Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 56.10 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 56.10 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 56.10

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 56
FINAL PROCESS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 56.10
56.10 Executions against corporate judgment debtors; receivership.If an execution cannot be satisfied in whole or in part for lack of property of the corporate judgment debtor subject to levy and sale, on motion of the judgment creditor the circuit court in chancery within whose circuit such corporate judgment debtor is or has been doing business, or in which any of its effects are found, may sequestrate the property, things in action, goods and chattels of the corporate judgment debtor for the purpose of enforcing the judgment, and may appoint a receiver for the corporate judgment debtor. A receiver so appointed is subject to the rules prescribed by law for receivers of the property of other judgment debtors. His or her power shall extend throughout the state.
History.s. 1, ch. 1870, 1872; RS 1211; GS 1641; RGS 2845; CGL 4532; s. 11, ch. 67-254; s. 300, ch. 95-147; s. 7, ch. 2016-33.
Note.Former s. 55.24.

F.S. 56.10 on Google Scholar

F.S. 56.10 on Casetext

Amendments to 56.10


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 56.10
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 56.10.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

COMMON CAUSE, v. A. RUCHO, Co- v. A. Co-, 318 F. Supp. 3d 777 (M.D.N.C. 2018)

. . . To begin, the Republican candidate's vote share (56.10%) and margin of victory (12.20%) in the least . . . For example, the Republican candidate's vote share (56.10%) and margin of victory (12.20%) in the least . . .

COMMON CAUSE, v. A. RUCHO, Co- v. A. Co-, 279 F. Supp. 3d 587 (M.D.N.C. 2018)

. . . To begin, the Republican candidate’s vote share (56.10%) and margin of victory (12.20%) in the least . . . For example, the Republican candidate’s vote share (56.10%) and margin of victory (12.20%) in the least . . .

FERNANDEZ v. LEIDOS, INC., 127 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . Civ.Code §§ 56.10, 56.101 (emphasis added). . . .

GAVIN, v. HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., 291 F.R.D. 161 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . seeking to exclude the independent medical examiner from the ambit of California Civil Code section 56.10 . . . Civ.Code § 56.10(c)(19); Cal. Evid.Code §§ 1010(a), 1024. . . .

MULCAHY, PAURITSCH, SALVADOR CO. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 680 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2012)

. . . If paid as a dividend, $100 of corporate income becomes $56.10 in the owner-employee’s hands because . . . its income and then the owner-employee pays 15 percent on the $66 dividend, and $100 x .66 x .85 = $56.10 . . . on it; the owner-employee would pay a 35 percent tax; and $100 - (.35 x $100) is $65, which beats $56.10 . . .

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, v. VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., 791 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10[6] (3d ed. 2004) (explaining that "denial of one cross-motion . . .

In THE TAX GROUP, LLC, A. Jr. LLC, v. LLC,, 439 B.R. 47 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . Stem-pel, MoORE’s FEDERAL PRACTICE § 56.10[8][a] (3d ed. 2010) (“[I]f a party cannot adequately defend . . .

OAK STREET FUNDING, LLC, v. S. INGRAM,, 749 F. Supp. 2d 568 (E.D. Mich. 2010)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[8][a] at 56-93 (3d ed. 2009). . . .

In WILEY v., 426 B.R. 878 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2010)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 56.10[4][c][I] & 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.1997) (footnotes omitted . . .

JEFFERSON v. CHRISTUS ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL, 374 F. App'x 485 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . Moore et al„ Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10(8)(b) (2010) (discussing the appellate consequences of . . .

INFORMATION SCIENCES CORP. d b a DEVIS v. UNITED STATES,, 88 Fed. Cl. 626 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . (attorney) 11.0 (paralegal) $169.58 $ 6,041.29 $ 6,359.25 $102.00 $ 1,065.90 $ 1,122.00 $ 317.96 $ 56.10 . . .

SS C TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. PROVIDENCE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT,, 582 F. Supp. 2d 255 (D. Conn. 2008)

. . . cross motion does not imply the grant of the opponent’s cross motion.” 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . .

MAZLOUM, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,, 522 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2007)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.10[7] (3d ed.2006)), he maintains that the instant motion . . .

L. BELL, v. CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS,, 496 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Kan. 2007)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s.2d 1186, 1196 Federal Practice §§ 56.10[4][c][i], 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.1997)); see . . .

EPCO CARBON DIOXIDE PRODUCTS, INC. v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, NA,, 467 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2006)

. . . days before the court makes a ruling to respond to the motion for summary judgment,” 2 Moore, supra, § 56.10 . . .

WIGGINS, v. DAVITA TIDEWATER, LLC,, 451 F. Supp. 2d 789 (E.D. Va. 2006)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.10[8][d] (3d ed.2000). . . .

W. WASSON, v. MEDIA GENERAL, INC. a, 446 F. Supp. 2d 579 (E.D. Va. 2006)

. . . parties have stipulated that the matter is ready for summary judgment. 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . .

BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, v. OKIE DOKIE, INC. C. J., 439 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D.D.C. 2006)

. . . Practice § 56.10[6] (3d. ed.2004). Whether C.J. . . .

HOFFMAN, v. APPLICATORS SALES AND SERVICE, INC. d b a, 439 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2006)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) . . .

BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, v. OKIE DOKIE, INC. C. J. THOMAS, INC, 398 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

. . . Practice § 56.10[6] (3d. ed.2004) (explaining that “denial of one cross-motion does not imply the grant . . . Practice § 56.10[6] (3d. ed.2004); see also Huffman v. . . .

NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, R. W. S. Sr. K. J. v. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC. S P LLC,, 426 F.3d 640 (2d Cir. 2005)

. . . Hartford, 288 F.3d 467, 471 (2d Cir.2002); see also 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[5] (3d ed.2005 . . . disputed fact with admissible evidence” (internal quotation marks omitted)); 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . .

FORRAS, v. ANDROS,, 470 F. Supp. 2d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . . deny the motion for summary judgment .... ” 11 James Wm Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 . . .

In VANDERVEER ESTATES HOLDING, LLC, v. LLC LP, 328 B.R. 18 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . James Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, 56.10 (3d ed.2005), citing Nicholson v. . . .

INTURRI, v. CITY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT P., 365 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D. Conn. 2005)

. . . Board of Educ. of Olean, 667 F.2d 305 (2d Cir.1981)); see also 11 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 56.10 . . .

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. THE KENT SCHOOL CORPORATION, 361 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D. Conn. 2005)

. . . Board of Educ. of Olean, 667 F.2d 305 (2d Cir.1981)); see also 11 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 56.10 . . .

H A. RIVERA- GARC A, v. SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO ANA G. M NDEZ, 329 F. Supp. 2d 213 (D.P.R. 2004)

. . . produce specific facts in opposition to the summary judgment motion. 11 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 . . .

MAXIMUM COMFORT, INC. a v. G. THOMPSON,, 323 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (E.D. Cal. 2004)

. . . Civ.Code § 56.10(C)’ (requiring health care providers to hold a patient’s medical information confidential . . .

In AGENT ORANGE PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION. v. v., 304 F. Supp. 2d 404 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . it is considered proper and will be reviewed and decided by the court.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . . Fed.R.CivJP. 56(f); see also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[8][a]. . . .

THEISEN VENDING CO. INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 58 Fed. Cl. 194 (Fed. Cl. 2003)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[8][c] (3d ed.2003). . . . Moore, supra, ¶ 56.10[8][c] (citing City of Rome v. . . .

HS RESOURCES, INC. v. R. WINGATE,, 327 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[2][b], at 56-49. . . . .

SSA TERMINALS, v. MACHINISTS AUTOMOTIVE TRADES DISTRICT LODGE NO. No., 244 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . Petitioner’s Second Argument Petitioner cites California Civil Code section 56.10(a), and argues that . . . It simply does not require Petitioner to violate section 56.10(a) of the California Civil Code. . . .

In FOXMEYER CORPORATION A. Jr. v. CIT La N. A. FSB N. A. BTM, 286 B.R. 546 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[7] (3rd ed.1998), and In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs . . .

In ENRON CORP., 284 B.R. 376 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 (2d ed.1988)); In re Great American Resources, Inc., 85 . . .

v. T. J., 26 Ct. Int'l Trade 1117 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)

. . . than simply granting summary judgment based on the face of the motion. 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10 . . . See 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[3][b]; William W Schwarzer, et ai., The Analysis and Decision . . .

UNITED STATES, v. T. J. MANALO, INC., 240 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)

. . . than simply granting summary judgment based on the face of the motion. 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10 . . . See 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10[3][b]; William W. . . .

In ENRON CORP., 274 B.R. 327 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 (2d ed.1988)); In re Great American Resources, Inc., 85 . . .

FEDERATION OF FLY FISHERS, v. M. DALEY,, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

. . . stay and for extension of final rule deadline; plaintiff’s motion for clarification of court’s order 56.10 . . .

HEALEY A. M. M. J. Sr. EVA v. G. THOMPSON,, 186 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D. Conn. 2001)

. . . fact and whether movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . .

ENGINEERED PRODUCTS CO. v. DONALDSON COMPANY, INC., 165 F. Supp. 2d 836 (N.D. Iowa 2001)

. . . Moore et at, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[6] (3d ed.1997). . . .

CAMPBELL, v. AMANA COMPANY, L. P. a L. P. L. P., 125 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (N.D. Iowa 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[6] (3d ed.1997). . . .

BLACK v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION,, 87 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000)

. . . Because Rule 56(f) requests should be “liberally construed,” see Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[8][ . . .

ROGAN, v. M. MENINO,, 175 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 1999)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[2][b] (3d ed.1997). . . .

PAULING, v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,, 160 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 1998)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[8][a] (3d ed.1998). . . .

CURRAN, v. Ho KWON,, 153 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1998)

. . . See 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10[7] (3d ed.1998) (stating that, although a denial of summary judgment . . .

In H. JORDANA d b a d b a McCART, v. H. JORDANA d b a d b a, 221 B.R. 950 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1998)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 56.10(4)(c)(I) (3d ed.1997) and 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur . . .

In HILLSBOROUGH HOLDINGS CORPORATION,, 221 B.R. 917 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . requested amount in the applications; and awarded expenses in the aggregate amount of $477,-350.45 or 56.10% . . .

PATTON, v. GENERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION F., 984 F. Supp. 666 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10[1] (1997). . . .

H. CROSLAN, v. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF NEW BRITAIN,, 974 F. Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1997)

. . . See 11 Moore's Federal Practice, § 56.10[4][c] (3d ed. 1997). . . .

D. MASSEY A. v. CONGRESS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 116 F.3d 1414 (11th Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[2][b] (3d ed. 1997) (“A court may not enter summary judgment . . .

In HARRIS, HARRIS, v. BENEFICIAL OKLAHOMA, INC. a, 209 B.R. 990 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 1997)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 56.10[4][c][i] & 56.14[2][c] (3d ed.1997) (footnotes omitted . . .

STATE v. SIEGEL A., 679 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . The electrical bill for Siegel’s trailer was $56.10 for March, and $138.38 in April. . . .

DAY, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, 911 F. Supp. 1228 (D. Neb. 1995)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.10, at 56-92 through 56-97. . See also Honore v. . . .

WARREN PUBLISHING, INC. v. MICRODOS DATA CORP., 52 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1995)

. . . The match between the Faetbook and the FCC was only 56.10%. . . .

L. WARSHALL, v. J. PRICE,, 617 So. 2d 751 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . See also, § 56.10, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

WEINBERGER, v. GREAT NORTHERN NEKOOSA CORP. BTZ, INC. v. GREAT NORTHERN NEKOOSA CORP. RYAN, v. GREAT NORTHERN NEKOOSA CORP., 801 F. Supp. 804 (D. Me. 1992)

. . . .1875 X $185 = $34.69 Firm Total $1,114.69 (4.6875 Murray, Plumb & Murray: 11/1 .33 Total .33 X $170 = $56.10 . . .

FULTON FEDERAL SAVINGS LOAN ASSOCIATION OF ATLANTA, v. AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,, 143 F.R.D. 292 (N.D. Ga. 1991)

. . . (Vol. 2) 56.10 Joe Pollard (Vol. 1) 243.60 Joe Pollard (Vol. 2) and C.H. . . .

In V. KARLIN, FOX, v. V. KARLIN,, 112 B.R. 319 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1989)

. . . A patient is entitled to privacy not only by statute, Cal.Civ.Code § 56.10, but also by virtue of specific . . . information regarding a patient of the provider without first obtaining an authorization_ Cal.Civil Code § 56.10 . . .

In V. KARLIN, FOX, v. V. KARLIN,, 103 B.R. 236 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1989)

. . . A patient is entitled to privacy not only by statute, Cal.Civ.Code § 56.10, but also by virtue of specific . . . information regarding a patient of the provider without first obtaining an authurization_ Cal.Civil Code § 56.10 . . .

B. SAMUELS, v. WILDER,, 871 F.2d 1346 (7th Cir. 1989)

. . . both Rule 15 and Rule 56 must be accommodated. 6 Moore, Taggart & Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10 . . .

GUSOW v. A. B. C. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., 524 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Sec. 56.10, Op. 2054. See also: McClendon v. Key, 209 So.2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). . . .

CARIBBEAN SHIP CHANDLER, INC. v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY,, 523 So. 2d 642 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Notwithstanding the allegations in the complaint, both the permit application and sections 2-56.1 to 2-56.10 . . .

M. CUFFY, v. GETTY REFINING MARKETING COMPANY, 648 F. Supp. 802 (D. Del. 1986)

. . . summary judgment motion filed to conform to Supreme Court decision); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 2d, ¶ 56.10 . . .

GOLDEN v. CIRCLE T. V. AND APPLIANCE, INC., 14 Fla. Supp. 2d 157 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985)

. . . Phillips an additional $56.10. 5. Mr. . . .

BUSH, v. R. REWALD,, 619 F. Supp. 585 (D. Haw. 1985)

. . . Plaintiff cites 6 Moore, Federal Practice, paragraph 56.10, for the proposition that where an amended . . .

FINK, v. NATIONAL SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY,, 772 F.2d 951 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

. . . Continental Assurance Co., 578 F.Supp. 1518, 1524 n. 5 (S.D.N.Y.1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice U 56.10 . . .

SELLERSBURG STONE COMPANY, v. FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, MSHA, 736 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir. 1984)

. . . . §§ 56.10, 56.12. . . . “most serious” and posed a “grave risk ’ to employees, and he found that the violations of sections 56.10 . . .

WILLIAM INGLIS SONS BAKING CO. v. ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY, INC. WILLIAM INGLIS SONS BAKING CO. v. ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY, INC., 668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981)

. . . introduced and considered during the pendency of a motion for summary judgment. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice U 56.10 . . .

SUMMIT OFFICE PARK, INC. a v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, 639 F.2d 1278 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . See generally 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 (2 ed. 1976); 10 C. Wright & A. . . .

CAPITAL FILMS CORPORATION v. CHARLES FRIES PRODUCTIONS, INC., 628 F.2d 387 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . H 56.10 and 1156.12 (2nd ed. 1976) at 174 and 338-339. . . .

VERHEIN, v. SOUTH BEND LATHE, INC. Co., 598 F.2d 1061 (7th Cir. 1979)

. . . Hallbauer, 455 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1972); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice K 56.10 (2d ed. 1976). . . .

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. GSC ENTERPRISES, INC. W. L., 469 F. Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 1979)

. . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10, at 56-169 (2d ed. 1976). . . . Cf. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10, at 56-174 (2d ed. 1976). . . .

PERDUE FARMS, INC. a v. MOTTS, INC. OF MISSISSIPPI, a, 459 F. Supp. 7 (N.D. Miss. 1978)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶¶ 56.02[4], 56.10 (2d ed. 1974). . . .

UNITED STATES v. ARTICLES PROVIMI,, 425 F. Supp. 228 (D.N.J. 1977)

. . . Provikalf Starter, containing zinc bacitracin (ZB) 112,200 lbs, or 56.10 tons, at 25 gms. per ton means . . .

WARD v. WINSTEAD, 314 F. Supp. 1225 (N.D. Miss. 1970)

. . . After application of percentage reduction alone, Ward would receive $48.69 and Winston $56.10 per month . . .

BERGREN, v. DAVIS OIL SCREW ACADIA, 287 F. Supp. 52 (D. Conn. 1968)

. . . Palmer, 114 F.2d 116 (2 Cir. 1940); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.10 (2d ed. 1966). . . .

McCLENDON v. KEY,, 209 So. 2d 273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . Vogel, 2 Cir. 1943, 134 F.2d 908, 912. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d, § 56.10 (1965). . . .

RAILING d b a C P v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,, 276 F. Supp. 238 (N.D.W. Va. 1967)

. . . See 6 Moore, Federal Practice, Section 56.10 (2d Ed. 1966). . . .

H S v., 55 Cust. Ct. 665 (Cust. Ct. 1965)

. . . Unit value — Japanese yen 31141/1 56.10 each 31141/2 80.30 each 31141/3 107. 50 each 31141/4 133. 50 . . . each 31141/5 45.00 each 31141/6 56.10 each 31141/7 45. 00 each 31141/9 45. 50 each 31141/10 31. 00 pair . . .

J. BECKER, d b a s v. SAFELITE GLASS CORPORATION, a, 244 F. Supp. 625 (D. Kan. 1965)

. . . See, e. g., 6 Moore, fifí 56.10, 56.11 [1] to -[6], 56.11 [8] to -[10], 56.22. . . .

J. CURLEY, v. FINEST HOMES, INC. a, 167 So. 2d 739 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

. . . Sec. 56.10, p. 2054. . . .

J. HEUER, v. K. LOOP J. HEUER a b n f J. a b n f J. v. K. LOOP, 198 F. Supp. 546 (S.D. Ind. 1961)

. . . Cf. 6 Moore ¶ 56.10, p. 2056 (1953). No such showing has been made. . . .

E. LIGHTBODY, v. S. FLEMMING,, 197 F. Supp. 957 (E.D. Mich. 1961)

. . . overpaid $3,337.20 for the period from November 1951 to February 1957 and was further required to pay $56.10 . . .

GORDONS TRANSPORTS, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 154 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1961)

. . . Dehydrated—Functional—Bepair—Eepack (Average — $12.62) (Average — $4.67) (shock strut) 12 @ Labor $151.38 Material $56.10 . . .

HAMDI IBRAHIM MANGO CO. LTD. v. RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 291 F.2d 437 (2d Cir. 1961)

. . . risks of strikes, riots, and civil commotions Amount Term Rate A/P $22,440 2/6/48 to 3/ 8/48 STG. .25 $ 56.10 . . . CC .75 168.30 3/8/48 to 3/14/48 STG. .125 28.05 SR&CC 1% 224.40 Transshipment via Beirut, Syria .25 56.10 . . .

GOUDINOS, v. THE SS RUTH ANN, RUIZ, v. THE SS RUTH ANN,, 193 F. Supp. 524 (D.P.R. 1961)

. . . Spathis 220 “ at 0.40 88.00 Mihalitsanos Periclis 180 “ at 0.35 63.00 Angel Vargas Ruiz 110 “ at 0.51 56.10 . . .

SEARS, ROEBUCK CO. v. AMERICAN PLUMBING SUPPLY CO., 19 F.R.D. 334 (E.D. Wis. 1956)

. . . its motion for summary judgment is no reason for denying the amendment. 6 Moore, Federal Practice, § 56.10 . . .

M. KIRK, a M. v. UNITED STATES, 232 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1956)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd ed., §§ 56.10 and 15.07, . . .

F. H. McGRAW AND COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 131 Ct. Cl. 501 (Ct. Cl. 1955)

. . . connected to the existing emergency lighting panel in Unit B, increased the contract in the amount of $56.10 . . .

CARR- CONSOLIDATED BISCUIT COMPANY, v. H. S. MOORE S., 125 F. Supp. 423 (M.D. Pa. 1954)

. . . . § 56.10, p. 2054-2056, Id. § 15.13, pp. 843-844; Downey v. . . .

WALTER D. LOVELL v. THE UNITED STATES, 61 Ct. Cl. 756 (Ct. Cl. 1926)

. . . Thereafter about $56.10 was paid by the defendant, leaving the balance of this account in the sum of . . .

In EVANS, 235 F. 635 (W.D. Pa. 1916)

. . . from said collateral a bond of the Canonsburg & Washington Railway Company for $1,000 and the sum of $56.10 . . . assert any right or claim to the residuary collateral to the Evans Bros, notes (the $1,000 bond and $56.10 . . .