Cases from cite.case.law:

UNITED STATES v. WADDELL, 151 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (S.D. Ga. 2015)

. . . Doc. 135-1 at 3 (It pays an employee $26.56 an hour to observe, Waddell while he’s on the internet); . . .

ESTATE OF W. THOMPSON, W. J. W. J. v. KAWASAKI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD. U. S. A., 291 F.R.D. 297 (N.D. Iowa 2013)

. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[3], at 142-43 (2d ed.1984)); see also Resolution Trust Corp . . .

ADELMAN Co- v. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA,, 276 F.R.D. 681 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice § 26.56[1], p. 26-131 n. 34 (2d ed. 1976)). . . .

EDWARD J. GOODMAN LIFE INCOME TRUST, v. JABIL CIRCUIT, INC., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . would cost hundreds of millions of dollars” and require layoffs caused the share price to decline from $26.56 . . .

EDWARD J. GOODMAN LIFE INCOME TRUST, v. JABIL CIRCUIT, INC., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . cost hundreds of millions of dollars” and require layoffs “caused the stock price to decline from $26.56 . . .

BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY, v. GE IONICS, INC. GE, 469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006)

. . . Grotheer, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[3], at 142-43 (2d ed.1984)); see also Resolution Trust Corp . . .

WARD v. BANK OF NEW YORK,, 455 F. Supp. 2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . Thus, under New York labor law, the most Ward is entitled to recover from BONY is $26.56. . . .

In ENDSLEY, ENDSLEY, v. L. ENDSLEY UNITED STATES v. ENDSLEY, L. L., 204 B.R. 242 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . retirement benefit of the total he was receiving under the consolidated benefit program granting Lena 26.56% . . . retirement check in the amount necessary to pay the money Judgment, and an additional amount representing 26.56% . . .

CESSNA FINANCE CORPORATION, v. C. WALL,, 876 F. Supp. 273 (M.D. Ga. 1994)

. . . judgment in the amount $97,198.76 in principal, $24,288.15 in interest accruing until January 15, 1994, $26.56 . . .

COLEMAN v. AMERICAN RED CROSS M. D. J. M. D., 23 F.3d 1091 (6th Cir. 1994)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.56[4], Further, as we have previously noted, “[t]he scope of discovery . . .

W. BOUSTEAD, J. C. R. v. L. BARANCID n k a, 151 F.R.D. 102 (E.D. Wis. 1993)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1], p. 26-131 n. 34 (2d ed. 1976)). . . .

S. VILLAR, v. CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION, S. VILLAR, v. CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION,, 990 F.2d 1489 (5th Cir. 1993)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[6] (2d ed. 1991) (relating that ”[i]n cases in which jurisdiction . . .

STABILUS, A DIVISION OF FICHTEL SACHS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. HAYNSWORTH, BALDWIN, JOHNSON AND GREAVES, P. A., 144 F.R.D. 258 (E.D. Pa. 1992)

. . . Hrinda, 56 F.R.D. 11, 12, 16 F.R.Serv.2d 592, 594-95, and quotes Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 26.56[3] . . .

E. WATSON, v. LOWCOUNTRY RED CROSS,, 974 F.2d 482 (4th Cir. 1992)

. . . See generally 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1] (1989 and 1990-91 Cum.Supp.). . . .

MULTI- CORE, INC. v. SOUTHERN WATER TREATMENT COMPANY,, 139 F.R.D. 262 (D. Mass. 1991)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, § 26.56(1) (1976)). . . .

BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, LTD. v. SCHUYLKILL ENERGY RESOURCES INCORPORATED,, 124 F.R.D. 523 (D. Mass. 1989)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1], p. 26-131 n. 34 (2d ed. 1976). Oppenheimer Fund v. . . .

RICH, v. KIS CALIFORNIA, INC. BUIE, v. KIS CALIFORNIA, INC. BRADDY, v. KIS CALIFORNIA, INC. SUMMERS, v. KIS CALIFORNIA, INC., 121 F.R.D. 254 (M.D.N.C. 1988)

. . . Grother, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 26.56(6) (2d ed.1987). . . .

DAVIDSON PIPE COMPANY, Co. Co. v. LAVENTHOL AND HORWATH, F. J. B. C. M., 120 F.R.D. 455 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . Loew’s Inc., 21 F.R.D. 347, 360 (S.D.N.Y.1958); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 26.56[1] (2d ed. 1983). . . .

M. CARLINI, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,, 521 So. 2d 254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Moore, in paragraph 26.56[6], provides a reason for not placing the burden of volunteering information . . .

In READING TUBE CORPORATION, 73 B.R. 99 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987)

. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice, If 26.56 [1] (2d ed. 1984). . . .

VINUELA, v. S. S. BRITANIS S. S. DOLPHIN, 647 F. Supp. 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

. . . On May 15 plaintiff was paid $426.56 representing $400 for the first half of the month of May and $26.56 . . .

MICROWAVE RESEARCH CORPORATION, v. SANDERS ASSOCIATES, INC., 110 F.R.D. 669 (D. Mass. 1986)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, Sec: 26.56(1), p. 26-131 (2d ed. 1976). . . .

S. LAPENNA, v. UPJOHN COMPANY, 110 F.R.D. 15 (E.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[3], at 142-43 (2d ed. 1984). . . . Grotheer, supra ¶ 26.56[3], at 143 & n.n. 19 & 20. . . .

S. HICKMAN, v. UNITED STATES,, 8 Cl. Ct. 748 (Ct. Cl. 1985)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 26.56[1], at 26-104 (2d ed. 1984) (“In general, discovery can be had . . .

L. CUTLER, E. R. v. LEWISTON DAILY SUN,, 105 F.R.D. 137 (D. Me. 1985)

. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1] at 26-94 (2d ed. 1984). . . .

In R. MULHERN, FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, v. R. MULHERN,, 45 B.R. 621 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1985)

. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice 11 26.56(1) (2d ed. 1984). . . .

C. BARAN, v. PRESBYTERIAN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, A. M. D. M. D., 102 F.R.D. 272 (W.D. Pa. 1984)

. . . discussions concerning discovery of opinions under Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., at 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 . . .

CHUBB INTEGRATED SYSTEMS LIMITED, v. NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON,, 103 F.R.D. 52 (D.D.C. 1984)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1] (2d ed. 1983) at 26-125. . . .

F. COYNE, v. HOUSS,, 584 F. Supp. 1105 (E.D.N.Y. 1984)

. . . In 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 26.56[1] (2d ed. 1983), the following view is expressed: “There are . . .

E. MAJD- POUR, v. GEORGIANA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., 724 F.2d 901 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . United States, 530 F.Supp. 611, 616 n. 3 (E.D.Pa.1982); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶26.56[6] & n. 7 ( . . .

CUPAC, INC. v. MID- WEST INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., 100 F.R.D. 440 (S.D. Ohio 1983)

. . . General Motors Corporation, 64 F.R.D. 62 (E.D.Pa.1974); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[4]. . . .

X. McLAUGHLIN, v. McPHAIL, Sr. In WINTHROP LAWRENCE CORP. X. McLAUGHLIN, v. WINTHROP LAWRENCE CORP. Sr. T., 707 F.2d 800 (4th Cir. 1983)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[6] (2d ed. 1982); 4A J. Moore, J. Lucas & D. . . .

NATIONAL EXPOSITIONS, INC. v. DuBOIS,, 97 F.R.D. 400 (W.D. Pa. 1983)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 26.56(6) (2d ed. 1982). . . .

BOTTARO L. Jr. A. P. Jr. P. C. H. C. v. HATTON ASSOCIATES, E. LVG GVL S. P., 96 F.R.D. 158 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1] at 26-116 (2d ed. 1982). . . .

R. MARRESE, M. D. R. M. D. v. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS,, 692 F.2d 1083 (7th Cir. 1982)

. . . Cf. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶26.56[1], pp. 26-124 — 26-125, & n. 20 (Moore & Lucas eds. 1982) (“Ordinarily . . . appears baseless and discovery would work a hardship on the other party.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 . . .

PENK, v. OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION,, 99 F.R.D. 504 (D. Or. 1982)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1] n. 26 (Cum.Supp.1982). . . .

P. TAVOULAREAS, v. PIRO, P. TAVOULAREAS, v. WASHINGTON POST CO., 93 F.R.D. 35 (D.D.C. 1981)

. . . 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115] (1979) (reversing 568 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1977)); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 . . .

SIG M. GLUKSTAD, INC. d b a v. LINEAS AEREAS NACIONAL- CHILE,, 656 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . in the litigation.’ ” Id. at 351 n.12, 98 S.Ct. at 2389 n.12, quoting 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 1J 26.56 . . .

FERGUSON, v. SCHWEIKER,, 90 F.R.D. 624 (W.D. Pa. 1981)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 (2d ed. 1979). . . .

FINANCIAL BUILDING CONSULTANTS, INC. v. AMERICAN DRUGGISTS INSURANCE CO., 91 F.R.D. 59 (N.D. Ga. 1981)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1] nn. 17-23 and accompanying text. . . .

In TRANTEX CORPORATION, CREDITORS COMMITTEE OF TRANTEX CORPORATION, v. BAYBANK VALLEY TRUST COMPANY,, 10 B.R. 235 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1981)

. . . Gulf Oil Corp., 29 F.R.D. 163 (E.D.Pa.1962), 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1] (2d Edition 1979). . . . agent, servant or employee is likely not to be relevant to the proceeding. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶26.56 . . .

SOOBZOKOV, v. CBS, INC. QUADRANGLE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK CO. INC. J., 642 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1981)

. . . sought is admissible under the stricter standards applying at trial, see 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 . . .

H. M. GREENSPUN, v. DEL E. WEBB CORPORATION,, 634 F.2d 1204 (9th Cir. 1980)

. . . jurisdictional issues, see generally Wells Fargo, supra, 556 F.2d at 430 n. 24; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice U 26.56 . . .

In HAWAII CORPORATION, T. GOSS, v. CROSSLEY R. A. A. Q. D. Jr. A. O. F. T. C. I. J. L. C. Y. H. K. B. S. W. I. H. H. D. K. L. M. J. H. C. L. D. Jr. H. Co., 88 F.R.D. 518 (D. Haw. 1980)

. . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56, at 26-116 (2d ed. 1979). . . .

S. KATZ, H. v. ELI LILLY CO., 84 F.R.D. 378 (E.D.N.Y. 1979)

. . . is not to be measured by the precise issues framed by the pleadings.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 . . .

LOCAL DETROIT NEWSPAPER PRINTING AND GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS UNION, INTERNATIONAL PRINTING AND GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS UNION, AFL- CIO, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,, 598 F.2d 267 (D.C. Cir. 1979)

. . . Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 2008 at 48 (1970); see id. at 46—47; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 . . .

MILLER, v. COLONIAL REFRIGERATED TRANSPORTATION INCORPORATED, E. M J, 81 F.R.D. 741 (M.D. Pa. 1979)

. . . the Plaintiff both before and after the accident may be inquired into. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 . . .

RENSHAW v. RAVERT, a, 82 F.R.D. 361 (E.D. Pa. 1979)

. . . impeaching or cross-examining a witness at the trial, may be inquired into.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 . . .

E. COHEN v. UNIROYAL, INC., 80 F.R.D. 480 (E.D. Pa. 1978)

. . . great, these factors may act in combination to support the objection.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶26.56 . . .

COOKE, v. NEW MEXICO JUNIOR COLLEGE BOARD, 579 F.2d 568 (10th Cir. 1978)

. . . request must “describe each item and category with reasonable particularity.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶26.56 . . .

OPPENHEIMER FUND, INC. v. SANDERS, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 [1], p. 26-131 n. 34 (2d ed. 1976). . . . See id., ¶ 26.56 [6]; Note, The Use of Discovery to Obtain Jurisdictional Facts, 59 Va. L. . . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶26.56 [1], pp. 26-126 to 26-128 (2d ed. 1976), and cases there cited. . . .

DATA DISC, INCORPORATED, v. SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice § 26.56[6], at p. 26-190 (1976). . . .

MILNER v. NATIONAL SCHOOL OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY, 73 F.R.D. 628 (E.D. Pa. 1977)

. . . Civ.P. 26(b)(1), 26(d), 33(a), 34(b); Local Rule 25; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 26.56[3], 26.59; 4A . . .

RIOS v. P. READ, 73 F.R.D. 589 (E.D.N.Y. 1977)

. . . See generally 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1] (1976). . . .

HERBERT, v. LANDO, 73 F.R.D. 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)

. . . this language, which was added to the Rule by amendment. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed. 1976), ¶ 26.56 . . .

C. APEL v. J. MURPHY, Jr., 70 F.R.D. 651 (D.R.I. 1976)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1], at 26-125; Spier v. . . .

A. O. SMITH v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 403 F. Supp. 1000 (D. Del. 1975)

. . . relevance inherent in Rule 26(b)(1) has been given a very broad scope. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 . . .

M. SPAULDING v. M. DENTON, G. RASH, III, v. M. DENTON, ANTONIO, v. M. DENTON,, 68 F.R.D. 342 (D. Del. 1975)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[3], [4], pp. 26-167, 26-179 (1974 ed.). . . .

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

. . . U 26.56[4], at 169-79. . See sources cited note 1 supra; note 46 infra. . See Spier v. Home Ins. . . .

GULF OIL CORP. v. COPP PAVING CO. INC., 419 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1974)

. . . On the general propriety of discovery orders of this sort, see 4 id., ¶26.56 [6]; but “[t]here are cases . . .

AMHERST LEASING CORPORATION v. EMHART CORPORATION, 65 F.R.D. 121 (D. Conn. 1974)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[2], at 26-159 (Rel.No. 11-1970), that in the circumstances of the case . . .

W. BOWMAN W. G. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, v. E. RHODES, v. W. BOWMAN,, 64 F.R.D. 62 (E.D. Pa. 1974)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.56 [1] (2d ed. 1974). . . . See 4 Moore’s, Federal Practice § 26.56 [1] at p. 26-135 (2d ed. 1974). Cf. DiFrischia v. . . .

HUMPHREYS EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC. v. E. POULTER, 62 F.R.D. 392 (D. Md. 1974)

. . . Professor Moore states, 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1], at 26-124: Ordinarily, the court will . . . Second, the Court notes that defendant’s brief cites 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1], at 26-131 . . .

CARLSON COMPANIES, INC. v. SPERRY AND HUTCHINSON COMPANY,, 374 F. Supp. 1080 (D. Minn. 1973)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice Par. 26.56 [3], at 26-160 (2d ed. 1972), indicates that at least prior to the . . . Moore, Federal Practice, Par. 26.56 [1], at 26-120-22 (2d ed. 1972). The criterion adopted in. . . . Moore, Federal Practice, Par. 26.56 [1] at 26-129 (2d ed. 1972). . . . Moore, Federal Practice, Par. 26.56 [5], at 26-187-88 (2d ed. 1972). . . .

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, 61 F.R.D. 411 (W.D. Pa. 1973)

. . . Reynolds Metals Co., 55 F.R.D. 491 [D.C.Va.1970]; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 [1] (1972 ed.). . . . Meyer, 398 F.2d 66 [9th Cir. 1968]; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ [26.56 [3], pp. 26-164 (1972 ed.). . . .

J. GOLDINGER, v. BORON OIL COMPANY,, 60 F.R.D. 562 (W.D. Pa. 1973)

. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, paragraph 26.56 [1] (2nd ed., 1972). In Mall Tool Co. v. . . .

MARITIME CINEMA SERVICE CORP. v. MOVIES EN ROUTE, INC., 60 F.R.D. 587 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)

. . . See, 4 Moore Fed.Practice ¶[ 26.56 [1] n. 52. . . .

KODEKEY ELECTRONICS, INC. v. MECHANEX CORPORATION, 486 F.2d 449 (10th Cir. 1973)

. . . Moore Federal Practice ¶ 26.56(5) (1972). . . . .

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. W. McCORD In BERNSTEIN, 356 F. Supp. 1394 (D.D.C. 1973)

. . . . 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2007. . 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 26.56 . . .

MIDLAND INVESTMENT COMPANY v. VAN ALSTYNE, NOEL CO. a, 59 F.R.D. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶|26.56 (2d Ed.1972). . . .

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 ¶ 26.56[1], at 26-131 (2d ed. 1970) ; C. . . .

P. BALISTRIERI, v. O FARRELL, a k a, 57 F.R.D. 567 (E.D. Wis. 1972)

. . . Relevancy is given a broad scope in this context. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice j[ 26.56(1), at 26-131 to . . .

RODRIGUES v. G. HRINDA R., 56 F.R.D. 11 (W.D. Pa. 1972)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice, Vol. 4, § 26.56 [3]. . . .

ESTATE Le BARON, Sr. Le Jr. Le a B. D. W. G. a a v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY, 441 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1971)

. . . ultimately be excluded at trial is not a basis for refusing to grant discovery. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 . . .

v., 63 Cust. Ct. 628 (Cust. Ct. 1969)

. . . prices would be $25 U.S. for hand knotted wigs compared with items 300 and 300A, while Regina would be $26.56 . . .

v., 42 T.C. 26 (T.C. 1964)

. . . Thus 628,582 shares of its voting stock or 26.56 percent of its total of 2,366,520 outstanding voting . . .

H. D. C. v., 33 T.C. 277 (T.C. 1959)

. . . discussion of such types of expenses, see 4 Mertens, Law of Federal Gift and Estate Taxation, sec. 26.56 . . . For a general discussion of this subject see 4 Mertens, Law of Federal Gift and Estate Taxation sec. 26.56 . . .

UNION COUNTY TRUST COMPANY, v. SUN CHEMICAL CORPORATION,, 163 F. Supp. 805 (E.D. Pa. 1958)

. . . royalty as shown in the following schedule: Month Year Amount March 1952 $ 3.52 April 1952 1.10 May 1952 26.56 . . .

THE WILLIAM CRAMP SONS COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 43 Ct. Cl. 202 (Ct. Cl. 1908)

. . . . $47,80 26.00 128.64 26.56 6.60 24.32 258.92 $1,67 .91 39.83 11.60 42.95 1.20 8.16 $49.47 26.91 168.47 . . .

AJAX METAL CO. v. BRADY BRASS CO., 155 F. 409 (C.C.D.N.J. 1907)

. . . produced, where the copper is given at 65.29 per cent., the tin at 7.54 per cent., and the lead at 26.56 . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)