Cases from cite.case.law:

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. ANHEUSER- BUSCH, INC., 527 So. 2d 877 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . federal and Florida returns are “sales” for apportionment purposes within the meaning of Fla.Stat., ss. 220.15 . . . held that these transactions did not constitute sales within the meaning of sections 214.71(3) and 220.15 . . . Section 220.15(1), Florida Statutes, provides that for the purposes of applying the apportionment formula . . . See § 220.15 and 214.71(3), Fla.Stat. . See Ch. 220, Fla.Stat. . . . .

L. JONES, v. J. HENDERSON,, 809 F.2d 946 (2d Cir. 1987)

. . . count of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree, in violation of N.Y.Penal Law § 220.15 . . .

SHELL OIL COMPANY, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, 496 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1986)

. . . . § 214.70-.73 & 220.15(4), Fla.Stat. (1973). . . .

In PULLIAM, 96 B.R. 208 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1986)

. . . award of attorneys’ fees in the sum of $10,489.50 and for reimbursement of expenses in the sum of $220.15 . . .

LOCKETT, v. MONTEMANGO,, 784 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1986)

. . . not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 220.15 . . . Section 220.15, an insanity defense reform measure enacted in 1980, allows a defendant to raise the issue . . . Section 220.15, in effect when appellee entered his plea, provided: “§ 220.15 Plea; plea of not responsible . . . N.Y.Crim.Proc.L. § 220.15 (McKinney 1982). . . . Juviler, one of the drafters of § 220.15, followed its dictates precisely. . . . .

In W. WARREN, a v. MONTEMANGO,, 618 F. Supp. 147 (E.D.N.Y. 1985)

. . . Criminal Procedure Law § 220.15 a judgment of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect was . . . as follows: CPL 220.15 creates a procedure resembling plea bargaining but produces a kind of reverse . . . Under the statute governing this special plea (CPL 220.15), there were only two options available to . . . CPL 220.15 required Lockett to waive trial by jury. . . . New York Criminal Procedure Law § 220.15 provides: (3) Before accepting a plea of not responsible by . . .

WESTERN ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, 472 So. 2d 497 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . ordinarily the term “sales,” for purposes of corporate taxation, does not include interest, section 220.15 . . .

SPRINKLER FITTERS AND APPRENTICES LOCAL UNION NO. U. A. a Jr. V. O. H. U. A. v. F. I. T. R. SERVICE CORPORATION, f k a H. a a, 461 So. 2d 144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . The total amount of the liens filed is $20,-220.15. . . .

SHELL OIL COMPANY, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, 461 So. 2d 959 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Sections 214.71, and 220.15, Florida Statutes. . . . Section 220.15(3), Florida Statutes. . . . outer continental shelf property and payroll do not come within the parameters of “everywhere,” Section 220.15 . . .

L. JONES, v. J. HENDERSON,, 580 F. Supp. 273 (E.D.N.Y. 1984)

. . . Section 220.35) and criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree (N.Y.Penal Law Section 220.15 . . .

ALLIS- CHALMERS CREDIT CORPORATION, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, 408 So. 2d 703 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 220.15, Florida Statutes, provides that the adjusted federal income is to be apportioned in accordance . . .

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE A. v. PARKER BANANA COMPANY, a, 391 So. 2d 762 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . . § 220.15, Fla.Stat. (1979). . . . The pertinent sections of the Florida Corporate Income Tax Law are sections 220.11(1), 220.12(1), 220.15 . . .

BELLAVIA, v. FOGG,, 613 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1979)

. . . Penal Law § 220.15 (now § 220.12). On April 4, 1973, Justice John J. . . .

BUCHWALD ENTERPRISES, INC. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, 375 So. 2d 861 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . that share of its adjusted federal income for such year which is apportioned to this state under § 220.15 . . .

COULTER ELECTRONICS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 365 So. 2d 806 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . transactions in this case do not constitute sales within the meaning of Florida Statute § 214.71(3) and § 220.15 . . . Under § 220.15(1) the term “sales” as used in the apportionment formula, is defined to include gross . . .

ROGER DEAN ENTERPRISES, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 371 So. 2d 101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Sections 220.15 and 214.71, Florida Statutes (1973). . . . .

STAN MUSIAL BIGGIE S, INC. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, 363 So. 2d 375 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Section 220.15 provides that adjusted federal income shall be apportioned to the State in accordance . . . Part IV of Ch. 214, as the apportionment fraction described in Section 214.71 is modified in Section 220.15 . . . business it was not subject to the three factor apportionment formula provided by Sections 214.-71 and 220.15 . . .

SINGLETON, v. J. LEFKOWITZ,, 583 F.2d 618 (2d Cir. 1978)

. . . N.Y.Penal Law § 220.15, repealed in 1973, read in pertinent part: A person is guilty of criminal possession . . .

A. WILLIAMS, v. J. SMITH,, 454 F. Supp. 692 (W.D.N.Y. 1978)

. . . arraigned on the charge of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree (former section 220.15 . . .

A. LOPEZ, GARCIA, v. CURRY,, 454 F. Supp. 1200 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)

. . . Penal Law § 220.15 and § 220.23. . . . .

HEFTLER CONSTRUCTION CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 334 So. 2d 129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . . § 214.71 and 220.15 the value of the property, payroll and sales utilized in the operations of the . . . The respondent cited F.S. §§ 220.13(1)(b)2.b, 220.15(3) and 214.71 as its authority. “6. . . . The apportionment factors of § 214.71 are partially defined by § 220.15. . . . As originally promulgated, § 220.15(3) defined ‘everywhere’ for purpose of computing the demoninator . . . F.S. § 220.15(3). . . .

CAMERON, v. FASTOFF,, 543 F.2d 971 (2d Cir. 1976)

. . . Penal Law §§ 220.05, 220.10, 220.15 (McKinney 1967), before Justice William C. . . .

TORRES v. BUTZ, U. S., 397 F. Supp. 1015 (N.D. Ill. 1975)

. . . needed to operate an adequate feeding program in any such school under the Breakfast Program, 7 CFR §§ 220.15 . . .

v. E. JONES, Jr., 425 F. Supp. 873 (D. Utah 1975)

. . . . § 220.15 (1974) states: The State plan: (a) Must assure that responsibility is assumed for the provision . . . This is in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 220.15 which provides that in assuming responsibility for the . . .

UNITED STATES DANEFF, v. HENDERSON,, 501 F.2d 1180 (2d Cir. 1974)

. . . Under § 220.15, possession of “preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances,” containing a drug, of . . .

CONSOLIDATED CORK CORP. v. UNITED STATES,, 438 F.2d 1241 (C.C.P.A. 1971)

. . . /cu.ft. uncompressed and thus is properly classified and dutied under item 220.15 TSUS as “other” granulated . . . Claimed under: 220.15 Other...............................................10 per lb. . . .

v., 58 C.C.P.A. 125 (C.C.P.A. 1971)

. . . /cu. ft. uncompressed and thus is properly classified and dutied under item 220.15 TSUS as “other” granulated . . . Claimed under: 220.15 Other -1^ per lb. Subpart A headnote: 1. . . .

Co. v., 65 Cust. Ct. 483 (Cust. Ct. 1970)

. . . The importations were classified either under item 220.10 or 220.15 of the Tariff Schedules of the United . . . The remaining twenty-three entries were classified under item 220.15, at one cent per pound, as weighing . . . plaintiff claims that the merchandise should be assessed at the rate of one cent per pound under item 220.15 . . . 220.10 Weighing not over 6 pounds per cubic foot uncompressed, except regranu-lated cork_ 30 per lb. 220.15 . . . all of the entries in the protests at bar were properly classified either under item 220.10 or item 220.15 . . .

CONSOLIDATED CORK CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 323 F. Supp. 538 (Cust. Ct. 1969)

. . . over 6 pounds per cubic foot uncompressed and is therefore dutiable at 1 cent per pound under item 220.15 . . . 220.10 Weighing not over 6 pounds per cubic foot uncompressed, except regranulated cork .. it per lb. 220.15 . . . Additionally, in enacting items 220.10 and 220.15 Congress dropped the requirement in paragraph 1511 . . . was set out in the Tariff Classification Study — Schedule 2 (Nov. 15, 1960), p. 47: Items 220.10 and 220.15 . . . exporter to a density of over 6 pounds per cubic foot would be dutiable at only 1 cent a pound under item 220.15 . . .

v., 63 Cust. Ct. 234 (Cust. Ct. 1969)

. . . over 6 pounds per cubic foot uncompressed and is therefore dutiable at 1 cent per pound under item 220.15 . . . ground: 220.10 Weighing not over 6 pounds per cubic foot uncompressed, except regranulated cork_ per lb. 220.15 . . . Additionally, in enacting items 220.10 and 220.15 Congress dropped the requirement in paragraph 1511 . . . was set out in the Tariff Classification Study-Schedule 2 (Nov. 15, 1960), p. 47: Items 220.10 and 220.15 . . . exporter to a density of over 6 pounds per cubic foot would be dutiable at only 1 cent a pound under item 220.15 . . .

GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION, v. MILWAUKEE WESTERN BANK,, 361 F.2d 968 (7th Cir. 1966)

. . . rules, or whether it retained the checks in its possession beyond the time limit set forth in Section 220.15 . . .

GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION, v. MILWAUKEE WESTERN BANK,, 246 F. Supp. 646 (E.D. Wis. 1965)

. . . The Wisconsin Deferred Posting law, Section 220.15(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes, insofar as applicable . . . morning, constitutes revocation of credit in respect to the Jewel checks in compliance with Section 220.15 . . . a purported breach of fiduciary duty under the Wisconsin Bank Collection Code, particularly Section 220.15 . . . The Wisconsin Bank Collection Code, Section 220.15 of the Wisconsin Statutes, does not expressly designate . . . Compare, for example, Subsections (2) and (13) (a) and (e) of Section 220.15. . . .

ARMSTRONG J. v. UNITED STATES, 327 F.2d 189 (9th Cir. 1964)

. . . taxable income reported for the year 1957 was the sum of $1,101.25 and the amount of tax due thereon was $220.15 . . .