Cases from cite.case.law:

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, L. W. P. a v. HALLAM,, 185 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . T.O., 684 So.2d 814 (Fla.1996); § 35.02, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .

EDF RENEWABLE DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. TRITEC REAL ESTATE COMPANY, INC., 147 F. Supp. 3d 63 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Plaintiff alleges that Section 35.02 of the lease pertaining to the Ronkonkoma Site (the “Lease”) provides . . .

PRESTON, v. CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, 642 F.3d 646 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 35.02. . . .

NIJHAWAN v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 557 U.S. 29 (3d Cir. 2009)

. . . . §§31.02 (West 1994), 31.03, 35.02 (West Supp. 2003) ($20,000); but see, e.g., §32.31 (credit card or . . .

MARTINEZ, v. B. MUKASEY, U. S., 508 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . (a) or § 35.02(b), and Martinez’s contention that the loss amount should be $5,733.68. . . . At the time of Martinez’s conviction, Texas Penal Code § 35.02 delineated two different offenses. . . . Thus, Martinez’s argument that § 35.02(b) might not involve fraud or deceit is without merit. . . . (a) prior to determining whether any subsection of § 35.02 did not necessarily entail, or have as an . . . Tex Pen.Code Ann. §§ 35.02(a) & (b) (Vernon 2003). . See James, 464 F.3d at 508. . . . .

CHE, v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, F. A. Jr. P., 342 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2003)

. . . Larson, Employment Discrimination § 35.02, at 35-15 (2d ed.2001). . . .

MOIN v. ASHCROFT, U. S., 335 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . she is found inadmissible on seeking reentry.” 3 Gordon and Mailman, Immigration Law and Procedure, § 35.02 . . . Id. at § 35.02[3]. Moin cites Saxbe v. . . .

C. JANNOTTA, A. D. A. v. SUBWAY SANDWICH SHOPS, INC. A. H. s, 125 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 1997)

. . . ); Tolle, 1 Ill.Dec. at 439, 356 N.E.2d at 627; see also Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil) 35.02 . . . 330 N.E.2d at 512 (principal must authorize the doing and manner of the agent’s act); see also IPI 35.02 . . .

v., 104 T.C. 256 (T.C. 1995)

. . . 0) (a)-(f) (k) (D (a)-(l) (m) (n) (a)-(n) (o) $38.64 $1.36 $39.25 $.75 $40.00 $39.25 .75 34.10 5.20 35.02 . . .

ORTIZ, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA OFFICE OF CITY COMMISSIONERS VOTER REGISTRATION DIVISION,, 824 F. Supp. 514 (E.D. Pa. 1993)

. . . 50.60% 68.24% 31.76% 1986 49.31 50.69 68.02 31.98 1987 47.93 52.07 66.74 33.26 1988 46.29 53.71 64.98 35.02 . . .

SOCIETY OF SEPARATIONISTS, INC. v. HERMAN,, 939 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1991)

. . . than county policy; state statutes embody state, not county, policy); Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 35.02 . . . Ann. arts. 19.34 (grand jurors), 35.02 (venire), 35.22 (impaneled jurors); Tex.R.Civ.P. 226 (venire), . . .

K. K. P. A v. STATE, 580 So. 2d 307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

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

v., 91 T.C. 222 (T.C. 1988)

. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 35.02 (1988). . . .

UNITED STATES v. ORTIZ- NEGRON,, 675 F. Supp. 48 (D.P.R. 1987)

. . . Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d Section 586; 8A Moore’s Federal Practice 2d, paragraph 35.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. DOBY, 652 F. Supp. 335 (N.D. Ind. 1987)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 35.02[3] at 35-34 (2d ed. 1986); 3 C. . . .

In LAMBERT, FENTRESS COUNTY BANK, v. LAMBERT,, 64 B.R. 170 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1986)

. . . December 31, 1981 Report of Condition of Bank (call report), Mulally figured the book value to be $35.02 . . . its expert witness was that the book value, as derived from the December 31, 1981 call report, was $35.02 . . .

N. ALLEN, v. UNITED STATES,, 495 A.2d 1145 (D.C. 1985)

. . . United States, 279 F.2d 872, 872 (6th Cir.1960); 8A MooRe’s Federal Practice ¶ 35.02[3][b][v], at 35- . . .

JOHANSSON, v. BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH,, 601 F. Supp. 1018 (D. Minn. 1985)

. . . . §§ 35.02-.063 (1984), and the Attorney General of Minnesota. . . .

B. DIGGS, v. UNITED STATES, 740 F.2d 239 (3d Cir. 1984)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice II 35.02, at 35-4 n. 4 (2d ed. 1968)), cert. denied sub nom. . . .

MORRIS ELECTRONICS OF SYRACUSE, INC. v. MATTEL, INC. J. d b a, 595 F. Supp. 56 (N.D.N.Y. 1984)

. . . See also, 5 vonKalinowski, Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation § 35.02 (1983). . . .

UNITED STATES v. KAJEVIC,, 711 F.2d 767 (7th Cir. 1983)

. . . any other under the Rules, with the exception of the sentence itself.” 8A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 35.02 . . .

LLOYD v. STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE AND PROBATION, 557 F. Supp. 1297 (D. Md. 1983)

. . . indefinitely suspended arrearage payments upon the condition that petitioner make weekly support payments of $35.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. FERRI a k a R. R. UNITED STATES No. v. F. MARSH, R., 686 F.2d 147 (3d Cir. 1982)

. . . Dansker, 581 F.2d at 73 (quoting 8A Moore’s Federal Practice f 35.02, at 35-4 n.4 (2d ed. 1968)). . . .

L L OIL COMPANY, INC. v. MURPHY OIL CORPORATION,, 674 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1982)

. . . Accord vonKalinowski, supra at § 35.02 (“services and facilities” clearly refers to any form of advertising . . . See also 5 vonKalinowski, supra at 35.02. . . .

P. GODDARD, v. BABBITT, J., 536 F. Supp. 538 (D. Ariz. 1982)

. . . Census tracts 35.02, 35.03, 35.04, 36, 40.01, 40.04, 40.08, 40.09, 40.10, 40.11 and 40.-14. . . . Census tracts 28, 29.01, 29.03, 29.04, 30.01, 30.02, 31.01, 31.02, 32, 33.01, 33.02, 34, 35.01, 35.02 . . .

SHAYER, v. C. KIRKPATRICK, St. C. Jr. St. M. O H. OVERSCHMIDT, v. C. KIRKPATRICK, MISSOURI STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, INC. St. NAACP, St. NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, St. NAACP, v. BOND, C. MISSOURI STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, INC. NAACP, St. NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, NAACP, Dr. Mr. L. v. BOND, C., 541 F. Supp. 922 (W.D. Mo. 1982)

. . . Census Tract 32 1,059 Census Tract 33 1,543 Census Tract 34 3,956 Census Tract 35.01 1,723 Census Tract 35.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. INENDINO,, 655 F.2d 108 (7th Cir. 1981)

. . . See 8A Moore’s Federal Practice— Criminal Rules j| 35.02[1], n.4 (1980 ed.) . . .

UNITED STATES v. H. SNOOKS,, 493 F. Supp. 1364 (W.D. Mo. 1980)

. . . . § 35.02[a] at page 35-4: It should be noted that the period is not defined as the time within which . . .

UNITED STATES v. CONNOLLY,, 618 F.2d 553 (9th Cir. 1980)

. . . count would run concurrently one with the other. . . . ” . 8A Moore’s Federal Practice, paragraphs 35.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. DANSKER, L. DIACO, 581 F.2d 69 (3d Cir. 1978)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice Par. 35.02 at 35-4 n. 4 (2d ed. 1968). . In Addonizio v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. DIACO,, 448 F. Supp. 978 (D.N.J. 1978)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 35.02[1] at 35-4 n. 5 (2d ed. 1974); cf. United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MENDOZA,, 565 F.2d 1285 (5th Cir. 1978)

. . . a leading authority, James William Moore, in Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed., 1965) Vol. 8A, par. 35.02 . . . Moore, Federal Practice 35.02(2), at 35-36. . . . Moore, Federal Practice 35.02[a] (2d ed. 1965) (“The present language of the Rule should be rephrased . . .

In GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION. HARTZELL, a, 542 F.2d 166 (3d Cir. 1976)

. . . Accord, 8A Moore, Federal Practice 35.02[2] (1975). . In Martin v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. OURSO, Jr. M. D., 417 F. Supp. 113 (E.D. La. 1976)

. . . United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 71, 250 F.2d 396, 401 (1957); 8 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 35.02[1] at . . . Professor Robert Cipes, as author of Volume 8A, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 35.02[2] observes: [T]he . . .

UNITED STATES v. STOLLINGS,, 516 F.2d 1287 (4th Cir. 1975)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, 1f 35.02(2) at 35-6; cf. United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. FLORES,, 507 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1975)

. . . Crim.P. 35; 8A Moore, Federal Practice K 35.02[2]. . . .

UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, H. FRIEDMAN UNITED STATES v. H. FRIEDMAN, UNITED STATES v. ROSSELLI,, 509 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1975)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice 11 35.02 [1] at 35-4 n. 5 (2d ed. 1974); cf. United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. JANIEC, No. LAYTHAM, No., 505 F.2d 983 (3d Cir. 1974)

. . . Federal Practice and Procedure (Criminal), § 587 at p. 573; 8 A Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.), If 35.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. LEE,, 382 F. Supp. 292 (S.D.W. Va. 1974)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice H 35.02 [2] (2d ed. 1969). . . . In United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. POLIZZI, UNITED STATES v. S. SHAPIRO, UNITED STATES v. BELLANCA, UNITED STATES v. GIARDANO, UNITED STATES v. J. ROOKS, UNITED STATES v. ZERILLI, UNITED STATES v. EMPRISE CORPORATION, a, 500 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1974)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 35.02 [2], pp. 35-6, n. 10.1 (2d ed. 1973). . . .

A. JENKE, v. HEARD,, 375 F. Supp. 650 (S.D. Tex. 1974)

. . . See Article 1, Section 4, of the Texas Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St. and Articles 19.34, 35.02, and . . .

MADELEY, v. C. V. KERN,, 488 F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . appellant in Craig argued the oaths required of grand jurors, witnesses, and jurors by articles 19.34, 35.02 . . . I, § 4; Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Code Crim.Proc. art. 19.34, art. 35.02, art. 35.22 (1965). . . .

BOONE C. T. A. v. UNITED STATES, 374 F. Supp. 115 (D.N.D. 1973)

. . . pools, and to joint ventures, the taxation of the income of which had proved troublesome.” 6 Mertens § 35.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. RUSH,, 60 F.R.D. 211 (D. Minn. 1973)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 35.02 [2] (2d ed. 1969). See also United States v. . . .

WOOSLEY, v. UNITED STATES, 478 F.2d 139 (8th Cir. 1973)

. . . . § 35.02(4) states: “Since the motion for reduction of sentence is a plea for leniency, decision on . . .

M. IRIZZARY, v. UNITED STATES, 58 F.R.D. 65 (D. Mass. 1973)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice § 35.02[2] (2d ed. 1969). . . . Moore’s Federal Practice § 35.02 [2] (2d ed. 1968). . . .

UNITED STATES v. ESTELA,, 58 F.R.D. 210 (D.P.R. 1972)

. . . See also 8-A Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., S. 35.02, page 35-6; 2 Federal Practice and Procedure, . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. MACK, UNITED STATES v. L. JOHNSON,, 466 F.2d 333 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, U 35.02 [1] at 35-3 (1972). . . .

UNITED STATES v. McGEE, Jr., 344 F. Supp. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)

. . . that the 12'0-day period provided by the Rule is jurisdictional (see 8A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶[ 35.02 . . .

McGEE, Jr. v. UNITED STATES, 462 F.2d 243 (2d Cir. 1972)

. . . See 8A Moore’s Federal Practice j[ 35.02 [4] (2d ed. 1970); 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure . . .

A. ABRAMS, v. UNITED STATES v. G. LEONFORTE, 333 F. Supp. 1134 (S.D.W. Va. 1971)

. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, Vol. 6, Sec. 35.02, Vol. 7, Sec. 38.02. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HILL,, 447 F.2d 817 (7th Cir. 1971)

. . . We disagree. 8A Moore, Federal Practice j[35.02 [1] p. 35-3 (1970). . . .

UNITED STATES v. McELYA,, 439 F.2d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1970)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice 1f1T 32.09, 35.02 (1970, Supp. 1970). . E. g., United States ex rel. . . .

D. PETERSON, v. UNITED STATES, 432 F.2d 545 (8th Cir. 1970)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice IT 35.02[2] (2d ed. 1969). See also United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. M. URSINI, Jr., 296 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Conn. 1968)

. . . United States, 235 F.2d 459, 461 (5 Cir. 1956); see 8 Moore’s Federal Practice ff 35.02[2], at 35-4 ( . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. ELLENBOGEN,, 390 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1968)

. . . United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 71, 250 F.2d 396, 401 (1957); 8 Moore’s Federal Practice IT 35.02 [1] . . .

LEYVAS, v. UNITED STATES, 371 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1967)

. . . In 8 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., § 35.02 [a], at page 35-4, it is said: “It should be noted that . . .

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CEDAR PARK CEMETERY ASS N,, 183 F.2d 553 (7th Cir. 1950)

. . . It first improved for burial purposes 35.02 acres out of the original tract, which .it designated as . . .

DE NOBILI CIGAR CO. v. UNITED STATES, 146 F.2d 556 (2d Cir. 1945)

. . . $35.05 per thousand, and, if the tax period be extended to May 31, 1935, the average selling price was $35.02 . . . Deducting the latter figure from the former would leave a net average sales price of $35.02 which tallies . . . government’s accountants and the plaintiff’s, as indicated by the fact that both witnesses agreed on $35.02 . . .

V. v., 11 B.T.A. 184 (B.T.A. 1928)

. . . in income taxes for the years 1920 to 1923, inclusive, in the amounts of $8.90, $25.81, $40.05 and $35.02 . . .

JOHN E. SADDLER, 2 B.T.A. 1305 (B.T.A. 1925)

. . . losses, it appears that the creditors of this closed bank had received liquidating dividends aggregating 35.02 . . .

THE MAINE. THE MANHATTAN, 161 F. 401 (S.D.N.Y. 1908)

. . . Merritt & Chapman’s bill 4,022.89 y2 Commercial Lighterage Company’s bill G2.8S y2 Expenses of rehandling 35.02 . . .