Cases from cite.case.law:

GRABBA- LEAF, LLC, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,, 257 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See §§ 210.276 & 210.30, Fla. Stat. . . .

D ALESSANDRO, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, M. a R. JR., 713 F. App'x 1 (2d Cir. 2017)

. . . prosecutorial immunity because Morris’s failure to turn over the grand jury minutes in response to his CPL § 210.30 . . . 430, 96 S.Ct. 984), and necessarily required an understanding of her exact obligations under CPL § 210.30 . . .

MICJO, INC. a v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO,, 78 So. 3d 124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .”); § 210.30(1) (“A tax is hereby imposed upon all tobacco products in this state and upon any person . . .

WALKER, v. POOLE,, 547 F. Supp. 2d 238 (W.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . failure “to argue ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing [to] make a motion pursuant to 210.30 . . . Law § 210.30(6) (“The validity of an order denying any motion made pursuant to this section is not reviewable . . .

R. LUCIUS, v. H. FILION,, 431 F. Supp. 2d 343 (W.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . claim alleging insufficiency of grand jury evidence is barred” under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 210.30 . . .

U. S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, v. ASAT, INC., 411 F.3d 245 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

. . . . §§ 210.30(a)(1), 32(b); cf. Fed. R. Civ. . . .

VIVES, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Y. Li a Lu, a, 393 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2004)

. . . Section 210.30(1) is Unconstitutional on its Face A criminal prohibition on communicating in an annoying . . . Section 210.30(1) is Unconstitutional As Applied Moreover, § 240.30(1) is unconstitutional as applied . . .

GENENTECH, INC. v. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, A S,, 122 F.3d 1409 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

. . . substantially incomplete or incorrect is hereby imposed by the ALJ pursuant to Commission interim rule 210.30 . . . CIR 210.30(d)(2). . . . The ALJ determined that this negligence resulted in the violation of CIR 210.30(d)(2), and Ground Rules . . . A Ground Rule 4(ix) and CIR 210.30(d)(2) require the parties to supplement discovery responses. . . . Indeed, CIR 210.30(d)(2) specifies that the circumstances must demonstrate a knowing concealment. . . .

BOYD, v. HAWK,, 965 F. Supp. 443 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . CPL § 210.30 motion filed to inspect the grand jury minutes; (5) counsel failed to insure that a private . . . to Inspect Grand Jury Minutes Boyd claims that counsel’s failure to secure a decision from a CPL § 210.30 . . . NY CPL § 210.30 states, in part: “If the court determines that there is not reasonable cause to believe . . . NY CPL § 210.30(4), (5). .See also Petition p. 7 (ground six) and p. 9 (ground nine). . . .

WALLACE, v. W. ROCHE, D. J. M. V. D., 921 F. Supp. 946 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . (CPL § 210.30[3]). . . .

S. MILLER, M. B. E. v. FIRST AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST, a No., 607 So. 2d 483 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Dotterrer 210.30 1175.00 $36,802.50 Bruce S. Rosenwater 3.90 120.00 468.00 Ronald A. . . .

SHAWMUT WORCESTER COUNTY BANK, v. FIRST AMERICAN BANK TRUST,, 731 F. Supp. 57 (D. Mass. 1990)

. . . the beneficiary’s account or otherwise make the amount available to the beneficiary, 12 C.F.R. sec. 210.30 . . .

BALTIMORE LUGGAGE COMPANY v. SAMSONITE CORPORATION, 727 F. Supp. 202 (D. Md. 1989)

. . . CFR § 210.4, and as such was entitled to utilize all the discovery procedures provided by 19 CFR §§ 210.30 . . .

B. J. TANENBAUM, Jr. v. AGRI- CAPITAL, INC. O. N. A. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SHREVEPORT, v. B. J. TANENBAUM, Jr., 885 F.2d 464 (8th Cir. 1989)

. . . National filed a supplemental motion and affidavit wherein the claimed hours were reduced from 365.20 to 210.30 . . . supplemental affidavit specified only the time spent pursuing the claim on the promissory note and reflected 210.30 . . .

K. RICHARDS, v. PLATTE VALLEY BANK, H., 866 F.2d 1576 (10th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 210.30. . . .

AKZO N. V. B. V. v. o. f. v. U. S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, E. I. De Co., 808 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 210.30(d)(7) (1976), that would be produced during the discovery phase of the investigation. . . .

CAMARANO, v. CITY OF NEW YORK,, 646 F. Supp. 246 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

. . . After his indictment Camarano moved pursuant to N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 210.30 (McKinney 1982) to dismiss . . .

In CONVERTIBLE ROWING EXERCISER PATENT LITIGATION. DIVERSIFIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION, v. WESLO DESIGN INTERNATIONAL, INC. a, 616 F. Supp. 1134 (D. Del. 1985)

. . . . §§ 210.30-44 (1984). . . .

REFRACTARIOS MONTERREY, S. A. v. FERRO CORPORATION U. S., 606 F.2d 966 (C.C.P.A. 1979)

. . . Issuance of protective orders is authorized by 19 C.F.R. 210.30(d). . . .

S. A. v. U. S., 67 C.C.P.A. 153 (C.C.P.A. 1979)

. . . Issuance of protective orders is authorized by 19 C.F.R. 210.30(d). . . .

B. v. B. A. v., 29 T.C. 601 (T.C. 1957)

. . . It is true, and the petitioners now concede, that $210.30 in 1944 and $480.05 in 1945, representing interest . . .

WILLIAM H. JACKSON CO., 2 B.T.A. 411 (B.T.A. 1925)

. . . the eight months’ period, May 1 to December 31, 1918, and the calendar year 1920, in the amount of $210.30 . . .