Cases from cite.case.law:

L. JONES, v. NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR EXAMINERS,, 801 F. Supp. 2d 270 (D. Vt. 2011)

. . . . § 104.42(b)(3)). . . .

ZHENGXING, v. U. S. PATENT TRADEMARK OFFICE,, 579 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . . §§ 104.1, 104.42. . . . petition was denied by neither the General Counsel nor the Director of the PTO as is required by § 104.42 . . .

SCHNEIDER, J. J. J. O F. E. A. A. v. R. FEINBERG,, 345 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 104.42, not that he must compensate them in accordance with state tort law in other respects. . . . financial needs and resources of ... the victim’s dependents and beneficiaries”; and [ii] 28 C.F.R. § 104.42 . . . state that would be applicable to any tort claims brought by or on behalf of the victim.” 28 C.F.R. § 104.42 . . .

In GORDON URMSON BUILDER SONS, INC. v. M., 295 B.R. 546 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2003)

. . . Debtor left 2 extra squares of shingles on the premises which cost $104.42. . . .

COLAIO, J. J. J. O F. N. E. A. A. U. S. C. v. R. FEINBERG, M. I. I. v. Of R. v. R., 262 F. Supp. 2d 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . . § 104.42; (4) the publication of a methodology for determining presumed economic loss “up to but not . . . Hi Challenge to 28 C.F.R. § 104.42 Plaintiffs challenge the validity of 28 C.F.R. § 104.42. . . . . § 104.42 interprets the phrase “to the extent recovery for such loss is allowed under applicable state . . . The interpretation by 28 C.F.R. § 104.42 of section 402(7) of the Act is permissible and reasonable. . . .