Cases from cite.case.law:

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. WILLIAMS- YULEE,, 138 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 2014)

. . . Conduct, R. 60.06(4); Wyo.Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 4, R. 4.2(B)(4). . . . .

TEAGUE, T. T. S. T. C. H. A. R. A. D. S. D. v. ARKANSAS BOARD OF EDUCATION Dr. No. El AR,, 873 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (W.D. Ark. 2012)

. . . School District (95.11%) exceeded the percentage of white students in the Malvern School District (60.06% . . .

BALDUS, W. III, v. MEMBERS OF WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, F. Jr. E. D. Jr. J. P. De La v., 849 F. Supp. 2d 840 (E.D. Wis. 2012)

. . . alternative Assembly District 8 with a Latino voting age population of 70.07%, which he estimates amounts to 60.06% . . .

BAUER, v. T. SHEPARD,, 620 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2010)

. . . Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 60.06(4). . . . (The language we have quoted is from the version effective when Siefert was decided; Rule 60.06(4) has . . .

WINNIG, v. L. SELLEN,, 731 F. Supp. 2d 855 (W.D. Wis. 2010)

. . . rights provided for under the Wisconsin Constitution, are being violated by Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 60.06 . . . Stat. § 11.502(2) unless SCR 60.06(4) is found to be unconstitutional as applied to him. . . . .# 9) preventing SCR 60.06(4) from applying to him, because (1) the period in which he can qualify for . . . Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit determined that the direct solicitation ban found under SCR 60.06 . . . Under Siefert, 60.06(4) is constitutional as applied to judicial candidates, like Winnig, even if they . . .

SIEFERT, v. C. ALEXANDER,, 608 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2010)

. . . The challenged provisions are all contained in Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 60.06: SCR 60.06 A judge . . . in SCR 60.06(2)(b)4, and the ban on personal solicitation of campaign contributions in SCR 60.06(4). . . . )(a) or the balance of SCR 60.06(2)(b). . . . SCR 60.06(2)(b)l: Party Membership SCR 60.06(2)(b)l states that “No judge or candidate for judicial office . . . (2)(b)4 and SCR 60.06(4). . . . . speech regarding qualifications for office than the one at issue here: Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 60.06 . . . SCR 60.06(2)(b)4. . . .

PARKER, v. PHILLIPS,, 717 F. Supp. 2d 310 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . sentence and to remit his case to [the trial court] ... for resentencing in accordance with Penal Law §§ 60.06 . . . Penal Law §§ 60.06, 70.00(5). . . .

GRAHAM v. FLORIDA, 560 U.S. 48 (1st Cir. 2010)

. . . . §§30.00, 60.06 (West 2009); §490.55 (West 2008) North Carolina N. C. Gen. Stat. . . .

TERRANCE JAMAR GRAHAM, v. FLORIDA, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (U.S. 2010)

. . . . §§ 30.00, 60.06 (West 2009); § 490.55 (West 2008) North Carolina N. C. Gen. Stat. . . .

SIEFERT, v. C. ALEXANDER, a a R. a A. a A. a a R. a M. a, 597 F. Supp. 2d 860 (W.D. Wis. 2009)

. . . SCR 60.06(2)(c). . . . SCR 60.06(2)(a). . . . SCR 60.06(2)(a) and (c). . . . 60.06(2)(b)l. . . . Because the effect of SCR 60.06(2)(b)1, 60.06(2)(b)4 and 60.06(4) is to limit the discussion without . . .

CNA CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 83 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2008)

. . . Moore and Jo Deshap Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.06[1] (2d ed.1993); see also United States v . . . See Moore, supra, ¶ 60.06[4]. Patton v. . . .

PAM, S. P. A JCM, v. UNITED STATES, A. s, 495 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . The individual dumping margins were 39.63, 60.06, and 63.36 percent. . . .

PAM, S. P. A JCM, LTD. v. A. S, 31 Ct. Int'l Trade 1008 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . The individual dumping margins were 39.63, 60.06, and 63.36 percent. Id. at 1236. . . .

DUWE, v. C. ALEXANDER, R. A. R. L., 490 F. Supp. 2d 968 (W.D. Wis. 2007)

. . . . * * * SCR 60.06. . . . on the survey and by reference adopting the statement that they were precluded from answering by SCR 60.06 . . . One 2006 respondent wrote after each question: “Pursuant to SCR 60.06(3)(b).” . . . The quoted phrase being a reference to, inter alia, Rule SCR 60.06(3) regulating campaign rhetoric. . . . SCR 60.06(3)(b). . . .

RODRIGUEZ, v. T. SMITH,, 485 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Penal Law §§ 60.06 & 70.00(1-3). . . .

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA, a F. L. E. C. J. v. WHITE, L. E. NYU Ad a L. E. C. F. J. v. L. E. NYU Ad a F. L. E. C. J. v. L. E. NYU Ad, 416 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . Rule 60.06(2)(b) (judicial candidates shall not be a member of any political party). . . . Rule 60.06(4). States that'permit personal solicitation are: California, Cal.Code of Jud. . . .

UNITED STATES v. LEROY, 373 F. Supp. 2d 887 (E.D. Wis. 2005)

. . . The 2.7 grams of cocaine he sold converted to .54 kg of THC, for a total of 60.06 kg of THC. . . .

WRIGHT, v. CITY OF ALBANY,, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (M.D. Ga. 2003)

. . . The Wright plan proposes a District 4 with a total black population of 7, 716 people or 60.06%. . . .

HOLLAND, v. R. DONNELLY,, 216 F. Supp. 2d 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . . §§ 60.06 (setting alternative dispositions for first-degree murder); 70.00(2)(a) (setting maximum term . . . Penal L. § 60.06, without the need for any additional fact-finding by the judge. . . .

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA, a F. L. E. C. J. v. KELLY, M. J. E. a L. E. C. F. J. v. M. J. J. E. a F. L. E. C. J. v. M. J. E., 247 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . R. 60.06(3) (prohibiting "suggestions of conduct in office which appeal to the cupidity or partisanship . . .

UNITED STATES v. MORALES,, 108 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 1997)

. . . Id. at 303 (quoting 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.06(1), p. 4042 (2d ed.1966)). . . .

E. QUILL, M. D. C. M. D. A. M. D. v. C. VACCO, E. M., 80 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 1996)

. . . Penal Law § 60.06 (McKinney’s Supp.1996)). . . .

F. HARRAH, F. T. W. v. UNITED STATES, 69 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1995)

. . . emphasis also appears in the treatment of equitable recoupment in Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation § 60.06 . . .

F. HARRAH, F. T. W. v. UNITED STATES, 77 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 1995)

. . . emphasis also appears in the treatment of equitable recoupment in Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation § 60.06 . . .

LOCKHEED SANDERS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 862 F. Supp. 677 (D.N.H. 1994)

. . . and government); Jacob Mertens, Jr., Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation §§ 50.67, 58A.64, 60.01, 60.06 . . .

M. PATTON v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 25 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

. . . Moore and Jo Desha Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.06[1] (2d ed. 1993); see also United States v . . .

M. PATTON v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 25 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

. . . Moore and Jo Desha Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.06[1] (2d ed. 1993); see also United States v . . .

PEOPLE WHO CARE, a E. a a a a v. ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT, 851 F. Supp. 905 (N.D. Ill. 1994)

. . . Prior to the focus center, African-American enrollment at" Haskell was 60.06% in the 1976-77 school year . . .

LONGMIRE, v. GUSTE, Jr., 921 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. 1991)

. . . 1987, for which, after a disciplinary hearing, he was assessed restitution costs in the amount of $60.06 . . .

B. PRATT, v. PETROLEUM PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN TRUST, R. E., 920 F.2d 651 (10th Cir. 1990)

. . . See 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶¶ 58.02.1, 60.06[4]; Aviles v. . . . Grotheer, Jr., Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 60.06[4]; see abo Hegger v. . . .

STAR BRITE DISTRIBUTING, INC. v. C. GAVIN L. v. OCEAN BIO- CHEM, INC. G. F. K. M., 746 F. Supp. 633 (N.D. Miss. 1990)

. . . interest in a judgment may be corrected by means of Rule 60(a). 6 A Moore’s Federal Practice, Paragraph 60.06 . . .

In D. R. L. INC. CAPITAL GROWTH ADVISORS, INC. v. D. R. L. INC., 109 B.R. 569 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1990)

. . . Wicker, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 60.06[3] pg. 60-44 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

KLINGMAN, v. E. LEVINSON,, 877 F.2d 1357 (7th Cir. 1989)

. . . Grotheer, Jr., 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.06[4] (1987). . . .

KLINGMAN, v. E. LEVINSON,, 877 F.2d 1357 (7th Cir. 1989)

. . . Grotheer, Jr., 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.06[4] (1987). . . .

In AMERICAN PRECISION VIBRATOR COMPANY, AMERICAN PRECISION VIBRATOR COMPANY, v. NATIONAL AIR VIBRATOR CO., 863 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . documents to record). . 194 F.2d 887 (D.C.Cir.1952). . 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, supra note 9, ¶ 60.06 . . .

In AMERICAN PRECISION VIBRATOR COMPANY, AMERICAN PRECISION VIBRATOR COMPANY, v. NATIONAL AIR VIBRATOR CO., 863 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . documents to record). . 194 F.2d 887 (D.C.Cir.1952). . 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, supra note 9, ¶ 60.06 . . .

THOMPSON v. OKLAHOMA, 487 U.S. 815 (U.S. 1988)

. . . Penal Law §60.06 (McKinney 1987),, providing for death penalty for first-degree murder); North Dakota . . .

UNITED STATES v. GRIFFIN, MOORES,, 782 F.2d 1393 (7th Cir. 1986)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice If 60.06[1] pp. 60-41 to -42, 60-52 (1983). . . .

CITY OF LONG BEACH, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, CHAMPLIN PETROLEUM COMPANY, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,, 754 F.2d 379 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Balesh, 704 F.2d 774, 776 (5th Cir.1983), quoting Moore’s Federal Practice, fl 60.06[3] at 4057 (2d Ed . . .

SMITH, v. A. COUGHLIN, III, J., 748 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1984)

. . . N.Y.Penal Law § 60.06 (McKinney Supp.1975). . . . .

C. WAGGONER, v. R. McGRAY, INC., 743 F.2d 643 (9th Cir. 1984)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.06[4] at 60-49 (2d ed. 1983). . . . Moore, supra, ¶ 60.06[4] at 60-52. . . .

DOYLE, v. CITY OF NEW YORK,, 580 F. Supp. 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)

. . . See 6A Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 60.06[3]. . International Controls Corp. v. . . .

MALLIS B. v. BANKERS TRUST COMPANY,, 717 F.2d 683 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.06[4], at 4068 (1971) (“where ... the failure to include interest . . .

HEGGER, P. v. E. GREEN St. s, 91 F.R.D. 595 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . be had from the clerical mistakes of the court, clerk, jury or party.” 6A Moore Federal Practice ¶ 60.06 . . .

A. McLEARN, v. COWEN CO., 660 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1981)

. . . clerical, and exercise it only on a clear showing of mistake.” 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 60.06 . . .

In QUALITY REDI- MIX, INC. a HILLSDALE COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, a v. F. UHLE,, 10 B.R. 409 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1981)

. . . See 3 part 2 Collier on Bankruptcy (14th Ed. 1964) ¶ 60.05 and 60.06, pp. 771-85, and Glessner v. . . .

THOMPSON, v. STATE, 392 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1981)

. . . prejudice to the state to institute an appropriate action in accordance with sections 823.05, 60.05, and 60.06 . . .

In FULGHUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, H. WALDSCHMIDT, v. H. RANIER, H., 7 B.R. 629 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1980)

. . . cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer. 3 Collier, Bankruptcy *'60.06 . . .

In HANSON, f d b a f d b a, 8 B.R. 34 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1980)

. . . For December, 1975 and November, 1976, mathematical error resulted in a deficiency of $60.06, including . . .

CARMONA v. WARD,, 576 F.2d 405 (2d Cir. 1978)

. . . N.Y.Penal Law § 60.06. However, in People v. . . . . - (July 3, 1978) the New York Court of Appeals struck down the death penalty as provided for in § 60.06 . . .

MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, v. THIRD NATIONAL BANK OF HAMPDEN COUNTY,, 545 F.2d 758 (1st Cir. 1976)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice H 60.06[4], at 4067-68 (2d ed. 1974). . . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 60.06[4], at 4067-68 (2d ed. 1974). . . .

HEALTH CLUBS, INC. a v. STATE EAGAN,, 338 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . public nuisance alleging that the trial court had jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 823.05, 60.05, 60.06 . . . All such places or persons shall be abated or enjoined as provided in §§ 60.05 and 60.06. . . . Section 60.06, Florida Statutes (1975), further provides: “Abatement of nuisances; enforcement. . . .

GREGG v. GEORGIA, 428 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1976)

. . . Penal Law § 60.06 (1975); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14-17 (Supp. 1975); Ohio Rev. . . .

SAVE SAND KEY, INC. a v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, a v. STATE L. SHEVIN, Co-, 281 So. 2d 572 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . See, history of §§ 60.06 and 823.05, F.S. 1973, F.S.A. . See, e. g., Dept. of Administration v. . . .

BERSHAD, v. P. McDONOUGH,, 469 F.2d 1333 (7th Cir. 1972)

. . . Breece Lumber Co., 213 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1954), 6A Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.06 [3] at 4057-58 ( . . .

UNITED STATES v. G. MANOS, 56 F.R.D. 655 (S.D. Ohio 1972)

. . . Byrne, 191 F.2d 667 (CA9 1951); 6 Moore’s, supra, ¶ 60.06 [3] and [4]. . . .

ORLANDO SPORTS STADIUM, INC. a v. STATE W. POWELL,, 262 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1972)

. . . All such places or persons shall be abated or enjoined as provided in §§ 60.05 and 60.06.” . . . (which was enacted in 1969), could be enjoined or abated through Fla.Stat. §§ 60.05 and 60.06, F.S.A. . . .

STATE BROWN v. H. SUSSMAN, a, 235 So. 2d 46 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . further provides; “[a] 11 such places or persons shall be abated or enjoined as provided in §§ 60.05 and 60.06 . . . All such places or persons shall be abated or enjoined as provided in §§ 60.05 and 60.06.” . . .

SAWYER, v. W. R. ROBBINS, Jr., 213 So. 2d 515 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . All such places or persons shall be abated or enjoined as provided in §§. 60.05 and 60.06.” . “16. . . .

In GRAIN MERCHANTS OF INDIANA, INC. L. FRANCE, v. UNION BANK AND SAVINGS COMPANY, BELLEVUE, OHIO,, 286 F. Supp. 597 (N.D. Ind. 1968)

. . . See 3 Collier, Bankruptcy § 60.06, n.7 (14th ed. 1967). . . . transferred superior to the rights of the transferee therein. * * * ” See 3 Collier, Bankruptcy, supra, § 60.06 . . .

PATTIZ v. SCHWARTZ, 386 F.2d 300 (8th Cir. 1968)

. . . misprisions, oversights and omissions, unintended acts or failures to act”. 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, par. 60.06 . . . had from the clerical mistakes of the court, clerk, jury or party”. 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, par. 60.06 . . .

UNITED STATES v. STUART,, 271 F. Supp. 939 (M.D. Pa. 1967)

. . . other words, to all things of which there is a record in the action.” 6 Moore, Federal Practice para. 60.06 . . . Id., paras. 60.06 [1], 60.06 [4] The cases, however, are not in harmony as to what constitutes substantial . . . Id., 60.06[4]; First Nat’l Bank In Greenwich v. . . . been treated as oversights which may be corrected under Rule 60(a). 6 Moore, Federal Practice para. 60.06 . . .

HAMILTON v. STILLWELL VAN AND STORAGE CO. No. No., 343 F.2d 453 (3d Cir. 1965)

. . . Lines, 133 F.2d 470 (9 Cir. 1943) ; 7 Moore Federal Practice If 60.06 at p. 4054. . . .

R. O BRIEN, v. S. FLEMMING,, 178 F. Supp. 387 (S.D. Ill. 1959)

. . . Divide this sum by 35.5, the number of weeks involved, and the result is $60.06. . . .

G. SCHAEFER, v. A. WELCH,, 148 F. Supp. 253 (S.D. Ohio 1956)

. . . September 10, 1954, that a deficiency had been assessed in plaintiff’s 1952 income tax in the amount of $60.06 . . .

CARL U. ACKERLIND, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ERICK LIND, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES, 49 Ct. Cl. 635 (Ct. Cl. 1914)

. . . were incurred and paid for by claimant’s decedent, namely: For coal_$1,110.68 For donkeyman’s wages- 60.06 . . .

BIGLEY v. NEW YORK P. R. S. S. CO. HUUS v. SAME TORGESON v. HAY, 105 F. 74 (S.D.N.Y. 1900)

. . . as follows: (1) June 2, 1900, from the steamship Ponce outward bound from New York to Porto Rico, $60.06 . . .