Cases from cite.case.law:

MELFORD, v. KAHANE AND ASSOCIATES,, 371 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

. . . Melford testified that as a result of the Foreclosure Action she spent $ 35.28 on Federal Express packages . . .

M. CHEEMA d b a s v. UNITED STATES,, 365 F. Supp. 3d 172 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . while Cheema's average transaction was $ 134.99, other stores which sold Halal meat averaged $ 50, $ 35.28 . . .

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, v. ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, v., 136 S. Ct. 760 (U.S. 2016)

. . . Reg. 64119, ¶ 154 (codified 18 CFR § 35.28(g)(1) (2015) ). . . . Reg. 16658 (Rule) (codified 18 CFR § 35.28(g)(1)(v) ). . . . See 16 U.S.C. §§ 824d(c) -(d) ; 18 CFR §§ 35.28(c)(4), 35.3(a)(1). . . . FERC's own definition of demand response is aimed at energy consumers, not resellers. 18 CFR § 35.28( . . . reduction in "retail electricity sales"-by offering "incentive payments" to those customers. 18 CFR § 35.28 . . .

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 785 F.3d 1 (C.C.D.C. 2015)

. . . . § 35.28(b)(4). . . . See 18 C.F.R. § 35.28(b)(4). . . .

CENTRAL HUDSON GAS ELECTRIC CORP. v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, LLC, NRG LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, NRG LLC, LLC, LLC, IPPNY, 783 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 35.28(b)(4)) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). . . . .

E. PEREZ, v. C. BRUISTER, D. v. C., 54 F. Supp. 3d 629 (S.D. Miss. 2014)

. . . Using Mercer as an example, he set' the per-share price at $35.28. . . .

ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 753 F.3d 216 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 35.28(b)(4)-(5). . . . Id. at *13; see also 18 C.F.R. § 35.28(g)(l)(v)(A). . . . permitting demand response resources to participate as a resource in the energy market.” 18 C.F.R. § 35.28 . . . Id. § 35.28(g)(1)(i)(A); see also id. § 35.28(g)(l)(iii). . . . paying a demand response resource is cost-effective under the rule’s net benefits test. 18 C.F.R. § 35.28 . . . . § 35.28(b)(4) (emphasis added); see also Order U5, 2011 WL 890975, at *1 n. 2. . . . See Order U5, 2011 WL 890975, at *1-3 & n. 2 (citing 18 C.F.R. § 35.28(b)(4)). . . . See FERC Br. 5, 34; see also Order 715, 2011 WL 890975, at *1-3 & n. 2 (citing 18 C.F.R. § 35.28(b)(4 . . .

WEATHERFORD a v. NEVADA RURAL HOUSING AUTHORITY,, 946 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (D. Nev. 2013)

. . . denied her request for a three-bedroom unit as “not reasonable” because it would cost an additional $35.28 . . .

CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST, v. SEBELIUS,, 919 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . evaluate the reasonableness of the consideration exchanged based on a valuation of Marian's assets at $35.28 . . . The $35.28 million figure appears to be a blending of the VCG appraisal report’s market and income approaches . . .

INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 668 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 35.28). . . .

DIAZ H. D. v. EAGLE PRODUCE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 521 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2008)

. . . Once Brandt took over as the sole hiring authority, the average age dropped still further to 35.28. . . .

J. NELSON v. IPALCO ENTERPRISES, INC. R. L. G. J. A., 480 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (S.D. Ind. 2007)

. . . The annual total returns for Thrift Plan investments in IPALCO stock were as follows: +35.28 percent . . .

ALLEGHENY POWER, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 437 F.3d 1215 (D.C. Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 35.28(c)(1); Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission . . .

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 428 F.3d 294 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 35.28(c)(1), the Commission also recognized that its order was likely not the end of the road in . . .

ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 391 F.3d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 35.28(c)(1) (requiring public utilities owning, controlling, or operating facilities transmitting . . .

ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 375 F.3d 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 35.28(c)(1). . . . See 18 C.F.R. § 35.28(c)(2). . . . See Order No. 888-A at 30,503-43 (containing the final OATT); 18 C.F.R. § 35.28(c)(1) (requiring all . . . /or unbundled retail load must take transmission service for such loads under its OATT. 18 C.F.S. § 35.28 . . .

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS LOAN ASSOCIATION E. Jr. J. J. III, E. Sr. W. B. v. UNITED STATES, 57 Fed. Cl. 598 (Fed. Cl. 2003)

. . . supervisory goodwill, but that still left SoCal in a core capital deficit position of approximately $35.28 . . .

TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, v. SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY,, 295 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 35.28 (implementing the nondiscriminatory open access transmission tariff policy). . . .

TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, v. SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY,, 287 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 35.28 (implementing the nondiscriminatory open access transmission tariff policy). . . .

HAYFIELD, v. HOME DEPOT U. S. A. INC., 168 F. Supp. 2d 436 (E.D. Pa. 2001)

. . . On July 13, 1999, Plaintiff made a $35.28 purchase at Home Depot, using a check which had been erroneously . . . went directly to this store on July 13 and used the first of her new checks from Artistic to make $35.28 . . . Defendant Home Depot provides a copy of the refused check for $35.28 dated July 13, 1999 (Home Depot . . .

ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, v., 253 F.3d 748 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 35.28). . . .

TRANSMISSION ACCESS POLICY STUDY GROUP, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 35.28(e)(2) (allowing nonjuris-dictional utilities to file a request for waiver “for good cause shown . . .

GARNAY, INC. v. M V LINDO MAERSK, v. MAERSK LINES, XLIII K S XIII APS v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON v. UNITED STATES, 816 F. Supp. 888 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)

. . . The average percentage dry extract for the 12 bales was 29.27% which is 17.0% lower than the 35.28% obtained . . .

In PUCKETT, R. CONSUMER LEASE NETWORK, INC. v. PUCKETT, R. E. III,, 60 B.R. 223 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986)

. . . Deposit) 1,575.28 1,542.42 1,576.32 1,037.22 1,002.46 Sales Tax 87.66 95.76 99.72 64.80 63.36 Insurance 35.28 . . .

FORT BEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. CITY OF STAFFORD, 449 F. Supp. 375 (S.D. Tex. 1978)

. . . the 924 students residing in Stafford currently enrolled in FBISD schools is 571 (61.80%) Anglo, 326 (35.28% . . . Mexican-American students currently enrolled in FBISD would nearly double in the new district from 18.67% to 35.28% . . .

ROBINSON v. UNITED STATES, 87 F.2d 343 (2d Cir. 1937)

. . . In March, 1920, he obtained employment as a railroad hostler, earning $35.28 a week. . . .