Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORMS- NOMENCLATURE, 235 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 2018)

. . . Finally, we adopt two new forms for use in proceedings commenced pursuant to sections 61.09 and 61.10 . . .

RUBIES COSTUME CO. v. UNITED STATES,, 279 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2017)

. . . EN 61.10 (emphasis added). . . . See EN 61.10 (heading 6110 includes “jerseys, pullovers, cardigans, waistcoats and similar articles”) . . .

VICTORIA S SECRET DIRECT, LLC, v. UNITED STATES,, 908 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013)

. . . Thus, the HTSUS deletes the term “vest” from heading 6109 and effectuates HS heading 61.10 (“Jerseys, . . . See EN 61.10 and heading 6 IT 0, ■HTSUS, which include in the article description for the heading the . . .

RIDDELL, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 906 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013)

. . . Explanatory Notes to Heading 61.10 (2012). . . .

LEMANS CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 660 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . It also reviewed the Explanatory Notes to Heading 6110 (“EN 61.10”), which add that the heading encompasses . . . Id. at 1381 (quoting EN 61.10). . . .

v., 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 156 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)

. . . EN 61.10. . . .

LEMANS CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)

. . . EN 61.10. . . .

In JACQUES, v. U. S. N. A. MASTR, 416 B.R. 63 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . Pre-Pet Suspense” credit of $76.40, “Payoff as of: 04/17/2008” of $374,718.05, and “Per Diem Amount” of $61.10 . . .

J. GUZMAN, M. D. v. SHEWRY,, 552 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 61.10(a) (emphasis added). . . . Id. § 61.10(b)(4)(i). . . . See 45 C.F.R. §§ 61.3, 61.10. . . .

J. GUZMAN, M. D. v. SHEWRY,, 544 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 61.10(a) (emphasis added). . . . Id. § 61.10(b)(4)(i). . . . See 45 C.F.R. §§ 61.3, 61.10. . . .

KARNBACH, v. KARNBACH,, 971 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . ,” a hearing is required to fix child support for the remaining children in accordance with chapter 61.10 . . .

CLEANMASTER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SANDRA SHEWRY,, 491 F. Supp. 2d 937 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . . § 61.10 (2006) (emphasis added). . . . because of a settlement under which "no findings or admissions of liability have been made.” 45 C.F.R. § 61.10 . . .

SHIRT v. HAZELTINE,, 336 F. Supp. 2d 976 (D.S.D. 2004)

. . . Single Race Dual Race Multi-Race District 26 Senate (VAP) 61.10 62.53 62.57 (total population) 68.57 . . .

M. PATE, v. PATE,, 777 So. 2d 468 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 61.10, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

CITY OF CHICAGO v. MORALES, 527 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1999)

. . . . §16-11-36 (1996); Guam Code Ann., Tit. 9, § 61.10(b) (1996); Haw. Rev. . . .

D. BROWN, v. E. BROWN,, 714 So. 2d 475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . . §§ 61.09; 61.10, Fla. Stat. . . .

BABB v. BEGINES,, 701 So. 2d 616 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Under section 61.10, Florida Statutes (1995), a trial court may establish the primary residence and custody . . .

UNITED STATES v. HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION, s TNRCC UNITED STATES v. HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION, s TNRCC, 128 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 1997)

. . . . §§ 61.10(b), 61.11 (1996); see also § 61.112(c) (1996) (setting out procedures for application for . . . emissions to file an initial report within 90 days of promulgation of the regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 61.10 . . . But we cannot hold that the plain language of § 61.10(a) provides clear notice of this intent. . . .

DORRITY, v. DORRITY, Jr., 695 So. 2d 411 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . On July 18th, appellee filed a petition for custody pursuant to section 61.10, Florida Statutes (1995 . . .

TAYLOR R. v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,, 684 So. 2d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . . §§ 61.021, 61.10, Fla.Stat. .§ 322.08, Fla.Stat. . See Blanchard v. . . .

In FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 663 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1995)

. . . See section 61.10, Florida Statutes for more information about receiving support unconnected with dissolution . . .

GRAHAM, v. GRAHAM,, 648 So. 2d 814 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . jurisdiction to award temporary child support based on the wife’s Broward County residence pursuant to section 61.10 . . .

G. BURTON, REPUBLICAN PARTY, T. v. J. SHEHEEN, A. E. T. Y. A. L. I. STATEWIDE REAPPORTIONMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, v. A. CAMPBELL, Jr. I. BLANTON, A. E. Y. A. v. A. CAMPBELL, Jr., 793 F. Supp. 1329 (D.S.C. 1992)

. . . 60.55 56.30 -13.38 48.01 44.98 51.87 47.19 -11.49 51.89 47.57 55.83 51.17 -12.09 62.58 59.28 65.00 61.10 . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, BRANSCOMB, v. BRANSCOMB,, 597 So. 2d 922 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . This petition was authorized by section 61.10, Florida Statutes (1989). . . . Assuming the requirements of section 61.13(l)(d) apply to this order entered under section 61.10, HRS . . . a divorce is also essential when the parents are merely subject to a separation order under section 61.10 . . .

GOOD TIMEZ, INC. d b a Z v. PHOENIX FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., 754 F. Supp. 459 (D.V.I. 1991)

. . . Excluded Pre-8/16/90 Apportioned Time JA: 51.20 hours 2.50 hours 48.70 hours JW: 72.90 hours 11.80 hours 61.10 . . .

In M. WEBSTER, M. MICHEL, v. A. LARSON d b a, 120 B.R. 111 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1990)

. . . Of this amount, $61.10 was for his basic services in connection with Webster’s bankruptcy petition, statement . . .

WALKER, Jr. v. WALKER,, 566 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . provide for anything directly comparable to the judgment of separation, although Sections 61.09 and 61.10 . . .

CONAGRA, INC. CAG v. TYSON FOODS, INC., 708 F. Supp. 257 (D. Neb. 1989)

. . . previously negotiated Merger Agreement with Holly Farms, while Tyson submitted a two-tier proposal offering $61.10 . . .

BEERS, v. PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF DADE COUNTY,, 468 So. 2d 995 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . For example, section 61.10, Florida Statutes (1983) provides: Adjudication of obligation to support spouse . . . Section 61.10, Florida Statutes, permits a spouse to present the issue to a court. . . . Likewise, the majority’s reliance on section 61.10, Florida Statutes (1983), is misplaced. . . . raised abandonment as a legitimate basis to avoid liability in a petition filed pursuant to section 61.10 . . .

ANGLETON, v. R. PIERCE, Jr. U. S., 574 F. Supp. 719 (D.N.J. 1983)

. . . N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.10. . . .

FAN FARE, INC. v. FOURDEL INDUSTRIES, LTD., 563 F. Supp. 754 (M.D. Ala. 1983)

. . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 61; see 7 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 61.10 (1982). . See note 4, supra. . . . .

DICKENSON, v. PETIT,, 536 F. Supp. 1100 (D. Me. 1982)

. . . .) -130.73 308.57 Work-related expenses -61.10 Earned income after disregards $247.47 After deducting . . .

PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. SAFEGUARD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 528 F. Supp. 709 (E.D. Pa. 1981)

. . . insured will not be considered overt action within the provisions of § 1008.6(2). 31 Pa.Admin.Code § 61.10 . . .

CLINCHFIELD RAILROAD COMPANY, v. G. LYNCH,, 527 F. Supp. 784 (E.D.N.C. 1981)

. . . Buncombe Nash 78.50 49.50 Burke New Hanover 80.74 93.83 Cabarrus Onslow 84.48 56.98 Caldwell Orange 61.10 . . .

CLARIDGE HOUSE ONE, INC. v. BOROUGH OF VERONA, a, 490 F. Supp. 706 (D.N.J. 1980)

. . . S.A. 2A:18-61.10. . . .

v. v., 67 T.C. 938 (T.C. 1977)

. . . of the taxable years 1964 through 1969 were as follows: Actual Year reserve ratio Lower limit 1964. 61.10 . . .

L. RIVENBARK, v. RIVENBARK,, 335 So. 2d 23 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . Sec. 61.10, F.S. 1975. . . .

CANNON, v. CANNON,, 323 So. 2d 9 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . Sections 61.09 and 61.10, which deal with non-support and the rights of parties unconnected with dissolution . . . Sections 61.-09 and 61.10 are held to the older and higher standard of proving fault, as opposed to those . . .

ROSEN, v. ROSEN,, 306 So. 2d 546 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . The appellee-wife contends that under § 61.10, Fla.Stat., she may obtain an adjudication of the obligations . . .

J. DOVER, v. D. DOVER, Jr., 241 So. 2d 740 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . County striking the counterclaim of defendant-wife in an action brought by her husband under Section 61.10 . . . apart from his wife at the time of commencement of the pending suit, brought a petition under Section 61.10 . . . Section 61.10 provides as follows: “61.10 Rights of husband unconnected with causes of divorce. — Except . . . Section 61.10, F.S.A., thus making defendant’s counterclaim redundant. This is not the case. . . . , so that it is not “redundant” to ask for § 61.09 relief in a § 61.10 suit. . . .

E. FELDHUSEN, v. L. FELDHUSEN,, 214 So. 2d 772 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . The appellant argues that the wife should have the same rights as the husband is afforded under § 61.10 . . .

WUTH, v. UNITED STATES, 161 F. Supp. 661 (E.D. Va. 1958)

. . . accident he was 21 years of age and has received, and is receiving, a base pay of $159.95 per month, plus $61.10 . . .

MINERS SAV. BANK OF PITTSTON, PA. v. UNITED STATES, 110 F. Supp. 563 (M.D. Pa. 1953)

. . . At the sheriff’s sale the bank, as the highest and best bidder, purchased the property for $61.10. . . .

HEIKES v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 171 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1948)

. . . A statute of Minnesota, § 61.10, Minn. . . .

LAKE CITY, NETTLETON BAY ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARK. v. LUEHRMANN, 113 F.2d 458 (8th Cir. 1940)

. . . therefor the sum of $8,465, and tendered and sold to said Refunding Board all of the Series B’ bonds at $61.10 . . .

LILLY v. CONSERVATION COMMISSIONER OF LOUISIANA, 29 F. Supp. 892 (E.D. La. 1939)

. . . consideration the elements or factors above mentioned, arbitrarily set the allowable for his well at 61.10 . . . No. 1, given 31.91 barrels per day; while complainant’s well drilled on 23 acres has been given only 61.10 . . . Commissioner applied the “shape of the tract basis” to complainant’s lease, which gave him only the 61.10 . . . approximately 6 acres, and applying the permissible withdrawal of about 10 barrels per acre, gave the 61.10 . . . appear however, that the action of the Commissioner reducing the allowable from the originally fixed of 61.10 . . .

MARITIME SECURITIES CO., 2 B.T.A. 188 (B.T.A. 1925)

. . . further contends that there should be restored to its invested capital for the year 1917 an item of $61.10 . . . controversy here, the Commissioner refused to restore to taxpayer’s invested capital for 1917 the item of $61.10 . . . from the taxpayer’s invested capital until it becomes due and payable, it follows that the item of $61.10 . . . reduced by the following three amounts: (1) $331.91 overpayment on $16,898.44, at 2 per cent; (2) $61.10 . . .

DECKER v. SMITH, 225 F. 776 (N.D.N.Y. 1915)

. . . master, I will allow $20 per day for 23 days, or $460, and $100 for supervision of examinations, and $61.10 . . .

THE CHEROKEE NATION v. THE UNITED STATES THE EASTERN CHEROKEES v. THE SAME THE EASTERN AND EMIGRANT CHEROKEES v. THE SAME, 40 Ct. Cl. 252 (Ct. Cl. 1905)

. . . one year’s subsistence, as provided by the treaty of 1835, while the United States did in fact pay $61.10 . . .

BRADSTREET COMPANY v. HIGGINS, 112 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1884)

. . . exceeded its legitimate receipts during the time plaintiff acted as its superintendent in the sum of $61.10 . . . pleadings was for $1,833.42, the evidence introduced in support of it only tended to prove that there was $61.10 . . . his judgment against the company for $3,-333.92, and 2d, as to the right of the company to recover $61.10 . . .