Cases from cite.case.law:

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02 and 1.04 in reaching her conclusion. . . .

. . . Restatement § 1.02; see also U.S. v. . . . Restatement § 1.02 cmt. b. Henderson alleges that USA Funds is doing just that. . . . Restatement § 1.02 cmt. d.; see also, e.g. , Romak USA, Inc. v. . . .

. . . Plaintiff complains about the ALJ's assessment of listing 1.02(A), which applies to a "[m]ajor dysfunction . . . P, App. 1, § 1.02(A). . . . Although the ALJ did not specifically address the requirements of listing 1.02(A), his decision expressly . . . inconsistent with the existence of an extreme limitation on the ability to walk as required by listing 1.02 . . . establish and, in fact, did not suffer from an inability to effectively ambulate, as required by listing 1.02 . . .

. . . In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ gave particular attention to listings 1.02 (Major dysfunction of . . .

. . . The ALJ considered Listings 1.02 ("Major dysfunction of a joint(s)"), 1.03 ("Reconstructive surgery or . . . P, App. 1, Listings 1.02, 1.03, 1.04. . . .

. . . . & Regs. 375-3-1.02(6) ("Each customer must provide documentation of his or her citizenship or lawful . . .

. . . The ALJ considered Listings 1.02, 1.04, and 3.03, in determining that Bonilla-Bukhari did not exhibit . . .

. . . Dec. of PRT Exhibit B, Page 61, § 1.02(a-b). 20. . . .

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02(a), 1.04, 12.04, 12.08, and 12.09 in reaching . . .

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 12.04, and 12.06 in reaching her conclusion . . .

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 3.03, 12.04, and 12.06 in reaching his . . .

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 5.00, 12.04, and 12.09 in reaching his . . .

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 12.04, and 12.06 in reaching his conclusion . . . three, the ALJ considered the severity of Plaintiff's physical impairments in the context of Listing 1.02 . . .

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 12.04, and 12.06, in reaching her conclusion . . .

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 1.04, 12.04, 12.06, and 12.15 in reaching . . .

. . . meet listing 1.02, which relates to major dysfunctions of joints. 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpt. . . . P, App. 1, § 1.02. . . . P, App. 1, § 1.02. . . . So any error the ALJ made when she found Courtney did not meet listing 1.02 was harmless. . . . The ALJ's treatment of listing 1.02 does not provide an independent basis for remand. . . .

. . . The ALJ considered Listings 1.02 and 1.04, determining that Martes did not exhibit the necessary medical . . .

. . . (See PEx. 1 Arts. 1.01, 1.02, 2.01, 2.04, 3.01). . . . (See PEx. 1 Arts. 1.02, 4.01). . . . approximately $500,000 in unpaid service contract revenue that Rigaku has withheld in violation of CSA Art. 1.02 . . . Rigaku has improperly withheld $500,000 in unpaid service contract revenue in violation of CSA Art. 1.02 . . .

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 1.03, and 1.04 in reaching his conclusion . . .

. . . (Id. at § 1.02.) . . . (See Equilon Contract §§ 1.02, 1.04, 1.10.) No such provisions appear in the butane supply section. . . .

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 12.02, 12.04, 12.06, 12.09 . . .

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02 and 1.04 in reaching his conclusion. . . .

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02 and 1.04 in reaching his conclusion, as . . . Donald Goldman had testified that Plaintiff's orthopedic impairments equaled Listings 1.00(B)(2)(b), 1.02 . . . ALJ further explained that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of Listings 1.02 . . .

. . . . § 1.02. . . .

. . . The Salon generated approximately $1.02 million in revenue from 2010 through 2013. . . .

. . . The share price fell an additional 40%, to $1.02, by June 23, 2015. . . .

. . . proxy respondents was 1.77 (0.99, 3.17), and when proxy respondents were included, the result was 1.73 (1.02 . . .

. . . In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ considered Listing 1.02, Major Dysfunction of a Joint; Listing 4.00 . . . P, app. 1 §§ 1.02, 4.00, 12.04, 12.09. . . . The ALJ determined that Listing 1.02 was not met because the record evidence did not "demonstrate the . . . Having found that Colbert could not meet Listings 1.02, 4.00, 12.04, or 12.09, the ALJ next assessed . . .

. . . The EAA Act, §§ 1.01-1.02 (docket no. 119, exh. A). B. . . .

. . . With regard to listing 1.02, the ALJ focused on Ms. . . .

. . . See BECK & KELLEY, 1-1 WATERS AND WATER RIGHTS § 1.02 (2017). . . .

. . . See BECK & KELLEY , 1-1 WATERS AND WATER RIGHTS § 1.02 (2017). . . .

. . . PX-3 at 1, § 1.02. Id. at 2, § 2.02. Id. at 3, § 8. Id. at 2, § 3, Ex. 1. PX-4 at 1, §§ 1.01, 1.02. . . .

. . . The ALJ also found that plaintiff's impairments did not meet the criteria of Section 1.02, but plaintiff . . .

. . . fine and gross movements effectively," and she fails to meet the standard set forth in Medical Listing 1.02 . . . Medical Listing 1.02 reads: 1.02 Major dysfunction of a joint(s) (due to any cause): Characterized by . . .

. . . . §§ 1.01(A), 1.02(C) ). . . .

. . . As noted in Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1.02 (16th ed. 2017), “The discharge is of singular importance to . . .

. . . following the first quarter of 2016, anticipated full-year revenue for 2016 to "be in the range of $1.02 . . .

. . . (Id. ) The ALJ reasoned that plaintiff's impairment of the ankle did not meet listings 1.02 or 1.06, . . .

. . . that "victim restitution" be added to the general purposes of the sentencing system as expressed in § 1.02 . . .

. . . step three in his determination that Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Impairment Listings 1.02 . . . step three in her determination that Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Impairment Listings 1.02 . . . Listings 1.02 addressing Major Dysfunction of Joints, also considers the inability to ambulate effectively . . . P, App. 1, § 1.02. In Jones v. . . . For the same reason, the claimant's hip impairment does not meet the requirements of Listing 1.02. . . .

. . . appropriate medically acceptable imaging of joint space narrowing, bony destruction, or ankylosis (Listing 1.02 . . .

. . . (The conversion price and warrant and option exercise prices were later changed to $1.02 per share.) . . .

. . . Permanent Easement for 1.02 Acres , No. 17-cv-1725. Doc. 29 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2017). . . .

. . . In making this finding, the ALJ considered “Listing 1.04(A) (disorders of the spine),” “Listing 1.02( . . .

. . . The ALJ looked specifically at Listing 1.04, disorders of the spine, and Listing 1.02, major dysfunction . . . alternative listing which the ALJ did not consider, we address the ALJ’s decision based on listings 1.02 . . .

. . . SB 4 at Section 1.02, Tex. . . .

. . . Section 1.02(2) of the General Conditions provides the parties’ statement of how they chose to define . . . Section 3.02(A) defines which types of standards, specifications, and the like are meant by section 1.02 . . .

. . . VIIB, Interpretations & Policies § 1.01, .02 (§ 1.01 amended 2014; § 1.02 adopted 2002). . . .

. . . in awarding a fee of 33% of a $26.5 million settlement fund, amounting to' a lodestar multiplier of 1.02 . . .

. . . The ALJ considered Listings 1.02 (major dysfunction of any joint), 1.04 (disorders of the spine), 12.04 . . .

. . . Bill Denny: As we’re sitting here talking, in real cash on hand they have a $1.02 for every $100 deposit . . .

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, specifically considering Listing 1.02. Id. at 8. . . .

. . . trading resumed on January 13, 2016, KaloBios stock “opened at $2,51, reached an intra-day low of $1.02 . . .

. . . clause in contract between automobile dealer and manufacturer and citing Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02 . . .

. . . these impairments alone or in combination did not meet or equal a listing impairment, including Listing 1.02 . . . Dereschuk does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals Listing 1.02 . . . court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination that Dereschuk did not meet Listings 1.02 . . .

. . . opined that those impairments did not meet or equal a Listing, stating that he had considered Listings 1.02 . . .

. . . .) § 1.02 Comm. cmt. . . . court gave a proper limiting instruction prior to opening statements, and read Pattern Jury Instruction 1.02 . . .

. . . In section 1.02 of the RLP, GSA described the space it was seeking: “a minimum of 108,850 to a maximum . . .

. . . With respect to Step 3, the ALJ considered whether Lloyd’s impairments met Listing 1.02, involving major . . . The ALJ already had concluded during her evaluation of Listing 1.02 that one of the listings’ shared . . . Thus her later discussion supported her determination that Listing 1.02 was not met; she did not need . . .

. . . Perry’s reading of QL-PAY showed that plaintiffs work was at a pay factor of 1.02, meaning that plaintiff . . . on the results of statistical analysis), A700 (Perry Dep. 139:1-7) (explaining that a pay factor of 1.02 . . .

. . . (Benefit Plan, Section 1.02, Appellant’s App’x at 325.) . . .

. . . property owned by the Debtors, and Soffe retained title to the Disputed Goods pursuant to sections 1.02 . . .

. . . In this circuit, district courts must conduct a colloquy akin to that in section 1.02 of the Bench Book . . .

. . . 1.01 of the Intercreditor Agreement provides that the “rules of interpretation contained in Section 1.02 . . . to the Senior Credit Agreement shall apply to this Agreement,” IA § 1.01; section 1.02 of the Credit . . . (CA § 1.02.) . . . (CA § 1.02.) . . .

. . . in finding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s step-three determination regarding Listing 1.02 . . .

. . . District Court Judges 1.02(c) (2013). . . .

. . . Id. at § 1.02. . . .

. . . In light of Plaintiffs specific impairments, the ALJ compared her impairments to listing 1.02, which . . . Listing 1.02 is [cjharacterized by gross anatomical deformity ... and chronic joint pain ... with signs . . . P, App. 1, § 1.02. . . . As explained above, listing 1.02 requires a showing of impairment in both upper joints. . . . Listing 1.02 also requires any impairments to a weight-bearing joint to cause an “extreme limitation . . .

. . . See Local Rule 1.02(b)(1), United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)) ( . . .

. . . Id. at 2, ¶¶ 1.01-1.02. . . .

. . . In this regard, paragraph 1.02, subparagraph C of the RLP provides that: Offered space must be contiguous . . . (with the exception of the ground level/first floor space referenced in paragraph 1.02.A. above) and . . .

. . . . 286, is evidence that he referred to size OOel capsules because the volume of size OOel capsules (1.02 . . . fill volume of standard size 00 capsules listed in Lightfoot, not that of size OOel capsules, which is 1.02 . . .

. . . that the Tollway granted at least some front-end waivers between January 2006 and July 2012, involving 1.02% . . .

. . . Listing 1.02 Regarding Major Dysfunction of a Joint Listing 1.02 provides: Major dysfunction of a joint . . . P, App. 1 § 1.02 (emphasis added). . . . Therefore, in order to meet the criteria of Listing 1.02, the evidence must show that the claimant is . . . Therefore, Arring-ton has not met his burden of proving an impairment that met listing 1.02. . . . Therefore, this court concludes that the ALJ’s finding with respect to Listing 1.02 must be upheld on . . .

. . . P, App. 1, Listing 1.02(B)— which governs the evaluation of a claimant’s ability to perform fine and . . .

. . . Listing 1.02 concerns the major dysfunction of a joint, which is characterized by: gross anatomical deformity . . . P, App. 1 § 1.02. . . .

. . . authority of the agent.” 12 Williston on Contracts at § 35:2; see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02 . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02; see also, e.g., Matter of Carolin Paxson Advert., Inc., 938 F.2d . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02. . . . .

. . . authority of the agent.” 12 Williston on Contracts at § 35:2; see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02 . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02; see also, e.g., Matter of Carolin Paxson Advert., Inc., 938 F.2d . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02. . . . .

. . . The ALJ gave particular consideration to Listings 1.02 (Dysfunction of a major joint), 1.04 (Disorders . . .

. . . The ALJ considered Listings 1.02, pertaining to a major dysfunction of a joint; 1.04, pertaining to disorders . . .

. . . Paragraph 1.02 provides “You are authorized, empowered, and able to enter into and fully perform your . . .

. . . scheduled on the May 17, 2016 meeting in order to comply with the publication requirements of Section 1.02 . . .

. . . significant increase in traffic between 2001 and 2005, Beehive was required to reduce its rates from 4.59 to 1.02 . . .

. . . Article 1.02(B)(6) of the Law of Corporations of Puerto Rico provide that articles of incorporation may . . . Schroeder, supra at §§ 1.02[4], 1.02[6], 7.01[1], 10.01[2], 10.01[3], 11.01, 12.01 [2], provides a valuable . . .

. . . . & Regs. 391-3-1.02(2)(a)7(i)). . . .

. . . Information to be Included in the Report for Form 8-K (SEC Form 873), Section 1.02, at 5, https://www.sec.gov . . .

. . . Document #15-1 at 6 ¶ 1.02. . . .

. . . In reaching that conclusion, the ALJ considered listings 1.02 (major dysfunction of a joint), 1.03 (reconstructive . . . With respect to listings 1.02, 1.04, 3.02, and 14.09, the ALJ simply described the requirements of the . . .

. . . Ann. art. 6243i §§ 1.02(3), 4.03(a). . . .

. . . court questions the relevance of such labels to the present issue, See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02 . . .

. . . B, § 1.02 [hereinafter “Agreement”].) . . . Soon thereafter, NPS refused to honor its obligations under § 1.02. . . . NPS’s default prior to formal initiation of this litigation to be reasonable and reimbursable under § 1.02 . . . $9,433.25 billed by DLA Piper in this matter constitutes reasonable attorneys’ fees recoverable under § 1.02 . . .

. . . And the ALJ further explained that, under listings 1.02, 1.03, and 1.04, Putnam’s knee injury did not . . .