Cases from cite.case.law:

M. SAFIRSTEIN, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE,, 271 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . The Board is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 . . .

P. MEDINA, v. CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, INC., 215 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (D. Colo. 2017)

. . . Following these disclosures, Clovis’ stock price fell 17%, from $20.43 per share to $15.77 per share. . . .

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, v. SKREENED LTD., 16 F. Supp. 3d 905 (S.D. Ohio 2014)

. . . (quoting Callmann, Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies, ¶ 20.43 (4th ed.1983)). . . .

GONZALEZ- GOMEZ, M. D. v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,, 107 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . charged with final agency action in the regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 . . .

TDATA INC. v. AIRCRAFT TECHNICAL PUBLISHERS, v., 411 F. Supp. 2d 901 (S.D. Ohio 2006)

. . . (quoting Callmann, Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies, ¶ 20.43 (4th ed.1983)). . . .

BLISS CLEARING NIAGARA, INC. v. MIDWEST BRAKE BOND CO,, 339 F. Supp. 2d 944 (W.D. Mich. 2004)

. . . ” Frisch’s Rest., 759 F.2d at 1264 (quoting Callman, Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies, ¶ 20.43 . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE, INSURANCE CO. v. UNIVERSAL MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., 881 So. 2d 557 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See § 20.43(3)(g), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . See §§ 20.43(3)(g)(2)-(5), (21), (26), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .

GIBSON GUITAR CORP. v. PAUL REED SMITH GUITARS, LP,, 311 F. Supp. 2d 690 (M.D. Tenn. 2004)

. . . (quoting 3A Rudolph CallmaN, the law of unfaiR competition, TRADEMARKS AND MONOPOLIES P. 20.43 (4th ed . . .

COMERICA INCORPORATED, a v. FIFTH THIRD BANKCORP, a a, 282 F. Supp. 2d 557 (E.D. Mich. 2003)

. . . Callman, Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies, § 20.43 (4th Ed.1983). b. . . .

E. GROSS, M. D. v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,, 819 So. 2d 997 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . The Board of Medicine is established, via section 20.43(3)(g)4., Florida Statutes (2000), as part of . . . the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, which itself is a division of the Department of Health. § 20.43 . . .

VICTORIA S SECRET STORES, v. ARTCO EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., 194 F. Supp. 2d 704 (S.D. Ohio 2002)

. . . (quoting Callman, Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies, ¶ 20.43 (4th ed.1983)). . . .

KRUEGER INTERNATIONAL, INC. R. J. v. BLANK,, 225 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2000)

. . . determining the percentages of Robert’s pension funds that were to go to Julie (81.83%), Diane Wilson (20.43% . . .

BIGSTAR ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. NEXT BIG STAR, INC. L. L. C. H., 105 F. Supp. 2d 185 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . See 3A Rudolf Callmann, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 20.43, at 472 (4th . . . See 3A Callmann, supra, § 20.43, at 47. See also Mobil Oil Corp. v. . . .

DOE, Mr. DOE Sr. No. s A A v. CHILES, A., 136 F.3d 709 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . . §§ 20.19, 20.43 (West Supp. 1998). . . . .

LORTZ, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,, 700 So. 2d 383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Health became the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 . . . Appellee's notice of substitution of party advises: Pursuant to the authority of section 20.43 (3)(f) . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. GRIFFITH,, 118 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 1997)

. . . that the district court assigned him a base offense level of 18 based on an erroneous finding that 20.43 . . . pounds equals 17.7 kilograms; therefore, Griffith claims, the district court erred in its finding that 20.43 . . . sentence stated that the marijuana seized from Griffith’s home weighed 45.05 pounds—the equivalent of 20.43 . . . We perceive no error, and certainly no clear error, in the district court’s finding that 20.43 kilograms . . .

DADDY S JUNKY MUSIC STORES, INC. v. BIG DADDY S FAMILY MUSIC CENTER,, 109 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 1997)

. . . (quoting 3A Rudolph Callmann, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies ¶ 20.43 (4th ed . . .

OLIVER, v. OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION, B. TATE D. O v. OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION,, 911 F. Supp. 1161 (E.D. Wis. 1996)

. . . shall have adequate capacity for a supply of fuel to enable the vehicle, when towing two 22.5 ton (20.43 . . .

P. T. C. BRANDS, INC. v. CONWOOD COMPANY L. P. d b a, 887 F. Supp. 963 (W.D. Ky. 1995)

. . . 759 F.2d 1261, 1264 (6th Cir.1985), citing Callmann, Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies, ¶ 20.43 . . .

HERMAN MILLER, INC. v. THOM ROCK REALTY COMPANY, L. P., 46 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 1995)

. . . reduction in value of Herman Miller’s leasehold, the district court began with a value for the premises of $20.43 . . .

HERMAN MILLER, INC. v. THOM ROCK REALTY COMPANY, L. P., 849 F. Supp. 911 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . not dispute, that the net effective rent under the Miller Lease, calculated in the same manner, is $20.43 . . .

In PRIZE FRIZE, INC. ENCINO BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, INC. v. PRIZE FRIZE, INC. U. S., 150 B.R. 456 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1993)

. . . Lipscomb III, Walker on Patents, § 20.43 at 145 (3d ed. 1987); see also Black’s Law Dictionary at 1195 . . .

UNITED STATES v. VAN ENGEL, K. L. A. F. E. J. A., 809 F. Supp. 1360 (E.D. Wis. 1992)

. . . any evidence that the lawyer or the lawyer’s client has a legal obligation to reveal or produce (SCR 20.43 . . . Duty not to Suppress or Conceal That Which There is an Obligation to Reveal or Produce Under both SCR 20.43 . . . the tapes, a duty to reveal or produce the tapes would arise under state or federal statutes and SCR 20.43 . . . Van Engel “suppressed” the tapes under SCR 20.43(1) or “concealed” them under SCR 20.36(l)(c). . . .

D. CROWLEY A. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 962 F.2d 1077 (1st Cir. 1992)

. . . I FACTS In 1982, the four Crowley brothers each held 20.43% of Polar’s capital stock. . . .

HOMEOWNERS GROUP, INC. v. HOME MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC., 931 F.2d 1100 (6th Cir. 1991)

. . . Callmann, Unfair Competition, Trademarks & Monopolies, § 20.43, at 345 (4th ed. 1983)). . . .

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL BANK,, 926 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1991)

. . . Callman, supra p. 835, § 20.43, at 345 {“Only a strong mark will be protected against the defendant’s . . . Callman, supra p. 835, § 20.43, at 345. . . .

BOSTON ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, v. SULLIVAN,, 867 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1989)

. . . scope of protection to be accorded the mark against others which are confusingly similar.” 3A Callman § 20.43 . . .

DYNALECTRON CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 659 F. Supp. 64 (D.D.C. 1987)

. . . Dynalectron (prime) 20.43 Id. . . .

MADRIGAL AUDIO LABORATORIES, INC. v. CELLO, LTD., 799 F.2d 814 (2d Cir. 1986)

. . . Le Conte Cosmetics, Inc., 523 F.2d 187, 192 (9th Cir.1975); 3A Callmann, supra, at § 20.43; Lunsford, . . .

PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. v. PANAMERICAN SCHOOL OF TRAVEL, INC., 648 F. Supp. 1026 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

. . . Callman, Unfair Competition, Tradenames and Monopolies, § 20.43 (3d ed. 1983). . . .

MOORE BUSINESS FORMS, INC. v. SEIDENBURG, d b a, 619 F. Supp. 1173 (W.D. La. 1985)

. . . Callmann, The Law of Unfair Competition Trademarks and Monopolies § 20.43 at 261 (4th ed. 1983). . . .

NELSON, v. GREATER GADSDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY,, 606 F. Supp. 948 (N.D. Ala. 1985)

. . . 10.47 4.00 (prior to March 1) 5.00 (thereafter) 1978 12.01 5.00 1979 16.27 5.00 1980 18.23 5.00 1981 20.43 . . .

VICTORY PIPE CRAFTSMEN, INC. v. FABERGE, INC. J. C., 582 F. Supp. 551 (N.D. Ill. 1984)

. . . 634 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 392 U.S. 927, 88 S.Ct. 2286, 20 L.Ed.2d 1386 (1968); 3 Callman, supra, § 20.43 . . . use of a strong house mark virtually precludes confusion between similar marks. 3A Callman, supra, § 20.43 . . . noncompeting goods, only strong marks will be protected against infringement. 3A Callman, supra, § 20.43 . . .

PLUS PRODUCTS, v. PLUS DISCOUNT FOODS, INC., 722 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . As is noted in Callman § 20.43 at 262 (footnotes omitted): If a mark is weak, its protection may have . . .

In ELMWOOD FARM, INC., 19 B.R. 338 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . TO: SAMUEL KRIPKE, $63,999.61, plus interest thereon at a per diem amount of $20.43 from January 7, 1982 . . .

SHINN ENGINEERING, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 611 F.2d 820 (Ct. Cl. 1979)

. . . the result, 23.76% return on sales, is more than enough to warrant a clearance for plaintiff with a 20.43% . . .

SHINN ENGINEERING, INC. V. THE UNITED STATES, 221 Ct. Cl. 708 (Ct. Cl. 1979)

. . . the result, 23.76% return on sales, is more than enough to warrant a clearance for plaintiff with a 20.43% . . .

UNITED STATES v. LUBBOCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 455 F. Supp. 1223 (N.D. Tex. 1978)

. . . HARWELL ELEMENTARY Opened 1946 445 Program Capacity 503 Current Enrollment 2.9% Minority in ’54-55 20.43% . . .

YOUNGER, v. GLAMORGAN PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, a, 418 F. Supp. 743 (W.D. Va. 1976)

. . . the claimant $5,005.51 salary of white counterparts (average) $5,324.84 claimant's daily rate of pay $20.43 . . .

WILLIAM INGLIS SONS BAKING CO. a v. ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY, INC. a ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY, INC. a v. WILLIAM INGLIS SONS BAKING CO. a, 389 F. Supp. 1334 (N.D. Cal. 1975)

. . . plaintiff’s interrogatories in which Continental indicated that its cost for the sandwich bread was 20.43 . . .

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 153 Ct. Cl. 274 (Ct. Cl. 1961)

. . . of years) in which the 100 pounds of ammonia was delivered was $12.59, if it was made of steel, and $20.43 . . .

v., 5 T.C. 1 (T.C. 1945)

. . . See Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, vol. 3, § 20.43, pp. 163, 164. . . .

MIONE MFG. CO. v. UNITED STATES SAME v. ROTHENSIES,, 114 F.2d 647 (3d Cir. 1940)

. . . describes as a “mechanics’ hand paste”, is a gray paste of the following composition: Abrasive (Pumice) 20.43% . . .

INLAND PUMP MFG. CO. v. UNITED STATES, 59 F.2d 261 (Ct. Cl. 1932)

. . . 20,'1924. 8.89..........June 18, 1924. 10.57..........July 29, 1924. 34.30..........August 26, 1924. 20.43 . . .

THE WERGELAND, 262 F. 785 (W.D. Wash. 1919)

. . . The libelant seeks to recover the profit earned on the replacement cargo at the rate of $20.43 per thousand . . .