Cases from cite.case.law:

M. BEVERIDGE, v. STATE, 892 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . for a downward departure sentence, but the court sentenced Beveridge pursuant to the guidelines to 55.05 . . . The criminal punishment scoresheet indicated that 55.05 months' imprisonment was the lowest permissible . . .

HILL, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (E.D. Mo. 2004)

. . . should be denied because she has failed to specify a specific amount of damages in violation of Rule 55.05 . . . Rule 55.05 provides in relevant part: “If a recovery of money be demanded, the amount shall be stated . . .

CITY OF UNIVERSITY CITY, v. AT T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., 229 F. Supp. 2d 927 (E.D. Mo. 2002)

. . . See, e.g., Mo.R.Civ.P. 55.05 (stating that “in actions for damages based upon an alleged tort, no dollar . . .

PLUMBERS, PIPEFITTERS AND APPRENTICES LOCAL UNION NO. PENSION, HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL AND APPRENTICESHIP PLANS, FISH, No. v. MAURO S PLUMBING, HEATING AND FIRE SUPPRESSION INC. N. Y., 84 F. Supp. 2d 344 (N.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . hours @ $158.00 per hour = $1,745.90 (1997) 33.00 Paralegal hours @ $50.00 per hour = $1,650.00 (1997) 55.05 . . .

M. PICHT M. v. R. HAWKS, E. R., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (D. Minn. 1999)

. . . . § 55.05. Minn.Stat. § 332.50 provides penalties for the issuance of a worthless check. . . .

W. ROGERS, v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, 167 F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . indication of defendant’s intention to contest the claim’ ”) (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal PRACTICE § 55.05 . . .

WALSH, v. J. B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., 20 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (E.D. Mo. 1998)

. . . Defendant argues that the prayer violated Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.05, which provides, in pertinent . . . Mo.S.Ct.R. 55.05 (emphasis added). . . . Accordingly, defendant argues, the Court should not consider the fact that plaintiff, in violation of Rule 55.05 . . .

BOARDWALK REGENCY CORP. v. HORNSTEIN,, 695 So. 2d 471 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . . ■ Boardwalk then domesticated the judgment in Florida pursuant to section 55.05, Florida Statutes. . . .

In N. GLASS L. WESTFALL, v. N. GLASS L., 207 B.R. 850 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1997)

. . . See generally, e.g., 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[2] (2d ed. 1996) (“A default judgment does not . . .

PATRAY, v. NORTHWEST PUBLISHING, INC., 931 F. Supp. 865 (S.D. Ga. 1996)

. . . . ¶55.05[3]. Nevertheless, no defendant has made any sort of appearance in this case. . . .

In SINCLAIR, HOUSEHOLD BANK, F. S. B. v. SINCLAIR,, 191 B.R. 474 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶55.05[2] at 55-28 (2d ed. 1995). . . .

J. PINAUD, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, J. O, 52 F.3d 1139 (2d Cir. 1995)

. . . Id., ¶ 55.05[1], at 55-27. . . . See id., ¶ 55.05[2] (detailing factors). . . .

UNIVERSAL AM- CAN, LTD. v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION d b a INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION d b a v. CARTER EXPEDITED TRANSPORTATION, INC., 160 F.R.D. 151 (D. Kan. 1995)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 55.05[3], at pp. 55-28-31 (2d ed. 1994); 10 Wright, Miller . . .

In ROXFORD FOODS, INC. CIVIC CENTER SQUARE, INC. v. M. FORD, PURINA MILLS, INC. M. v. CIVIC CENTER SQUARE, INC., 12 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 1993)

. . . where attacked on direct appeal or by a motion to vacate the judgment.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 55.05 . . .

In ROXFORD FOODS, INC. CIVIC CENTER SQUARE, INC. v. M. FORD, PURINA MILLS, INC. M. v. CIVIC CENTER SQUARE, INC., 12 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 1993)

. . . where attacked on direct appeal or by a motion to vacate the judgment.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 55.05 . . .

CSB CORP. v. CADILLAC CREATIVE ADVERTISING, INC., 136 F.R.D. 34 (D.R.I. 1990)

. . . The Muniz court, citing 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 55.05[3] at 55-55 (1983), noted that the . . .

In ZORRILLA, M. D. a k a M. D. H. BURLINGAME GROUP, A v. BURLINGAME JOINT VENTURE, I, A. Co. R. M. D. M. D. L. M. D., 115 B.R. 894 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1990)

. . . a clear indication of the defendant’s intentions to contest the claim. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05 . . .

HALE, v. A. L. LOCKHART,, 903 F.2d 545 (8th Cir. 1990)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[6] (2d ed.1988). . . .

SUN BANK OF OCALA, v. PELICAN HOMESTEAD AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, v. AMERICAN FIRST MORTGAGE FUNDING CORP., 874 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . Livermore Corp., 432 F.2d at 691; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[3], pp. 55-27; 10 Wright, Miller . . . , cert. denied, 425 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct. 1495, 47 L.Ed.2d 754 (1976). . 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶[ 55.05 . . . Utley, 259 F.2d 484, 485 (9th Cir.1958); see also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[3], p. 55-27. . . .

ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF FLORIDA SELF INSURERS FUND, v. H F SOD COMPANY, INC., 28 Fla. Supp. 2d 21 (Polk Cty. Ct. 1988)

. . . See § 55.05, Florida Statutes. . . .

NORTH CENTRAL ILLINOIS LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL, v. S. J. GROVES SONS COMPANY, INC., 842 F.2d 164 (7th Cir. 1988)

. . . Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2686 at 432-33; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice para. 55.05[3]. . . .

HAMRICK, v. STATE, 519 So. 2d 81 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Certainly if it is impermissible, both by statute, § 55.05, Fla.Stat. (1985), and judicially determined . . .

In F. BECKMAN, FIRST AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF NASHVILLE, v. F. BECKMAN,, 78 B.R. 516 (M.D. Tenn. 1987)

. . . required notice is generally regarded as a serious procedural irregularity,’ 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 55.05 . . .

M R INVESTMENTS, CO. INC. v. J. HACKER,, 511 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . because it was based on a confession of judgment, thus not enforceable in Florida because of section 55.05 . . . confession of judgment is contrary to the public policy of the State of Florida, as expressed in section 55.05 . . .

SKAW, v. UNITED STATES, 13 Cl. Ct. 7 (Cl. Ct. 1987)

. . . Calculate Value Au/cu. yd. gravel ($) 5054 0.64 17.95 .03 $0.0012 5055 1.06 23.74 none none 5056 1.97 55.05 . . .

MUNIZ, Jr. v. R. VIDAL,, 739 F.2d 699 (1st Cir. 1984)

. . . Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2686 at 432-33 (1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[3] at . . . generally regarded by the courts as a serious procedural irregularity,” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice fl 55.05 . . .

T. TRAUGER, v. A. J. SPAGNOL LUMBER COMPANY, INC., 442 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1983)

. . . Trauger, 423 So.2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), which held that section 55.05, Florida Statutes (1977), violates . . . and asserted as an affirmative defense that the Pennsylvania judgment was null and void under section 55.05 . . . The district court reversed, concluding in a thorough opinion that the legislature intended section 55.05 . . . Section 55.05, to the extent it would declare this foreign judgment void in Florida, is unconstitutional . . . Section 55.05 provides: All powers of attorney for confessing or suffering judgment to pass by default . . . While I agree with the majority that section 55.05, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional to the extent . . .

In LITTENSTEIN LITTENSTEIN v. N. DORCICH, N. N. a S., 35 B.R. 123 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1983)

. . . Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir.1980); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶¶ 55.04, 55.05[2] (1983). . . .

TRAVELTOWN, INC. v. GERHARDT INVESTMENT GROUP d b a, 577 F. Supp. 155 (N.D.N.Y. 1983)

. . . . ¶55.05[3] (1982 ed.). . . . considered in the light of surrounding circumstances and will, at times, be harmless. 6 Moore’s Fed.Prac. ¶ 55.05 . . .

In THREE MILE ISLAND LITIGATION, 557 F. Supp. 96 (M.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . 2.25 Travel 16.0 66.75 Richard Weiss Class Action Proceedings 28.72 Case Planning 11.03 Travel 15.30 55.05 . . . Bailen 66.75 X 80.00 5.340.00 Richard Weiss 55.05 X 80.00 4.404.00 Stephen Buchalter 6.50 X 70.00 455.00 . . .

A. J. SPAGNOL LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. R. TRAUGER L., 423 So. 2d 956 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . trial court in favor of appellees/debtors, now Florida residents, based on the application of section 55.05 . . . judgment” was obtained without personal service upon them and was null and void pursuant to section 55.05 . . . There is no question about the legislature’s intent in the enactment of the present version of section 55.05 . . . The title of Chapter 59-321, Laws of Florida expressly recites in part: AN ACT amending Section 55.05 . . . Section 55.05 provides: All powers of attorney for confessing or suffering judgment to pass by default . . .

In CANIGLIA H. KALLEN, v. CANIGLIA, 17 B.R. 858 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1982)

. . . . § 55.05 proscribes the use of a power of attorney to confess judgment made before an action is brought . . .

LUTOMSKI v. PANTHER VALLEY COIN EXCHANGE, 653 F.2d 270 (6th Cir. 1981)

. . . The contacts must “indicate the defaulting party intends to defend the suit.” 6 Moore’s K 55.05[3]. . . .

GENE S GULF, INC. v. WALNUT EQUIPMENT LEASING CO. INC., 391 So. 2d 753 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . . § 55.05, Fla.Stat. (1979). . . .

APPLETON ELECTRIC COMPANY, v. GRAVES TRUCK LINE, INC., 635 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1980)

. . . Taggart, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[1] at p. 55-51 (1979-80 ed.). . . .

J. CARWILE, v. RAY, J., 481 F. Supp. 33 (E.D. Wash. 1979)

. . . default judgment lies within the sound discretion of the trial court”. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 55.05 . . .

YALE, v. NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,, 602 F.2d 642 (4th Cir. 1979)

. . . Though regarded as a “serious procedural irregularity,” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice fi 55.05[3] (2d Ed . . .

WILSON, v. MOORE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. a, 564 F.2d 366 (9th Cir. 1977)

. . . justifies reversing a trial court’s failure to set aside a default judgment. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05 . . . Crawford Door Sales Co., 49 F.R.D. 3 (D.S.C. 1970). 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[3] (1976). . . . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 55.05[3] 1976; 10 C. Wright & A. . . .

CAPPADONA v. BILOWIT,, 46 Fla. Supp. 33 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. 1977)

. . . See Florida Statute 55.05. . . .

CHARLTON L. DAVIS COMPANY, P. C. v. FEDDER DATA CENTER, INC., 556 F.2d 308 (5th Cir. 1977)

. . . Jessie Edwards, Inc., 27 F.R.D. 491 (S.D.Tex.1961) (letter); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶55.05[3] (1976 . . .

COLLEX, INC. v. WALSH, 74 F.R.D. 443 (E.D. Pa. 1977)

. . . clearly demonstrate the defaulting party intends to defend the suit. 6 Moore’s Federal- Practice ¶ 55.05 . . .

SONUS CORPORATION, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, LTD., 61 F.R.D. 644 (D. Mass. 1974)

. . . The defendants cite 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.05 [3] and the cases cited in note 6 thereof to support . . .

UNITED STATES v. G. MANOS, 56 F.R.D. 655 (S.D. Ohio 1972)

. . . surrounding circumstances and will, at times, be considered harmless”. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 55.05 . . .

WITT, v. STATE A. EYMAN,, 343 F. Supp. 392 (D. Ariz. 1972)

. . . of a trial court’s discretion in granting judgment by default in Moore’s Federal Practice Vol. 6, fl 55.05 . . .

R. FINCH v. BIG CHIEF DRILLING COMPANY, 56 F.R.D. 456 (E.D. Tex. 1972)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 55.05, at 1812 (2d ed. 1966). . . .

Dr. FAGAN, v. POWELL,, 237 So. 2d 579 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . See § 55.05, Fla.Stat, F.S.A. . . .

R. HAWKE v. BROWARD NATIONAL BANK OF FORT LAUDERDALE, H. G., 220 So. 2d 678 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

. . . F.S.1967. section 55.05, F.S.A. . . .

VINEBERG v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION,, 391 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1968)

. . . Friedman, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 894, is apparently the only Florida case construing Section 55.05 of . . . unenforceable in Florida and in so doing stated: “[t]he Florida Statute, quoted in footnote No. 1 [F.S. 55.05 . . . Florida Statutes, Sec. 55.05, F.S.A. . See n. 1, supra. . See n. 1, supra. . . .

PEARSON, v. FRIEDMAN,, 112 So. 2d 894 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)

. . . The Florida statute (§ 55.05, F.S.A.) conforms to that rule, by-controlling such contracts and declaring . . . person whatsoever within this state, before such action brought, shall be absolutely null and void.” § 55.05 . . .

UNITED MERCANTILE AGENCIES, a v. HELEN BISSONNETTE DON BISSONNETTE, 155 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1944)

. . . See Section 55.05, Florida Statutes, 1941. . . .