Cases from cite.case.law:

GATORE, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,, 327 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.D.C. 2018)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 23.21[2] (3d ed. 1999) ("For a class action to proceed, the . . .

RAITPORT v. HARBOUR CAPITAL CORPORATION,, 312 F. Supp. 3d 225 (D.N.H. 2018)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 23.21[3][a] (3d ed. 2012) ). . . .

IN RE LIBOR- BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. OTC, 299 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . "has broad discretion to modify the class definition as appropriate." 5 Moore 's Federal Practice § 23.21 . . .

THOMPSON LLC, v. CITY OF OAKWOOD, OHIO,, 307 F. Supp. 3d 761 (S.D. Ohio 2018)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 23.21[1] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1997) ). . . .

SIKKELEE, v. AVCO CORPORATION,, 268 F. Supp. 3d 660 (M.D. Pa. 2017)

. . . For instance, § 21.23 (air-crafts) contains subparts on flight (§§ 23.21-23.255); structure (§§ 23.301 . . .

SANDUSKY WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, a v. ASD SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE, INC. d b a, 863 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. 2017)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[1] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1997)). . . .

RHODES, v. NATIONAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS, INC., 317 F.R.D. 579 (D. Colo. 2016)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21 [5] at 23-61 (3rd ed. 1999). . . .

FRANK, v. WALKER,, 196 F. Supp. 3d 893 (E.D. Wis. 2016)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice-Civil § 23.21[5] (3d ed. 2016) (same). . . . See Moore, supra, § 23.21[5] (“Because [in a Rule 23(b)(2) class] the defendant is obligated to comply . . .

A. NITSCH, v. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG INC., 315 F.R.D. 270 (N.D. Cal. 2016)

. . . included or excluded from the class by reference to objective criteria.” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21 . . . criteria” by which to evaluate whether an individual belongs in the class. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21 . . .

FREW v. M. D. JANEK M. D. L., 820 F.3d 715 (5th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 23.21-35 (loan program); id. § 57.2201-11 (scholarship program); id. § 414.67 (incentive payments . . .

RIVERA, v. HARVEST BAKERY INC., 312 F.R.D. 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[6]); see also Robidoux v. . . .

M. THOMAS, v. FTS USA, LLC,, 312 F.R.D. 407 (E.D. Va. 2016)

. . . Moore et al., 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21 [1] (3d ed.) . . .

IN RE DIAL COMPLETE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, 312 F.R.D. 36 (D.N.H. 2015)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[3][a] (3d ed. 2012)). . . .

MAGALLON, v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC. a, 311 F.R.D. 625 (D. Or. 2015)

. . . See 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21[1] (2015) (describing the “implied condition” a class be “susceptible . . .

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.21 [1] (3d ed.1999) (noting that a class must be "susceptible . . .

KALKSTEIN, v. COLLECTO, INC., 304 F.R.D. 114 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[6]). . . .

FARIASANTOS, v. ROSENBERG ASSOCIATES, LLC,, 303 F.R.D. 272 (E.D. Va. 2014)

. . . Moore et al., 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[1] (3d ed.) . . . Moore, supra, § 23.21[3][a]. . . .

B. DAVIDSON, v. HENKEL CORPORATION,, 302 F.R.D. 427 (E.D. Mich. 2014)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[1] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.1997)). . . . Young, 693 F.3d at 538-539 (citing Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[3] (citations omitted)). . . . Young, 693 F.3d at 538-539 (citing Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[3] (citations omitted)). . . .

SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION, v. UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,, 67 F. Supp. 3d 373 (D.D.C. 2014)

. . . . §§ 23.21-22). . . .

DANIEL F. v. BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA,, 305 F.R.D. 115 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21(3)(c) (Matthew Bender 3d ed.2011)); see also Tidenberg v. . . . unmanageable virtually by definition,” see Heffelfinger, 2008 WL 8128621, at *5; 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21 . . .

N. B. v. HAMOS,, 26 F. Supp. 3d 756 (N.D. Ill. 2014)

. . . Moore et al., MooRe’s FedeRal Praotioe § 23.21[3][a] (3d ed. 2012) (“For a class to be sufficiently defined . . .

In SKELAXIN METAXALONE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 299 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Tenn. 2014)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 23.21[1] (3d ed.1997)). . . . Admin., 796 F.2d 576, 580 (1st Cir.1986); Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.21[3][c]). . . .

B. STALLEY, v. ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC., 296 F.R.D. 670 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[3][e] (3d ed. 2008) (“A class definition is inadequate . . .

IN RE HIGH- TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 985 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21[3] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). . . .

UNITED STATES v. YOUNG,, 960 F. Supp. 2d 881 (N.D. Iowa 2013)

. . . 25.00% 130 56 43% 13 23.21% 111 46 4i % 15.22% 204 86 42% 10 11.63% 389 155 67.32% 38.26% Iowa, S Iowa . . .

SIMMS, v. JONES, JWJ L. P. G. P. LLC,, 296 F.R.D. 485 (N.D. Tex. 2013)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[6], at 23-62.2 (3d ed.2003)); Bertulli v. Indep. . . .

FELIX, v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC, a Jo v. LLC, a, 290 F.R.D. 397 (W.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . for each potential class member just to determine class membership”); 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21 . . .

In MONTANO M. M. v., 488 B.R. 695 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2013)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[1], at 23-47 (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1997). . . .

LIKES, v. DHL EXPRESS,, 288 F.R.D. 524 (N.D. Ala. 2012)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21 [1], at 23-47 (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1997) (citations omitted . . .

BROOKLYN CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, a a D. v. R. BLOOMBERG,, 290 F.R.D. 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[6]). . . .

MATAMOROS v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION,, 699 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2012)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[3][a] (3d ed. 2012) (“For a class to be sufficiently defined . . .

BROOKLYN CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, a a D. v. R. BLOOMBERG,, 287 F.R.D. 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[6]). . . .

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA D. P. C. v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY H. E. M. H. Jr. K., 288 F.R.D. 192 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21[1] (2001). . . .

YOUNG, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 693 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[1] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1997) (“Although the text of . . . Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[3] (citations omitted). . . .

GROSS, v. UNITED STATES,, 106 Fed. Cl. 369 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.21[6] (3d ed. 2011) (“If the court determines that a proposed . . .

FLORES, v. ANJOST CORP. d b a s D., 284 F.R.D. 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Id. at 341-42 (collecting eases); see generally 5-23 Moore’s Federal Practice — Civil § 23.21[3][a] ( . . .

CONRAD, v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,, 283 F.R.D. 326 (N.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21, at 23-47 (3d ed. 1997)); see also William B. . . .

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, v. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION,, 281 F.R.D. 641 (W.D. Okla. 2012)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 23.21[1] (3d ed. 1998)) (“Moore’s Federal Practice”). . . . (citing 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶23.21[3]). . . .

HAYES, v. WAL- MART d b a s, 281 F.R.D. 203 (D.N.J. 2012)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[1]. . . .

GONZALEZ, v. MILLARD MALL SERVICES, INC., 281 F.R.D. 455 (S.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . Practice § 23.21[3][e] (2011). . . .

JOHNS, v. BAYER CORPORATION, LLC, a, 280 F.R.D. 551 (S.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . Practice § 23.21[3][c] (2011). . . .

STONE, v. ADVANCE AMERICA,, 278 F.R.D. 562 (S.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . Practice § 23.21[3][c] (2011). . . .

ESPINOZA LLC LLC LLC LLC v. ASSOCIATES LLC, LLC, LLC LLC, 280 F.R.D. 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21 [4] (3d ed. 2003) (citing Baffa v. . . .

RADER, Jr. v. TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC. a a LLC, a DOE ROE, 276 F.R.D. 524 (D. Nev. 2011)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21(3)(c) (2001)). 4. . . .

MORROW, a v. WASHINGTON,, 277 F.R.D. 172 (E.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.21[3][c] (3rd ed. 2007). 1. . . .

TIRE KINGDOM, INC. v. DISHKIN,, 81 So. 3d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Total Credits ... 00 Sub-Total. 19.99 New Tire Fees* * .00 Shop Fees(*) 1.70 All Taxes. 1.52 Payments 23.21 . . .

MORANGELLI v. CHEMED CORPORATION, 275 F.R.D. 99 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . See 5 Moore et al., supra, § 23.21[6] (“The court may, in its discretion ... modify the definition of . . .

HERRERA, v. LCS FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION LLC,, 274 F.R.D. 666 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[3][c] (3d ed. 2010). . . .

JANSON, v. LEGALZOOM. COM, INC., 271 F.R.D. 506 (W.D. Mo. 2010)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.21[3][c] (3d ed. 2007); Romberio v. . . .

In ARTHROCARE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 726 F. Supp. 2d 696 (W.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . decline in ArthroCare’s stock price by approximately 65% — from its Class Period high of $65.70, to $23.21 . . .

ELASSAAD, v. INDEPENDENCE AIR, INC., 613 F.3d 119 (3d Cir. 2010)

. . . . §§ 23.21-.29 (governing weight limits within which aircraft may be safely operated); 14 C.F.R. § 23.51 . . .

CHAVEZ, v. BLUE SKY NATURAL BEVERAGE CO., 268 F.R.D. 365 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . determining who is and who is not a member of the class.” 5 James W Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 23.21 . . .

BEARDEN v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., 720 F. Supp. 2d 932 (M.D. Tenn. 2010)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[3][c] (3d ed.2007)). . . .

E. SULLIVAN, v. KELLY SERVICES, INC., 268 F.R.D. 356 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21[1] (2001). . . .

CHARRON, v. PINNACLE GROUP N. Y. LLC, 269 F.R.D. 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . (internal quotations and citation omitted)); 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21 [d] (“[Cjourts commonly . . .

In REVISIONS TO SIMPLIFIED FORMS PURSUANT TO RULE A OF RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, 50 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 2010)

. . . subordinate to the lien of any mortgage encumbering the fee title to the Premises from time to time. 23.21 . . .

In TFT- LCD FLAT PANEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION., 267 F.R.D. 583 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21[1]. . . .

KEILHOLTZ v. LENNOX HEARTH PRODUCTS INC., 268 F.R.D. 330 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21[1] (2001). . . .

GRIMES, v. RAVE MOTION PICTURES BIRMINGHAM, L. L. C., 264 F.R.D. 659 (N.D. Ala. 2010)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[1] (3d ed. 2008) (“Although the text of Rule 23(a) is . . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[3][c] (3d ed. 2008) (“A class definition is inadequate . . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[l][b] n. 6 (3d ed.2007). . . .

In STATIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY SRAM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 264 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21[1] (2001). . . .

JACKSON, v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,, 260 F.R.D. 168 (E.D. Pa. 2009)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[1], at 23-44 (3d ed.2008). . . .

FENER, W. M. III, v. OPERATING ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND MISCELLANEOUS PENSION FUND LOCAL, 579 F.3d 401 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . When the NYSE opened the next day, Belo’s stock, which had closed the previous day at $23.21, dropped . . .

CHAKEJIAN, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC,, 256 F.R.D. 492 (E.D. Pa. 2009)

. . . MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 23.21[1], at 23-47 (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1997) (“Although the . . .

M. ROMBERIO, M. P. v. UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION, ERISA, 385 F. App'x 423 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 23.21[3][c] (3d ed.2007) (explaining that "[a] class definition . . .

UNITED STATES LULAC- GI v. TEXAS,, 572 F. Supp. 2d 726 (E.D. Tex. 2008)

. . . For instance, Bastrop ISD reported 198 denials, a 23.21% rate of denial of bilingual-ESL education; Brazosport . . .

EXXON SHIPPING CO. v. BAKER, 554 U.S. 471 (U.S. 2008)

. . . Pattern Jury Instr., Civil, No. 23.21 (Supp. 2007). . . .

JOHN, v. NATIONAL SECURITY FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,, 501 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 23.21 [1], at 23-47 (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1997) ("It is axiomatic . . .

In UNUMPROVIDENT CORP. ERISA BENEFITS DENIAL ACTIONS, 245 F.R.D. 317 (E.D. Tenn. 2007)

. . . Moore et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶23.21[1] (3d ed.1998). . . .

M. RAHMAN, R. U. v. CHERTOFF, U. S. S. III, W. U. S. L. U. S., 244 F.R.D. 443 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . See also 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21 [5] at 23-55 (3d ed.2005) (in a Rule 23(b)(2) class action . . .

HOHIDER On v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. On v., 243 F.R.D. 147 (W.D. Pa. 2007)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21 [5] at 23-61 (3d ed.1999); Boughton v. . . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[5] at 23-61 (3d ed.1999)). . . .

R. MERRITT, v. TELLABS OPERATIONS, INC. a, 222 F. App'x 679 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . Qwest’s purchasing diminished, however, and he met only 24.35% of his Qwest quota for 2001 and 23.21% . . .

In ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 348 B.R. 136 (D. Del. 2006)

. . . Reject_to Accept_to Reject Class 3 2,291,751/98.24% 41,029/1.76%_747/98.68%_10/1.32% Class 6 266,151,238/23.21% . . .

In ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 432 F.3d 507 (3d Cir. 2005)

. . . Although 88.03% of Class 6 claim holders voted for the Plan, only 23.21% of the amount of the claims . . .

In ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 335 B.R. 507 (3d Cir. 2005)

. . . Although 88.03% of Class 6 claim holders voted for the Plan, only 23.21% of the amount of the claims . . .

ROSE, v. SAGINAW COUNTY, s, 232 F.R.D. 267 (E.D. Mich. 2005)

. . . H 23.21[1] (3d ed.1998). . . .

In ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 320 B.R. 523 (D. Del. 2005)

. . . in number (88.03%) voted to accept the Plan, less than two-thirds in amount of the Class 6 claims (23.21% . . .

GAIL WATSON CHIANG LYNDA ALEXANDER MUHAMMAD JACQUELINE CARR DENISE PITTMAN CARMEN MCALPINCLARKE KAREN HUNT THERESA COLLINGWOOD- MORRIS DAVID C. NICHOLAS PRECIOUS YEARWOOD FREDERICK FREEMAN BEVERLY RAWLINS ANDREA CARROLL RONALD J. MITCHELL JACK DANIEL CHRISTINE DANIEL ANESTA E. GORE VANETA MARTIN CARMEN GONZALEZ M. NARTEL GREEN SHIRLEY WILLIAMS MARIA BLYDEN GONZALO RIVERA BLANCHE R. RAWLINS RHEA L. JOHNSON MARILYN RIVERA KEITH R. WILLIAMS AL BRUNN EMERYL CHRISTOPHER CHARLES G. JOHNSON VELSINA L. GEORGE KALEEN CLOUDEN EUNICE GOMES RUTH DUBLIN KIMBERLEY L. OLIVER ELENA HERBERT LAWRENCE CHRISTIAN MARJORIE JOHN LAVERNE WILLIAMS REVEREND JAMES CHRISTIAN, v. ANN M. VENEMAN, In, 46 V.I. 679 (3d Cir. 2004)

. . . Moore et al., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 23.21[3][c] (3d ed. 1999) (“A class definition is inadequate . . .

CHIANG C. J. E. M. R. L. R. Al G. L. L. v. M. VENEMAN, In, 385 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2004)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.21[3][c] (3d ed. 1999) (“A class definition is inadequate . . .

NOBLE, v. UNIVERSITY PLACE CORPORATION, d b a, 224 F.R.D. 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[4] (3d ed.2003) (citing Baffa v. . . . See generally 5 Moore et al., supra note 65, § 23.21[4][a] ("[A] class description that defines a class . . .

In MONUMENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. In v. In v. In Co. v., 365 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2004)

. . . MooRE et al., MooRe’s Federal PRACTICE § 23.21[6], at 23-62.2 (3d ed.2003); see DeBremaecker v. . . .

In MONUMENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. In v. In v. In Co. v., 343 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . Moore et al., MooRe’s FEDERAL PRACTICE § 23.21[6], at 23-62.2 (3d ed.2003); see DeBremaecker v. . . .

BALL, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, L. v., 212 F.R.D. 380 (E.D. Tenn. 2002)

. . . exist and the class representatives must be members of the proposed class. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21 . . .

DALY v. HARRIS,, 209 F.R.D. 180 (D. Haw. 2002)

. . . Moore, 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21 (3d ed.2000) (“It is axiomatic that in order for a class action . . .

GEORGIA, v. ASHCROFT,, 195 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2002)

. . . %BREG District 1 23.21 21.04 18.62 District 2 45.22 41.46 39.99 District 3 40.32 37.55 34.97 District . . .

O NEILL v. GOURMET SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA, INC. d b a s s, 219 F.R.D. 445 (W.D. Wis. 2002)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21[6], at 23-62.2 (3d ed.2001). . . .

D. VICKERS S. a v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, d b a GMC LLC,, 204 F.R.D. 476 (D. Kan. 2001)

. . . Practice § 23.21 (3d ed.2000). . . .

GARRISH, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, 149 F. Supp. 2d 326 (E.D. Mich. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶23.21[1] (3d ed.1998). . . . See 5 Moore’s Federal Practioe, ¶ 23.21[3]. . . .

L. DAVOLL A. L. v. WEBB, L. H. L. A. L. v. L. H. v., 194 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 1999)

. . . MooRE et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21[5] at 23-61 (3d ed.1999). . . .

ABC RENTALS OF SAN ANTONIO, INC. R. L. P. R. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 142 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 1998)

. . . 62; RevJProc. 87-57 § 2.02(2), 1987 C.B. 687; Jacob Mertens, Jr., Mertens Law of Federal Taxation §§ 23.21 . . .

Dr. CONANT, v. R. McCAFFREY,, 172 F.R.D. 681 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

. . . See 5 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 23.21[6], at 23-59 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.1997). . . .

SCOTT C. III M. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 920 F. Supp. 1248 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . See generally Manual for Complex Litigation 3d., §§ 23.14 and 23.21 (1995). . . .

VOTE CHOICE, INC. v. DiSTEFANO, VOTE CHOICE, INC. v. DiSTEFANO,, 4 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1993)

. . . Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 23.21 (4th ed. 1985 & Supp.1993) (collecting Supreme Court . . .

L. JOHNSON, v. L. JOHNSON,, 546 So. 2d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . amount of child support paid to the former wife and an elimination of the automatic annual adjustment of 23.21% . . .

M. LETNES, v. UNITED STATES, 820 F.2d 1517 (9th Cir. 1987)

. . . . §§ 91.165-91.215, §§ 23.21-23.33, § 135.159 and § 121, Appendix A (1987). . . .

In PACOR, INC. PAXTON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BRITISH AMERICAN ASSOCIATES, 72 B.R. 927 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987)

. . . could be had “only under the same conditions as govern removal generally.” 2 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 23.21 . . .

NAVAJO NATION, v. P. HODEL, D. D. I. BIA, US DOI,, 645 F. Supp. 825 (D. Ariz. 1986)

. . . Indian applicants for ICWA funds, and, if so, whether the regulations contained in 25 C.F.R. sections 23.21 . . .

HATZLACHH SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 7 Cl. Ct. 743 (Cl. Ct. 1985)

. . . See 19 CFR §§ 23.11, 23.21, 23.23, and 23.24 (1970). . . . .

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

. . . 5.76 32.69 7.56 29.22 21.99 6.08 24.27 21.23 28.07 16.70 15.48 28.06 24.28 25.93 26.24 20.53 20.78 23.21 . . .

In HURD, 4 B.R. 551 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1980)

. . . Trustee would be paying $200 to debtor’s attorney, $23.21 for the trustees fees and expenses and $32.06 . . .

In BEAVER,, 2 B.R. 337 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1980)

. . . must pay over to the trustee a grand, total of $255.27, of which $200 will be paid to her attorney, $23.21 . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)