Cases from cite.case.law:

FERK FAMILY, LP, v. FRANK,, 240 So. 3d 826 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . thereafter, the Member interests in Med-Rite were as follows: MEMBER MANAGER %INTEREST Ferk Family, LP 26.49% . . . Family, which resulted in giving Ferk Family Mas-Rite's 16.21% interest in Med-Rite (in addition to the 26.49% . . .

M. KNIGHT, v. CHIEF JUDGE OF FLORIDA S TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT E., 235 So. 3d 996 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 26.49, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . Pursuant to section 26.49, Florida Statutes (2016), “[t]he sheriff of the county shall be the executive . . .

FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 134 Fed. Cl. 680 (Fed. Cl. 2017)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49[5] [h] [v] (3d ed. 2012) (footnotes omitted) (“Federal courts . . .

WHALEY, v. HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM,, 172 F. Supp. 3d 994 (E.D. Mich. 2016)

. . . During the relevant period, the plaintiff earned a straight-time rate of approximately $26.49 per hour . . .

AMERICAN POWER PULL CORP. v. UNITED STATES,, 121 F. Supp. 3d 1296 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015)

. . . of estimated antidumping duties on imports of hand trucks manufactured by Qingdao Taifa at a rate of 26.49 . . . estimated antidumping duties on future imports of hand trucks manufactured by Qingdao Taifa at a rate of 26.49 . . . The cash deposits that Customs collected on the entries, at a rate of 26.49 percent, were estimated antidumping . . .

In KELLOGG BROWN ROOT, INC., 796 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

. . . MooRE et al., Moore’s Federal PraCtioe § 26.49(5) (3d ed.1997)). . . .

In KELLOGG BROWN ROOT, INC., 418 U.S. App. D.C. 137 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 26.49(5) (3d ed.1997)). . . .

QVC, INC. v. MJC AMERICA, LTD. d b a, 904 F. Supp. 2d 466 (E.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . QVC claims that $26.49 constituted its profit on the sale of each Heater — profit that QVC would have . . . In fact the TSV price of $67.86 less the per-Heater cost price of $41.07 equals $26.79, not $26.49. . . . QVC, however, calculated its lost profits at a rate of $26.49/Heater and I will award damages based on . . .

QINGDAO TAIFA GROUP CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2011)

. . . The only calculated rate for Taifa is 26.49%. Id. . . .

Co. v., 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 1435 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)

. . . The court does find support for Commerce’s rejection of Taifa’s 26.49% rate from the original investigation . . .

QINGDAO TAIFA GROUP CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 760 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)

. . . The court does find support for Commerce’s rejection of Taifa’s 26.49% rate from the original investigation . . .

WEBXCHANGE INC. v. DELL INC. v. s, 264 F.R.D. 123 (D. Del. 2010)

. . . Moore et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49[1]. . . .

Co. v., 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1090 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . Commerce determined that Taifa’s individual weighted-average dumping margin was 26.49%, as opposed to . . .

QINGDAO TAIFA GROUP CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . Commerce determined that Taifa’s individual weighted-average dumping margin was 26.49%, as opposed to . . .

ANAYA v. CBS BROADCASTING, INC. a, 251 F.R.D. 645 (D.N.M. 2007)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49[4], at 26-182 (3d ed.1997). . . .

HOWELL, v. JOFFE,, 483 F. Supp. 2d 659 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . Moore Et Al„ Moore's Federal Practice § 26.49(5)(e) (3d ed.1997) (collecting cases). . . . .

NXIVM CORPORATION, W. R. v. J. O HARA, F., 241 F.R.D. 109 (N.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49[5] (3d ed.2005); In re Pfohl Bros. . . .

TRUDEAU, a USA L. L. C. v. NEW YORK STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION BOARD A., 237 F.R.D. 325 (N.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49[5] (3d ed.2005); In re Pfohl Bros. . . .

In C. BENUN, Co. v. C., 339 B.R. 115 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2006)

. . . Moscony, 927 F.2d 742, 753 (3d Cir.1991); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 26.49[1] (Matthew Bender 3d ed . . . 4th ed.), 45-262, and Supplement (2004), 9-55 (hereinafter "Epstein”); 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 26.49 . . .

J. LUGOSCH, III L. A. A. C. C. K. v. J. CONGEL, L. L. C. A. A. R., 219 F.R.D. 220 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49[5] (3d ed.1999); Pfohl Bros., 175 F.R.D. at 24-26. . . . the concept of attorney-client privilege to another realm of protection. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49 . . . joint defense agreement almost at any stage where litigation is feared. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49 . . .

In VARGAS, 257 B.R. 157 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2001)

. . . Finance’s Federal Disclosure Statement showing it had loaned $2,959.16 at an annual percentage rate of 26.49% . . . The court found that reaffirming a debt of $2,427.54 at 26.49% interest with monthly payments on $120.00 . . .

C. DENIUS, v. DUNLAP, 209 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2000)

. . . See generally Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 26.49; Weinstein’s Federal Evidence 2d ch. 503. . . .

AMGEN INC. v. HOECHST MARION ROUSSEL, INC., 190 F.R.D. 287 (D. Mass. 2000)

. . . , Research & Mgmt., Inc., 647 F.2d 18, 24 ([9th Cir.1981]); see also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, If 26.49 . . .

M. CLARK, S. a k a v. BUFFALO WIRE WORKS CO. INC., 190 F.R.D. 93 (W.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49[1] and n. 6. . . .

SPARTON CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 44 Fed. Cl. 557 (Fed. Cl. 1999)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49[1] at 26-165 (3d ed.1997); but see, Shearing, 975 F.2d at 1546 . . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49[5] at 26-174 (3d ed.1997); see also Workman, 138 F.3d at 1264 . . .

In COLLEGE LANDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,, 248 B.R. 619 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49[1] (3d ed.1997). . . . Moore’s, at § 26.49[6]. See, also, United States v. . . .

IDEAL ELECTRONIC SECURITY CO. INC. v. INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 129 F.3d 143 (D.C. Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.49[5] (3d ed.1997). . . .

A. TIRADO, v. S. REESE,, 478 So. 2d 883 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . . § 26.49, Fla. Stat. (1983). . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 33.58 20.72 23.12 23.97 19.14 19.06 19.97 35.37 19.88 17.55 17.23 21.22 22.44 16.35 12.40 23.90 17.46 26.49 . . .

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 208 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1975)

. . . dollars Percent $0.01 to $99.99.,. 473 46.28 $21,966.72 14.62 100.00 to 199.99,. 279 27.30 39,795.20 26.49 . . .

T. A. BUCHANAN, v. JIMENEZ, W., 155 So. 2d 724 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)

. . . instant proceedings in the trial court and merely acted in his capacity as Executive Officer [Sec. 26.49 . . .

FARMERS COOPERATIVE ELEVATOR COMPANY v. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION,, 144 F. Supp. 65 (D.S.D. 1956)

. . . In fact, Section 26.49 of the regulations provides: “Any party desiring to appeal may in advance transmit . . .

ELBOW LAKE COOPERATIVE GRAIN COMPANY v. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION,, 144 F. Supp. 54 (D. Minn. 1956)

. . . In fact, Section 26.49 of the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture issued under the United States . . .

B. v., 46 B.T.A. 337 (B.T.A. 1942)

. . . share 9 times average earnings 34.06 “ “ 8 times average earnings 30.00 “ “ 7 times average earnings 26.49 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 44 F. Supp. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)

. . . 1926, the first year of the table, the cost (A) is put at 13.82 cents and the net selling price (B) at 26.49 . . .

v., 37 B.T.A. 244 (B.T.A. 1938)

. . . Yol. 3, Paul and Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 279, par. 26.49. . . .

v. v., 19 B.T.A. 1080 (B.T.A. 1930)

. . . invested capital for the preceding three years, based on a full year’s operation for each year, was 26.49 . . .