Cases from cite.case.law:

N. B. v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 244 F. Supp. 3d 176 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . Code §§ 4-210.02, 4-205.55, 4-210.04, and 4-205.59. Am. Compl. ¶ 195. . . . recipient of public assistance who claim for assistance has been denied.... ” Sections 4-205.55 and 4-210.04 . . . As a result, the proper question here is whether § 4-205.55 and § 4-210.04 obligated the District to . . .

CANADIAN ST. REGIS BAND OF MOHAWK INDIANS, v. NEW YORK, E. St. n k a N. A. Co. Co. St. Of v. E. St. W. Co. St. St. v. E. St. N. A. Co. Co., 146 F. Supp. 2d 170 (N.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . ) a July 21, 1845 “treaty” whereby the State purchased the meadows on the Grass River consisting of 210.04 . . .

D. SCHWARTZ, v. MARKETING PUBLISHING COMPANY II,, 153 F.R.D. 16 (D. Conn. 1994)

. . . Moore, supra, ¶ 210.04 at 10-14 (“the term original papers refers ... to all papers presented to the . . .

TOUCET, v. MARITIME OVERSEAS CORP., 991 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1993)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.04[1]). . . . .

HIMLER, v. COMPREHENSIVE CARE CORPORATION, W. B. L. G. G. E. Sr., 790 F. Supp. 114 (E.D. Va. 1992)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice para. 210.04 (2d ed. 1992). . . .

BUSHKIN ASSOCIATES, INC. J. v. RAYTHEON COMPANY,, 815 F.2d 142 (1st Cir. 1987)

. . . of "the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court’’); 9 Moore’s Federal Practice 1f 210.04 . . .

TITUS, E. v. MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, 695 F.2d 746 (3d Cir. 1982)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice j| 210.04, at 10-15 (1982). . . .

ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. In JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 529 F. Supp. 866 (E.D. Pa. 1981)

. . . appeal from grant of summary judgment could not be considered on appeal); 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.04 . . .

In SACO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. Co. d b a SACO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. Co. d b a v. ARMSTRONG BUSINESS CREDIT CORP. M. Co. J. W., 13 B.R. 226 (Bankr. D. Me. 1981)

. . . See In re Andersen & Co., 621 F.2d 37, 39 (1st Cir. 1980); 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 210.04[1] at . . .

UNITED STATES v. HUBBARD UNITED STATES v. HUBBARD CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, v. UNITED STATES, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980)

. . . the “record” at least for purposes of appeal of the evidentiary ruling. 9 Moore’s Federal Practice j] 210.04 . . .

In ARTHUR ANDERSEN CO., 621 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1980)

. . . In 9 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 210.04, at 10-14, we read, “The term original papers refers, then, to . . .

L. BARNES, v. ST. CATHERINE S HOSPITAL,, 563 F.2d 324 (7th Cir. 1977)

. . . .; 9 Moore’s Federal Practice U 210.04[1] (1975 ed.). . . .

DREWETT, v. AETNA CASUALTY SURETY COMPANY, 539 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . See generally 9 Moore’s Federal Practice U 210.04. . . . .