Cases from cite.case.law:

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. A. GRUSS,, 245 F. Supp. 3d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . $125.11 by May 2006, and the same $100 investment in the C/S Tremont Multi-Strategy sub-index growing to $124.03 . . . investment in the Offshore Fund would have grown to'$125.11 and that the same $100 investment growing to $124.03 . . .

GODIN, v. SCHENCKS,, 629 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2010)

. . . Moore et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice § 124.03[2][a] (3d ed. 2009). . . .

ESTATE OF J. MANDARINO, v. MANDARINO, 699 F. Supp. 2d 646 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . (quoting 17 Moore’s Federal Practice § 124.03 (3d ed. 2008)); Meridien Int’l Bank Ltd. v. . . .

ROTHE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 545 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . disadvantage and other eligibility requirements established in subpart A of this part [including § 124.03 . . .

UNITED STATES v. IBANGA,, 271 F. App'x 298 (4th Cir. 2008)

. . . sentencing that the government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Ibanga had trafficked in 124.03 . . . to be credible; and, based on Gelardi’s testimony, found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 124.03 . . . probation officer to calculate the Guidelines range without considering the acquitted conduct (the 124.03 . . .

UNITED STATES v. IBANGA,, 454 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Va. 2006)

. . . Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Ibanga was responsible for distributing 124.03 . . .

COOPER, v. EAGLE RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., 270 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2001)

. . . Code § HFS 124.03(6) and (7). . . .

PROHASKA v. SOFAMOR, S. N. C. f k a S. A., 138 F. Supp. 2d 422 (W.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . This view is confirmed in 17 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d, § 124.03, “Determining Scope (Pertinence) of . . .

COMPUTER ECONOMICS, INC. v. GARTNER GROUP, INC., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980 (S.D. Cal. 1999)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 124.03[1] (3d ed. 1998) (“Typically, courts deem a federal rule . . .

GIL DE REBOLLO, v. MIAMI HEAT ASSOCIATIONS, INC. GIL DE REBOLLO, v. MIAMI HEAT ASSOCIATIONS, INC., 137 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 1998)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 124.03[1] (3d ed.1997). . . .

S. SMITH, v. W. SUSHKA,, 117 F.3d 965 (6th Cir. 1997)

. . . See Ohio Rev.Code § 124.03. . . . .

COLLYER, v. DARLING,, 98 F.3d 211 (6th Cir. 1996)

. . . . § 124.03 (Baldwin 1992). The decisions of the SPBR may be appealed to the Ohio courts. . . .

LUPO, v. V. VOINOVICH,, 858 F. Supp. 699 (S.D. Ohio 1994)

. . . Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 124.03, the State Personnel Board of Review (SPBR) has the power to review . . .

In SACO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. Co. d b a R., 711 F.2d 441 (1st Cir. 1983)

. . . orders in bankruptcy “proceedings” could only be heard by leave of the Courts of Appeals, see 2 Collier 124.03 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GORDON,, 634 F.2d 639 (1st Cir. 1980)

. . . See 8A Moore’s Federal Practice, *124.03. . . .

In DUPLAN CORPORATION, CHEMICAL BANK, v. P. SLANER,, 591 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1978)

. . . See Id., (124.03 [4] at 705. . . .

W. TIMSON, v. WEINER, 395 F. Supp. 1344 (S.D. Ohio 1975)

. . . . § 124.03(G)]. . . .

SYSTRON- DONNER CORPORATION, a v. PALOMAR SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, a, 239 F. Supp. 148 (N.D. Cal. 1965)

. . . It has also been held that a single sale of eight (8) filter units for $124.03 would not necessarily . . .

J. G. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, v. ALL- TRONICS, INC., 198 F. Supp. 392 (E.D.N.Y. 1961)

. . . The total price of the eight filter units, including transportation was $124.03. Transcript p. 12. . . .

EAST ST. LOUIS COTTON OIL COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES TEMPLE COTTON OIL MILL v. THE UNITED STATES, 81 Ct. Cl. 512 (Ct. Cl. 1935)

. . . Louis Cotton Oil Co. averaged only 124.03 pounds of munition linters from each ton of cottonseed crushed . . .