Cases from cite.case.law:

MALLEIRO, v. MORI,, 182 So. 3d 5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Parker, Page on Wills § 20.31, 20.32 & 20.36 (3d ed.1960). . . .

UNITED STATES MODGLIN v. DJO GLOBAL INC. DJO LLC, DJO LLC, EBI, LP,, 114 F. Supp. 3d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . coverage for an ablative device -only if it is “FDA-approved for the indications used”); see also NCD 20.32 . . . reimbursable use of particular devices to on-label uses, see NCD 290.9, § B.1-B.3; NCD 50.3, § B.l; NCD 20.32 . . .

ROLLINS, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,, 170 So. 3d 7 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 20.32, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

UNITED STATES MODGLIN v. DJO GLOBAL INC. DJO LLC, DJO LLC, EBI, LP,, 48 F. Supp. 3d 1362 (C.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . coverage for an ablative device only if it is “FDA-approved for the indications used”); see also NCD 20.32 . . . limit reimbursable use of a device to on-label uses, see NCD 290.9, § B.1-B.3; NCD 50.3, § B.l; NCD 20.32 . . .

HERSHEY, v. EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Co- L. Co- u a LLC LLC, A. v. Co- L. A. Co- u a, 550 F. App'x 566 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . Judicial Ctr., Manual for Complex Litigation, § 20.32, at 340 (4th ed. 2004) (“[Wjhere a class has been . . .

COURTNEY, v. OKLAHOMA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 722 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 20.32(a) (emphasis added). . . .

McCLAIN, v. R. DAVIS, A. S. S. C. B. Dr. ADX,, 494 F. App'x 874 (10th Cir. 2012)

. . . That statement indicates McClain had an average monthly balance of $20.32 in his trust account for the . . .

In ZYPREXA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION., 260 F.R.D. 13 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . discussing coordination of state and federal litigations); Manual for Complex Litigation §§ 21.42 and 20.32 . . . discussing coordination of state and federal litigations); Manual for Complex Litigation §§ 21.42 and 20.32 . . .

In H. PAWLOWSKI, v. H., 428 B.R. 545 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . Ber-nardez’s counsel has admitted in the papers. 08-CV-1213 Record on Appeal (hereinafter, “R.”) 20.32 . . .

MEDIS INVESTOR GROUP, v. MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES, LTD. K., 586 F. Supp. 2d 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . Medis stock closed the day up $2.03 per share, or 11%, at $20.32 per share — on nearly 3.5 million shares . . .

D OLIVE BAY RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, INC. v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS v. I, L. P., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (S.D. Ala. 2007)

. . . noted it had permitted 8.6 acres of wetland fill along Bay Minette Creek, .3 acres along D’Olive Creek, 20.32 . . .

GUARDSMARK, INC. v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF TENNESSEE,, 313 F. Supp. 2d 739 (W.D. Tenn. 2004)

. . . rather than $15.75) per employee per month by September 1, 1998, but that the fee would increase to $20.32 . . .

GRAY, v. STATE, 791 So. 2d 560 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . . § 20.32 (1988), and the constitution gives it, not the courts, the power to make parole determinations . . .

In PHOENIX PETROLEUM CO., 278 B.R. 385 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001)

. . . Miles & Stockbridge, 345 Md. at 629, 693 A.2d 824; see also Cowans, 5 Bankruptcy Law and Practice, § 20.32 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MILLAN FERRER, 129 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.P.R. 2001)

. . . . § 20.32 (1979) for the proposition that the Government lacks authority, in cases of misdemeanors such . . . The relevant section for our purposes, section 20.32, provides that information such as fingerprints . . . We do not find any violation of the section 20.32 in this case. . . .

UNITED STATES v. VILLALBA, 129 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.P.R. 2000)

. . . . § 20.32 (1979) for the proposition that the Government lacks authority, in cases of misdemeanors such . . . The relevant section for our purposes, section 20.32, provides that information such as fingerprints . . . We do not find any violation of the section 20.32 in this case. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ACOSTA- CARTAGENA, 128 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.P.R. 2000)

. . . statutory provision relied upon by the Magistrate Judge in seeking to have Defendants processed, 20 C.F.R. 20.32 . . .

ADLINGTON, v. M. SPOONER,, 743 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Section 20.32(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides: (1) The Parole and Probation Commission, authorized . . .

VIRGINIA METRONET, INC. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA,, 984 F. Supp. 966 (E.D. Va. 1998)

. . . D.A. at 20.32. . . .

HARVIN, v. STATE, 690 So. 2d 652 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . . § 20.32, Fla. Stat. (1989). . . .

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE, INC. v. WILLIAMS WILKINS, a W., 949 F. Supp. 1045 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . Photo Fig. 13-10 Hydrocephaly. 20.32 Hydrocephalus Photo Fig. 15-5B Stillborn fetus. . . .

SMITH, v. M. BEASLEY, C. ABLE, v. H. WILKINS, H. Jr., 946 F. Supp. 1174 (D.S.C. 1996)

. . . and a 74.25% BVAP, while the portion of the VTD included in District 86 has only a 22.21% BPOP and a 20.32% . . .

SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, v. UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,, 871 F. Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1994)

. . . person hours; in Charleston, 27.01 hours; in New Orleans, 5.41 hours; in Houston, 2.80 hours; in Toledo, 20.32 . . .

J. BUCKLEY, v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY,, 690 F. Supp. 211 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . Since March 1988 plaintiff has been paying $20.32 monthly to obtain $40,000 coverage. . . .

GASTON S WHITE RIVER RESORT, a v. RUSH, d b a s, 701 F. Supp. 1431 (W.D. Ark. 1988)

. . . Callman § 20.32. . . .

WEISS, v. YORK HOSPITAL,, 628 F. Supp. 1392 (M.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . 2nd - 1980 16.32% 3rd - 1980 11.61% 4th - 1980 16.73% 1st - 1981 19.21% 2nd - 1981 18.93% 3rd - 1981 20.32% . . .

J. DONOVAN, v. WALTON,, 609 F. Supp. 1221 (S.D. Fla. 1985)

. . . Bowden first concluded that the Union would have to pay $20.32/ft. to recover its desired 10% return. . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 32.93 7.97 79.46 19.58 21.19 10.11 39.68 23.66 11.34 54.84 5.55 10.60 37.09 32.39 24.19 43.66 5.95 20.32 . . .

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL- CIO- CLC v. NORTH BEND TERMINAL CO. R. E. J. M. P. S. L., 752 F.2d 256 (6th Cir. 1985)

. . . of assets: Plan Benefit Guaranteed Benefit Rupe $ 312.00 $ 62.40 Plunkett 296.00 59.20 Carr 262.22 20.32 . . .

PRUETT, v. H. LEVI,, 622 F.2d 256 (6th Cir. 1980)

. . . . § 20.32(b), and notations which lack dispositions. . . . which the FBI must correct itself without further information from contributing agencies. 28 C.F.R. § 20.32 . . . criminal record does not include any nonserious or excludable offenses after February, 1973. 28 C.F.R. § 20.32 . . . (c) and Appendix to 28 C.F.R. § 20.32. . . .

DOE, v. H. WEBSTER, FBI,, 606 F.2d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 1979)

. . . . § 20.32 (1978) (excluding from criminal history records information maintained by the Department of . . .

UNITED STATES v. BENLIZAR,, 459 F. Supp. 614 (D.D.C. 1978)

. . . Section 20.32 of Title 20 C.F.R. provides that, (a) Criminal history record information maintained in . . .

TARLTON, v. B. SAXBE,, 407 F. Supp. 1083 (D.D.C. 1976)

. . . . § 20.32(b) (1975) expresses this present FBI policy: “Excluded from such a system [of criminal records . . . See note 2, supra; Still Aff., ¶ 5. . 28 C.F.R. § 20.32(c) (1975). Cf. Tarlton v. . . .

TARLTON, Jr. v. B. SAXBE,, 507 F.2d 1116 (D.C. Cir. 1974)

. . . /or significant violations”, that is, constitutionally valid arrests. 39 Fed.Reg. 5636, §§ 20.2(c), 20.32 . . .

B. MENARD, v. B. SAXBE, M., 498 F.2d 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1974)

. . . only “serious and/or significant violations” are includible in criminal record information systems (§ 20.32 . . .

FRANK S. SCOTT, JR. v. THE UNITED STATES ALVIN C. WARNICK AND BARBARA W. WARNICK v. THE UNITED STATES, 193 Ct. Cl. 27 (Ct. Cl. 1970)

. . . Scott paid these amounts on April 29, 1965, and on June 7, 1965, further amounts of interest of $20.32 . . .

EATON, v. SS EXPORT CHALLENGER, a, 376 F.2d 725 (4th Cir. 1967)

. . . Eaton instituted a libel, alleging his entitlement to $20.32 wages for each day from February 25, 1965 . . .

UNITED STATES v. THIRD NATIONAL BANK OF NASHVILLE, 260 F. Supp. 869 (M.D. Tenn. 1966)

. . . For the period 1956-60 its rate of growth in total assets was 46.55%, a figure which dropped to 20.32% . . .

SMITH WIGGINS GIN, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 341 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1965)

. . . 26.47% of the business carried on by the taxpayer with 6.15% being carried on for casual nonmembers and 20.32% . . .

v., 37 T.C. 861 (T.C. 1962)

. . . Cotton ginned belonging to members’ tenants (1286 bales) (1286/6328) _ 20.32% Cotton ginned belonging . . .

RALPH v. HAZEN, 93 F.2d 68 (D.C. Cir. 1937)

. . . .) $1,806.96 Tract 133/51 ( 50.8 Sq. ft.) 20.32 Tract 133/47 (1467.41 Sq. ft.) and ( 912.8 Sq. ft.) 3,477.96 . . . essential value to the remaining property for garage purposes; that the portion of tract 133/51 valued at $20.32 . . .

GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. UNION SOLVENTS CORPORATION, 54 F.2d 400 (D. Del. 1931)

. . . following table: Total Solvents Yield % Acetone Butyl Ethyl % % % Culture CSC .......32.3 31.2 9.53 20.32 . . .

BENEDICT v. PRICE, 38 F.2d 309 (E.D.N.Y. 1929)

. . . Benedict, 20.32. Charles T. Swimm, 12.99: Thomas P. Handy, 7.80: Campbell T. Hamilton, 5.60. . . .

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 57 Ct. Cl. 569 (Ct. Cl. 1922)

. . . Deduction. 13. 16. 30. 30. 30. 8710 8980 11485 11592 11700 $44.61 66.91 20.32 41.10 63.75 Bill. . . .

NATIONAL ENAMELING STAMPING CO. v. NEW ENGLAND ENAMELING CO., 151 F. 19 (2d Cir. 1906)

. . . One hundred and twenty-five pounds of borax is composed of 20.32 pounds of soda, an alkaline constituent . . . Soda 20.32 lbs. None Boric Oxide 45.74 lbs. Water 58.94 lbs. Quartz 70 lbs. . . .