Cases from cite.case.law:

C. ELSO, v. STATE, 260 So. 3d 489 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 35.04, Fla. Stat. (2018) ; Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(B). . . .

BAODING MANTONG FINE CHEMISTRY CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES, GEO, 222 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2017)

. . . exhibit “reported a purity level of the liquid ammonia as greater than 99.8% and a molecular weight of 35.04 . . . The molecular weight of 35.04 reported in Exhibit D-5 is contrary to Baoding Mantong’s argument, as this . . .

DeLUCA, EDS v. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 119 F. Supp. 3d 611 (E.D. Mich. 2015)

. . . . § 500.3142; M.Civ.J.I. 35.04. . . .

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

. . . Pleasant Hill, Iowa, Code § 35.04. Preston was paid approximately $4,500 in one year. . . .

In HOROB LIVESTOCK INC. In K. V. v. L. M. G., 382 B.R. 459 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2007)

. . . Section 19: Lots 1(34.99), 2(35.04), 3(35.08), 4(35.13), SE14 NW14, M SW)4 Township 15k North, Range . . .

In BAYCOL PRODUCTS LITIGATION, 219 F.R.D. 468 (D. Minn. 2003)

. . . P. 35.04. . . . These waivers comport with Rule 35.04. . . . P. 35.04 in light of the limits established in Wenninger. Blohm v. . . . P. 35.04 is procedural, and therefore, it does not apply to this case. . . . P. 35.04, has the potential to effect the choice of forum. See Gobuty, 795 F.Supp. at 288. . . .

E. PLAISTED L. D. v. GEISINGER MEDICAL CENTER, 210 F.R.D. 539 (M.D. Pa. 2002)

. . . Moore Et Al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 35.04[2] (3d ed.2000). . . .

CANO, v. DAVIS,, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (C.D. Cal. 2002)

. . . This is the case in CD 51, in which Latino registration increased from 35.04% to 39.84%, and Latino Democratic . . .

v., 118 T.C. 181 (T.C. 2002)

. . . 33,963 12,819 37.74 Tropic Sun Shipping 474,700 272,684 57.44 Sun Transport, Inc. 2,644,781 926,810 35.04 . . . 525,539 37.74 Tropic Sim Shipping 3,047,355 1,750,507 57.44 Sun Transport, Inc. 85,157,516 29,842,158 35.04 . . .

SAVE OUR SUMMERS, K, G. K. H. H. H. v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY,, 132 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Wash. 1999)

. . . Wash.Rev.Code Ch. 35.04, et seq. . . .

LEWIS, v. YOUNG MEN S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION, a, 53 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (N.D. Ala. 1999)

. . . Larson, Employment Discrimination, § 35.04[1] (2nd ed.1996). . . .

MEDLOCK, Jr. v. ORTHO BIOTECH, INC. C. III, W. A. W. C., 164 F.3d 545 (10th Cir. 1999)

. . . But see 2 Larson, Employment Discrimination § 35.04[1], at 35-25 (noting that the EEOC interprets this . . .

A. McNUTT, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS,, 141 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 1998)

. . . Larson, Employment Discrimination, § 35.04[1] (2d ed.1995). . . .

PEARSON, a a v. NORFOLK- SOUTHERN RAILWAY, COMPANY, INC., 178 F.R.D. 580 (M.D. Ala. 1998)

. . . Whether good cause is established depends on both relevance and need. 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 35.04 . . .

W. WOODSON, v. SCOTT PAPER CO., 109 F.3d 913 (3d Cir. 1997)

. . . Larson, Employment Discrimi nation § 35.04[1]). We are not persuaded by this argument. . . .

Dr. LLANO, v. NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY,, 951 F. Supp. 168 (D.N.D. 1997)

. . . Larson, Employment Discrimination, § 35.04[1]. . . .

K. LAHR, v. FULBRIGHT JAWORSKI, L. L. P., 164 F.R.D. 196 (N.D. Tex. 1995)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 35.04 at 35-20, 21 (2d Ed.1985); Cody v. . . .

HEYWOOD A. v. SAMARITAN HEALTH SYSTEM,, 902 F. Supp. 1076 (D. Ariz. 1995)

. . . Larson, Employment Discrimination, § 35.04[1] “This is important because the 'mixed motive’ clause of . . .

COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, v. TUMBLESON,, 889 F. Supp. 1136 (D. Alaska 1995)

. . . Sehermer, Automobile Liability Insurance § 35.04 (1994)). . . .

PETERS, v. NELSON, 153 F.R.D. 635 (N.D. Iowa 1994)

. . . Lewis, supra, at 309 (citing 4 Moore’s Federal Practice para. 35.04, p. 2566, n. 3.). . . .

GOBUTY v. F. KAVANAGH, M. D. St. s ST. MARY S HOSPITAL, v. GOBUTY,, 795 F. Supp. 281 (D. Minn. 1992)

. . . According to the court, Rule 35.04, which limits the scope of the privilege’s waiver to the disclosure . . . Rule 35.04 implemented this policy by allowing access to this evidence according to an orderly discovery . . .

GOBUTY v. F. KAVANAGH, M. D., 141 F.R.D. 136 (D. Minn. 1992)

. . . plaintiffs medical privilege is waived in a malpractice action, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 35.04 . . . Under Rule 35.04 therefore ex parte interviews with plaintiffs doctors were not allowed without the plaintiffs . . .

FILZ v. MAYO FOUNDATION, 136 F.R.D. 165 (D. Minn. 1991)

. . . Rule 35.04 states that: Depositions of treating or examining medical experts shall not be taken except . . . Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 35.04, however, requires both a showing of good cause and a court order . . . constitutes, on its face, the requisite "good cause” needed to depose, obviating the need for a Rule 35.04 . . . "Under this interpretation, it would appear that Rule 35.04 is being legislatively amended, although . . . were to be confronted with this situation, prudence might well suggest that counsel comply with Rule 35.04 . . .

In BELL BECKWITH, A. McGRAW, v. LIBERTY AIRLINES, INC., 89 B.R. 632 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1988)

. . . See generally, Friedman, Ohio Securities Law & Practice, T 35.04(D), 310-311 (1987). . . . See, Friedman, Ohio Securities Law & Practice, T 35.04 at 310 (1987). . . .

In CERTAIN ASBESTOS CASES A., 112 F.R.D. 427 (N.D. Tex. 1986)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice II 35.04 at 35-20, 21 (2d Ed.1985). . . .

RAYMOND, JAMES ASSOCIATES, INC. D. R. v. D. WIENEKE M., 479 So. 2d 752 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . . § .35.04, Fla.Stat. (1985). . Cf. Resnick v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. M. HOUSE M., 617 F. Supp. 240 (W.D. Mich. 1985)

. . . defendants to pay and which the defendants knew was their legal duty to pay. 2 Devitt & Blackmar § 35.04 . . .

BOULDIS, v. U. S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP., 711 F.2d 1319 (6th Cir. 1983)

. . . See 16D Von Kalinowski, supra, at § 35.04. . . .

CORALLUZZO, a By CORALLUZZO, v. FASS, M. D. M. D. s M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. d b a a, 435 So. 2d 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Rule 35.04 implements this policy by allowing the adverse party access to this evidence according to . . . The procedure defined in Rule 35.04 protects both the patient and his physician from the danger that . . . In a formal deposition pursuant to Rule 35.04, the presence of a patient’s counsel and the availability . . . Under the procedure set forth in Rule 35.04, the physician may rely upon the patient’s counsel to keep . . .

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. . . . 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, 35.03, 35.04 . . .

MARINETTE MARINE CORPORATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY, MARINE POWER EQUIPMENT CO. INC. v. CARDENAS, 527 F. Supp. 587 (D.D.C. 1981)

. . . Peterson II 35.04% .94% James R. Peterson, Director 12.05% Margaret L. Port Fred J. . . .

P. POSTELL, v. AMANA REFRIGERATION, INC. a, 87 F.R.D. 706 (N.D. Ga. 1980)

. . . Rule 35(a) should be liberally construed in favor of granting discovery. 4A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 35.04 . . .

ROLLINS, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY,, 384 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1980)

. . . . § 35.04, Fla.Stat. . § 440.25(3)(b), Fla.Stat. . . .

v., 72 T.C. 855 (T.C. 1979)

. . . The average ledger value per gross ton of ACL’s rail during 1958 through 1961 was $35.43, $35.37, $35.04 . . .

BUGHER v. SOUTHLAND FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, INC., 452 F. Supp. 870 (W.D. La. 1978)

. . . 39.50 7.90 Mike Lukasheay 16 7.68 4.00 _JSO 301 144.48 75.25 15.05 August. 1976: Mike Lukasheay 73 35.04 . . .

In GRAND JURY SUBPOENA SERVED UPON NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL,, 448 F. Supp. 822 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)

. . . See, e. g., 2 Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 35.04, as to the elements . . . Id., § 35.04 at 117 (emphasis added). . . .

FERRARA, v. UNITED STATES, 547 F.2d 861 (5th Cir. 1977)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice K 35.04 (2d ed. 1976). . . .

A. POPEKO, v. UNITED STATES, 513 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1975)

. . . United States, 364 U.S. 587, 589 n. 3, 81 S.Ct. 321, 5 L.Ed.2d 312 (1961); 8A Moore’s Federal Practice § 35.04 . . .

SANDEN, v. MAYO CLINIC, 495 F.2d 221 (8th Cir. 1974)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ff 35.04, at 35-24, 35-25 n. 11 (2d ed. 1974); 64 A.L.R.2d 498-500 (1959 . . .

E. LEWIS, v. NEIGHBORS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,, 49 F.R.D. 308 (W.D. Mo. 1969)

. . . subsequent examination may be ordered if the Court deems it necessary. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 35.04 . . .

BAIRD, v. QUALITY FOODS, INC., 47 F.R.D. 212 (E.D. La. 1969)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 35.04. . . .

I. KELLER, v. ORION INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED OF LONDON, ENGLAND,, 285 F. Supp. 906 (D. Minn. 1968)

. . . Plaintiff further urges that the new rule 35.04 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring . . .

SWEETARTS, a v. SUNLINE, INC. F., 380 F.2d 923 (8th Cir. 1967)

. . . indicates the exact total sales for each state: Massachusetts, $11.37; Michigan, $72.91; New Mexico, $35.04 . . .

L. STOUT v. D. BOTTORFF, GRILLS, v. D. BRANIGIN,, 249 F. Supp. 488 (S.D. Ind. 1965)

. . . .-11% below the ideal, resulting in an overall deviation of 35.04%. 7. . . .

FRANKLIN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, v. SWIFT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO., 236 F. Supp. 992 (S.D.N.Y. 1964)

. . . of 12 fixtures to Requa Electric (Ex. 29): Invoice Price $ 606.00 Less: Cost of modification (12 X $35.04 . . . of 14 fixtures to Requa Electric (Ex. 30): Invoice Price $ 787.92 Less: Cost of modification (14 X $35.04 . . .

LITTLE, v. HOWEY,, 32 F.R.D. 322 (W.D. Mo. 1963)

. . . D.Ohio) 31 F.R.D. 238'; 4 Moore, Federal Practice If 35.04, pp. 2558-60; 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal . . .

CHIN NEE DEU, Ai Ai v. DULLES,, 18 F.R.D. 350 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)

. . . F.R.Civ.P. 35(a); 4 Moore’s Fed.Prac., 2d Ed., para. 35.04. . 4 Moore’s Fed.Prac., 2d Ed., para. 26.09 . . .

BOARD OF COM RS OF TULSA COUNTY, OKL. v. UNITED STATES, 94 F.2d 450 (10th Cir. 1938)

. . . Homestead Valley Addition 1-13-28 1926 19.50 Lot 14, & 23, Block X Homestead Valley Addition 1-13-28 1927 35.04 . . .

UNITED STATES TRUST CO. v. MERCANTILE TRUST CO., 88 F. 140 (9th Cir. 1898)

. . . Pacific Railroad Company to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company would be as follows: Kern county, 35.04 . . .

v., 36 F. 873 (C.C.W.D. Mo. 1888)

. . . issuance of the execution the interest amounted to 34 cents, making principal and interest then due $35.04 . . .