIG for alleged document removal and destruction in its Bermuda offices, contributing to a 8.05% . . .

LG DISPLAY CO. LTD. v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AU USA, AU v. LG Co. LG, 686 F. Supp. 2d 429 (D. Del. 2010)

. . . Chisum, Patents § 8.05[5], at 8-96 (1994)); Biacore v. . . .

FENDI ADELE S. R. L. S. R. L. v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORP. v. BC, d b a LLC,, 689 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . ten-year treasury notes ranged from as low as 2.08 percent per annum (on December 18, 2008) to as high as 8.05 . . .

RODRIGUEZ, J. On v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE,, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (D.N.M. 2009)

. . . At this point, the same result is reached if the City adds six more hours of pay at $8.05, or if the . . . forty-six hours at a rate of $16.09 per hour plus six hours of additional overtime compensation at $8.05 . . . = $16.09 (regular rate). . 0.5 (City’s chosen FLSA overtime multiplier) x $16.09 (regular rate) = $8.05 . . . $24.14 (overtime rate)) = $788.44. . (46 (total hours) X $16.09 (regular rate)) + (6 (hours overtime) x $8.05 . . .

v., 133 T.C. 202 (T.C. 2009)

. . . SWS, par. 8.05(c); Fidelity, art. IX, pars. 16, 18 (Roth); Ameritrade, 8.01(c). . . .

M. HAYES, M. II, M. v. OHIO NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. O. N., 642 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Pa. 2009)

. . . Contract (which is the same, verbatim, as Section 8.05 of the C.A. . . . Contract or Section 8.05 of the C.A. Contract, vests in the agent, i.e., Hayes or Hayes II. . . . Contract and § 8.05 of the C.A. . . .

THOMAS BETTS CORPORATION, v. RICHARDS MANUFACTURING COMPANY J. v. J., 342 F. App'x 754 (3d Cir. 2009)

. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 8.05 (2006). . . . .

In MORTGAGE LENDERS NETWORK USA, INC. USA, v., 406 B.R. 213 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009)

. . . E, p. 114, § 8.05; Pl. Tr. Ex. G, p. 41-42, §§ 6.04(b) and 6.04(c); Pl. Tr. Ex. . . . E, p. 114, § 8.05; Pl. Tr. Ex. G, p. 41-42, §§ 6.04(b) and 6.04(c); Pl. Tr. Ex. . . . E, p. 114, § 8.05; Pl. Tr. Ex. H, p. 41, § 6.04(b).) b. . . . E, p. 114, § 8.05; Pl. Tr. Ex. H, p. 41, § 6.04(c).) 31. . . . E, p. 114, § 8.05; Pl. Tr. Ex. H, p. 41, § 6.04(c).) . . .

A. CRAIG, v. P. SMITH,, 597 F. Supp. 2d 814 (S.D. Ind. 2009)

. . . Ontario delegated its duties pursuant to Plan § 8.05. . . . Plan § 8.05. . . . Plan § 8.05. . . .

In EARNED CAPITAL CORPORATION, LLP v. L., 393 B.R. 362 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008)

. . . provides for the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases to remain open until all unsecured claims are paid in full: 8.05 . . .

BOULWARE v. UNITED STATES, 552 U.S. 421 (U.S. 2008)

. . . Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders ¶ 8.05[1], pp. 8-36 to 8-37 (6th ed . . . While they “never even pass through the corporation’s hands,” Bittker & Eustice ¶ 8.05[9], at 8-51, even . . .

In G. NOYES,, 382 B.R. 561 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008)

. . . . § 8.05(1), dated October 30, 2005, which reflected that the broker’s origination fee would be either . . . Id. at 8.05(7). . . . Id. at 8.05(4). . . .

In MATCO ELECTRONICS GROUP, INC. In U. S. In U. S. In U. S. In In U. S. In In U. S. In U. S. In U. S., 383 B.R. 848 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . 35, 56 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2002), aff'd 122 Fed.Appx. 528 (2d Cir.2004), citing 1 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 8.05 . . .

M. COLEMAN, v. J. ASTRUE,, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (D. Kan. 2007)

. . . the ALJ erred: (1) in failing to find that plaintiffs impairments equal listed impairments 14.09A or 8.05 . . . Step Three — Listings 14.09A and 8.05 The Commissioner has provided a “Listing of Impairments” which . . . Listing 8.05 might be met if plaintiff shows evidence of dermatitis “with extensive skin lesions that . . . P, App.l §' 8.05(emphasis added). Dr. . . . Chernoff opined that plaintiffs condition “probably” equals listing 8.05, and noted that plaintiff has . . .

PRECISION PINE TIMBER, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 81 Fed. Cl. 235 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

. . . show that in 1996 plaintiff earned on average $8.03/Mbf (LT) and in 1997 plaintiff earned on average $8.05 . . .

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, v. COUNTY OF KERN,, 509 F. Supp. 2d 865 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . The Ordinance Measure E repealed Chapter 8.05 of the Ordinance Code of Kern County and enacted a new . . . Chapter 8.05, which prohibits the land application of all biosolids in the unincorporated areas of Kern . . .

TELEVISION EVENTS MARKETING, INC. a v. AMCON DISTRIBUTING CO. a Co. a v. a J. a, 526 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Haw. 2007)

. . . agent that would otherwise constitute a breach of duty as stated in §§ 8.01, 8.02, 8.03, 8.04, and 8.05 . . .

FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF ROCHESTER, v. UNITED STATES, 76 Fed. Cl. 106 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

. . . Indeed, Section 8.05 of the Financing Agreement provided that the Agreement would be severable only if . . .

WOOD, v. QUARTERMAN,, 214 F. App'x 473 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 2254, that the definition of duress found in Texas Penal Code § 8.05 violates the Equal Protection . . . Section 8.05 provides criminal defendants with an affirmative defense if they committed a crime because . . . Penal Code Ann. § 8.05(a). . . . Id. § 8.05(c). . . .

MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC. LLC, v. G. MCCARTHEY, K. J. P. P. v. DESERET NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY AT T, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Utah 2006)

. . . .”); Management Agreement § 8.05 (“This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties . . .

In CARDINAL HEALTH, INC. ERISA LITIGATION,, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (S.D. Ohio 2006)

. . . . § 8.05; Defs.’ Ex. B § 8.05. . . . See 1998 and 2002 Plans § 8.05, App. Ex. Tabs 1 and 2. . . . Id. § 8.05. . . . A. § 8.05; Defs.’ Ex. B § 8.05. . . . A. § 8.05; App. Ex. B. § 8.05. . . . .

SMITH, v. HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, INC. d b a, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Minn. 2006)

. . . Durbin earned approximately $12.98 per hour (compared to wages of $10.55 (assistant managers) and $8.05 . . . Willson earned approximately $11.66 per hour (compared to wages of $10.55 (assistant managers) and $8.05 . . .

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, P. L. C. P. L. C. P. L. C. v. APOTEX CORPORATION,, 439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . Chisum, Patents § 8.05, at 8-67 (1988)). . . . See, e.g., 3 Chisum on Patents § 8.05[3] (2003 ed.) . . . See 3 Chisum on Patents § 8.05[2][c] (2003 ed.) . . . noting the "disagreement” between Scripps and Atlantic Thermoplastics); see also 3 Chisum on Patents § 8.05 . . .

G. CORDLE, v. MERCK CO. INC., 405 F. Supp. 2d 800 (E.D. Ky. 2005)

. . . P. 8.05(2). . . .

In EARNED CAPITAL CORPORATION, v. LLP, 331 B.R. 208 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2005)

. . . provides for the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases to remain open until all unsecured claims are paid in full: 8.05 . . .

CALDWELL TRUCKING PRP, No. WGB D. N. J. v. REXON TECHNOLOGY CORP. S. B. ADT Co. ALFA Co. Co. Co. Co. ARCS Co. Co. Co. Co. Co. Co. CWC, Co. Co. FLM Co. GEC Co. LA Co. Co. Co. K N L. F. E. C. Co. F. Co. Co. Co. PPG a R L Co. RAPP Co. Co. Co. TRW, D J Co. a a a a a a a Z RKO ADT ADT L. ADT ADT A. ADT R F Co a a Co. C. M. W. C. M. W. L. L. P. ADT d b a F. Co. Co. v. T. J. TRW, IV K. d b a O a Co. Co. s A. W. Co. a O O v. A. L. a Z a Z ABC a Z, IV, 421 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2005)

. . . The Court directed that Pullman should contribute an 8.05% allocation share amounting to $1,873,560.08 . . .

WOOD, TDCJ No. v. DRETKE,, 386 F. Supp. 2d 820 (W.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . More specifically, petitioner argues that Section 8.05 of the Texas Penal Code, was unconstitutional . . . State CouH Disposition At all times relevant to petitioner’s trial, Section 8.05(a) of the Texas Penal . . . Section 8.05(c) likewise provided as follows: “Compulsion within the meaning of this section exists only . . . Section 8.05 of the Texas Penal Code limits the availability of the affirmative defense of “duress” to . . . 24) the objective reasonableness standard for the affirmative defense of duress set forth in Section 8.05 . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. WARNER H. Sr., 396 F. Supp. 2d 924 (N.D. Ill. 2005)

. . . offenses are joined, defendant faces a ‘considerable risk’ of prejudice.” 8 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 8.05 . . .

BATES v. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2005)

. . . Grad, Treatise on Environmental Law §8.05, p. 8-140 (2004) (“All the state[s] have some labeling requirements . . .

FLYING J INC. a CFJ a a TFJ, a NCR TCH, a v. COMDATA NETWORK, INC. a, 405 F.3d 821 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . Rule 6.6.1, JA 546; Rule 8.05, Dec. 2001, JA 539; Hennessy Deposition, JA 1902. . . . Rule 6.6.1, JA 546; Rule 8.05, Dec. 2001, JA 539; Hennessy Deposition, JA 1902. . . .

U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a U. S. a v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF KEYSTONE, a, 394 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D.W. Va. 2005)

. . . Section 8.05 of the PSA reads, Trustee’s Fees and Expenses; Indemnification .... . . . The obligations set forth in this Section 8.05(b) shall survive the termination of this Agreement. . . .

C. TOOTLE, v. ARINC, INC., 222 F.R.D. 88 (D. Md. 2004)

. . . A, at § 8.05(b).) . . . .

UNITED STATES v. WARD, a k a a k a v. v. G., 96 F. App'x 615 (10th Cir. 2004)

. . . The district court reduced the amount of mixture and substance containing PCP by approximately 8.05 kilograms . . .

A. SAMUEL, v. Jo BARNHART,, 316 F. Supp. 2d 768 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

. . . For example, the paralegal spent 9.7 hours on the reply brief, and counsel also spent 8.05 hours on the . . .

In ELLIS v., 310 B.R. 762 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2004)

. . . estate law. 2 Barkley Clark, The Law of Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code, IT 8.05 . . .

INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION,, 350 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 8.05, at 8-79 (2000))). . . .

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS LOAN ASSOCIATION E. Jr. J. J. III, E. Sr. W. B. v. UNITED STATES, 57 Fed. Cl. 598 (Fed. Cl. 2003)

. . . Thrall, and $8.05 million for Mr. Martin. The Simon Plaintiffs claim $31.13 million. . . .

L. LALONDE, v. TEXTRON, INC. A. v., 270 F. Supp. 2d 272 (D.R.I. 2003)

. . . Plan Document §§ 8.05(a), 8.07. At that time, the employee could reinvest the assets in any manner. . . .

FRANKLIN SAVINGS CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES,, 56 Fed. Cl. 720 (Fed. Cl. 2003)

. . . Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982); see also 1 Judgments in Federal Court § 8.05 . . .

FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS B. V. C. A. v. CONSORCIO BARR, S. A., 267 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (S.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . then took over the management of the cash proceeds from the operation of the hotel pursuant to Section 8.05 . . .

PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, v. EATON VANCE MANAGEMENT,, 260 F. Supp. 2d 334 (D. Mass. 2003)

. . . Interest accrued each day thereafter by approximately $8.11 per day until January 6, 2003 and $8.05 per . . . thereafter by approximately $8.11 per day until January 6, 2003 (63 days = $510.81) and approximately $8.05 . . .