Cases from cite.case.law:

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION b, 125 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 2013)

. . . See § 26.55, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

In IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDICIAL BRANCH GOVERNANCE STUDY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS- AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, 121 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2012)

. . . added to recreate by rule the Conference of Circuit Court Judges, which is currently created by section 26.55 . . . rule 2.220(b) (Conference of Circuit Court Judges) shall become effective upon the repeal of section 26.55 . . .

R. ROBINSON, III M. v. PLOURDE, CPS, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (D. Haw. 2010)

. . . performed by their attorneys: NAME HOURS RATE TOTAL Rory Toomey 70.75 $300.00 $21,225.00 Jack Schweigert 26.55 . . .

D P Co. v., 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 234 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)

. . . weighted average dumping margins were revised upward from 11.25% to 12.76% for Ehwa, from 11.25% to 26.55% . . .

Co. v., 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 227 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)

. . . weighted average dumping margins were revised upward from 11.25% to 12.76% for Ehwa, from 11.25% to 26.55% . . .

v. Co. SH Co., 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 211 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)

. . . weighted average dumping margins were revised upward from 11.25% to 12.76% for Ehwa, from 11.25% to 26.55% . . .

Co. v., 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 219 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)

. . . weighted average dumping margins were revised upward from 11.25% to 12.76% for Ehwa, from 11.25% to 26.55% . . .

CUNNEY, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VILLAGE OF GRAND VIEW, W., 675 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . measurement was taken- — a point closest to the house in question, not the lowest point on the road — is 26.55 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MAXWELL, a. k. a., 579 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 26.55(c)(1). . . . . § 26.55(c)(2). . . . through which funds are passed in order to obtain the appearance of DBE participation. 49 C.F.R. § 26.55 . . .

IRAHETA v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE CO., 353 F. Supp. 2d 592 (D. Md. 2005)

. . . check for the balance due on the first month’s premium on the new policy and received a check for $26.55 . . .

MARTINO, v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,, 230 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D. Mass. 2002)

. . . which were devoted to his whistleblower claim, the Court will divide them in half, and assume that 26.55 . . . It will further reduce those 26.55 hours by fifty percent, to" 13.275 hours, as a sanction for Notis’ . . .

UNITED STATES v. BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF OHIO, INCORPORATED, v., 219 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 26.55. . . . . § 26.55(c)(2), funds paid to a DBE contractor count toward the DBE goal “only if the DBE is performing . . . a commercially useful function,” 49 C.F.R. § 26.55(c). . . . on the contract, for ... ordering the material ... and paying for the material itself. 49 C.F.R. § 26.55 . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 26.55(a)(1). . . .

A. NEMIR, v. MITSUBISHI MOTOR SALES OF AMERICA, 60 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Mich. 1999)

. . . 36.35, 40.00, 49.55 Buckle Five (listed as Sample 6): 7.60, 11.50, 21.55, 30.80, 8.10, 9.75, 13.30, 26.55 . . .

M. STURGIS, v. SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,, 826 F. Supp. 973 (E.D. Va. 1993)

. . . That contribution has been increasing constantly to a current rate of $26.55 per day. . . .

In J. DOBISCH, DOBISCH, v. UNITED STATES W., 156 B.R. 546 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1993)

. . . assessed a late filing penalty of $398.27, an under payment penalty of $163.28, a late penalty of $26.55 . . .

KETCHUM, v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,, 630 F. Supp. 551 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . compromise map, Blacks have a 58.03% V.A.P. majority, while Whites comprise 14.72%, and Hispanics comprise 26.55% . . . The breakdown is as follows: Total Population Voting Age Population Hispanic 30.09 26.55 Whites 11.33 . . .

JENKINS, v. STATE OF MISSOURI,, 639 F. Supp. 19 (W.D. Mo. 1985)

. . . teachers, equaling a 26.55 to 1 student-teacher ratio average in grades 1 through 3 (KCMSD Exh. . . .

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

. . . 18.66 31.68 18.64 18.26 38.92 23.16 26.13 22.46 15.25 21.22 28.30 14.67 36.25 29.23 26.15 21.46 23.54 26.55 . . .

LEWIS STATE BANK v. PARSONS, 6 Fla. Supp. 2d 19 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1984)

. . . The plaintiff admits liability in regard to the basic claim of $136.00 plus costs of $26.55, so the real . . . ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court now enters judgment in favor of the Bank for $136.00 plus costs of $26.55 . . .

Ma- v., 70 T.C. 158 (T.C. 1978)

. . . .$279.60 $853.21 0 Entertainment and automobile .. 26.55 16.75 0 306.15 869.96 0 Eespondent’s agent began . . .

INVESTORS DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 216 Ct. Cl. 192 (Ct. Cl. 1978)

. . . 1966 843,591,261 225,865,864 26.77% 1967 881,977,930 234,637,895 26.60% 1968 909,204,425 241,434,344 26.55% . . .

XEROX CORPORATION, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, v. XEROX CORPORATION,, 75 F.R.D. 668 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26 [now ¶ 26.55] (2d ed. 1970). . . .

P. SMITH v. R. SCHLESINGER,, 513 F.2d 462 (D.C. Cir. 1975)

. . . useful in case preparation, though not directly admissible in evidence.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practise j] 26.55 . . .

EVERETT PLYWOOD CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES, 512 F.2d 1082 (Ct. Cl. 1975)

. . . Under the contract, plaintiff was obliged to pay a minimum of $26.55 per MBF for approximately 1,300 . . . However, even the $26.55 was only a minimum figure, for the Service had the right to redetermine the . . .

EVERETT PLYWOOD CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, 206 Ct. Cl. 244 (Ct. Cl. 1975)

. . . Under the contract, plaintiff was obliged to pay a minimum of $26.55 per MBF for approximately 1,300 . . . However, even the $26.55 was only a minimum figure, for the Service had the right to redetermine the . . . Thus, at a competitive-volume price of $26.55, timber appraised at $50 would have given plaintiff an . . .

MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS, v. GOLDMAN, SACHS CO. CATHEDRAL ESTATES, INC. v. L. LEVY, 58 F.R.D. 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26 [now ¶26.55] (2d ed. 1970). . . .

GLOBAL VAN LINES, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 456 F.2d 717 (Ct. Cl. 1972)

. . . quotation offered to transport military household goods from North Carolina to Germany at a rate of $26.55 . . . plaintiff billed defendant for a transportation charge in the amount of $233.64, based on a rate of $26.55 . . .

GLOBAL VAN LINES, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 197 Ct. Cl. 575 (Ct. Cl. 1972)

. . . quotation offered to transport military household goods from North Carolina to Germany at a rate of $26.55 . . . plaintiff billed defendant for a transportation charge in the amount of $233.64, based on a rate of $26.55 . . . defendant for, and was paid, a transportation charge in the amount of $233.64, based on a rate of $26.55 . . .

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

. . . Nor was oral hearing on the matter ever requested under Section 26.55 of the regulations. . . . And provision for a hearing is found in Sec. 26.55: “Opportunity for hearing. . . .

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

. . . Nor was oral hearing on the matter ever requested under Section 26.55 of the regulations. . . . And provision for a hearing is found in § 26.55: “Opportunity for hearing- Opportunity for hearing will . . .

In GOLDBERG, 269 F. 392 (E.D. Mo. 1920)

. . . years of age, and of this latter group 3,116,182 were illiterate in their own tongue—■ a proportion of 26.55 . . .

In CAMPBELL, 124 F. 417 (W.D. Va. 1903)

. . . . $ 26.55 548 -undershirts .......... 175.89 248 workshirts .......... 88.71 70 prs. shoes .......... . . .