Cases from cite.case.law:

VANNER, v. GOLDSHEIN VANNER, v. GOLDSHEIN ALVES, v. GOLDSHEIN ALVES, v. GOLDSHEIN, 216 So. 2d 759 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . begins by setting forth the statutory intent in these words: “* * * (1) The purpose of sections 823.07-823.09 . . .

SMITH v. UNITED STATES, 169 F.2d 118 (6th Cir. 1948)

. . . My recollection of answering that question was the account showed a credit of $11,-823.09, February 19 . . .

FERRARO v. ARTHUR M. ROSENBERG CO. INC. OF NEW HAVEN, CONN., 156 F.2d 212 (2d Cir. 1946)

. . . performed, the amount of overtime worked each day and the overtime compensation he claimed, computed at $823.09 . . .