Cases from cite.case.law:

CITY OF POMPANO BEACH v. WRIGHT, 28 Fla. Supp. 2d 114 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1988)

. . . was charged by Municipal Information with violating the City of Pompano Beach municipal code, Section 132.12 . . . Capalbo, 455 So.2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), Section 132.12(B) lends itself to arbitrary enforcement, . . . Turning to Section 132.12(D), Pompano Beach City Ordinance omits the words “under circumstances that . . . Accordingly, Section 132.12(D) is vague and overbroad and thus unconstitutional [sic.] on its face as . . . With respect to Section 132.12(G), Pompano Beach City Ordinance, that portion of the law which states . . .

UNITED STATES v. AKRON, CANTON YOUNGSTOWN RAILROAD COMPANY,, 397 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1968)

. . . Section 132.12 prescribes tests and inspections to be conducted under various cricumstances. . . . prescribe several air brake tests (see e.g. 132.12(a)) but also set forth the standards to be applied . . . The time and place of interchange under 49 OPR 132.12 is when a train leaves the line of railroad of . . . Is not present 49 CPR 132.12 indefinite and without a reasonable standard as to the definition of the . . . The term “interchange” is not indefinite in the light of the intent and purpose of 49 OPR 132.12. . . .

UNITED STATES v. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS,, 397 F.2d 467 (7th Cir. 1968)

. . . the train by the New York Central crew to the TRRA crew was an interchange within the meaning of sec. 132.12 . . . The structure of the opening paragraph of sec. 132.12 strongly suggests an intention that each road train . . . The statutory authority for secs. 132.12 and 132.13 is 45 U.S.C. sec. 9. . . . In so doing we read the provisions of secs. 132.12 and 132.13 together, give effect to the government . . . ’s position that sec. 132.12 does not cover all inter line movements, but sec. 132.13(e) covers some . . .

UNITED STATES v. TOLEDO, PEORIA WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, UNITED STATES v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY,, 280 F. Supp. 243 (N.D. Ind. 1968)

. . . . § 132.12, which inter alia defines a particular inspection procedure known as the “initial terminal . . . Failure to make the brake inspections required by 49 C.F.R. § 132.12 at Effner therefore constitutes . . . This agreement is of no effect in interpreting 49 C.F.R. § 132.12. . . . A second difficulty with defendants’ contention is that neither the statute nor 49 C.F.R. § 132.12 say . . . Moreover, in determining whether the application of 49 C.F.R. § 132.12 to require a brake inspection . . .

UNITED STATES v. ST. LOUIS- SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY,, 271 F. Supp. 212 (W.D. Mo. 1967)

. . . Count I involves violation of § 9 of the Act and section 132.12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and . . .

UNITED STATES v. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS,, 269 F. Supp. 910 (E.D. Ill. 1967)

. . . 66-25 contains twenty causes of action; twelve charge violation of 49 CFR 132.13(e) (1) and 49 CFR 132.12 . . . being admitted by the defendant, and the remaining four are in dispute and charge violations of 49 CFR 132.12 . . . Action 66-79 consists of one cause of action, a violation of 49 CFR 132.12. 49 CFR 132.12 provides in . . . The train is there given the full initial terminal brake test prescribed by 49 CFR 132.12. . . . the boundary is the place where the train is received in interchange as that term is used in 49 CFR 132.12 . . .

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, a v. S. MORSE Jr. Co. a, 222 F. Supp. 645 (D. Minn. 1963)

. . . . § 132.12 is part of the contract. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CARBON COUNTY RAILWAY COMPANY,, 199 F. Supp. 726 (D. Utah 1961)

. . . the cases from other jurisdictions did not come to grips with the contrasting provisions of Section 132.12 . . . provides that “each train must have the air brakes in effective operating condition * * *» Section 132.12 . . . it is further provided that, “Cars added to train which have not been inspected in accordance with 132.12 . . . a terminal where a solid block of cars which has been previously charged and tested as provided by 132.12 . . . and yard train movements exceeding 20 miles must have brake inspection in accordance with paragraph 132.12 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ALTON AND SOUTHERN RAILROAD, UNITED STATES v. MANUFACTURERS RAILWAY COMPANY, UNITED STATES v. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS,, 190 F. Supp. 166 (E.D. Ill. 1960)

. . . Transfer train and yard train movements exceeding 20 miles must have brake inspection in accordance with § 132.12 . . . Section 132.12 provides in pertinent parts as follows: “§ 132.12. . . . specifically state that a visual inspection of each car is required in movements under 20 miles, while Section 132.12 . . . Inspection under Section 132.12 requires inspection of the train brakes to determine: (1) that angle . . .

UNITED STATES v. MANUFACTURERS RAILWAY COMPANY,, 199 F. Supp. 866 (E.D. Mo. 1960)

. . . adopted by the Interstate Commerce Commission under authority of the Safety Appliance Act aforesaid as § 132.12 . . . Section 132.12(b) (1) provides that in freight train movements of over 20 miles and at points of origin . . . The defendant contends that as the wording in § 132.12(b) (1) requires an “inspection”, and as § 132.13 . . . determination of the application of brakes and therefore is not as inclusive and comprehensive as § 132.12 . . .

JOSHUA HENDY IRON WORKS v. BRENNEMAN, 185 F. 183 (S.D.N.Y. 1911)

. . . Supp. 393, a statement, "Balance due on amount rendered $132.12,” delivered, and a payment of $5 made . . .

v., 14 F. 858 (D. Mass. 1883)

. . . It is agreed that the amount due the libelant as wages is §132.12. . . .