alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as West v. Ohio Univ. , 2010-Ohio-6200.] 

# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

DIANA WEST

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO UNIVERSITY

Defendant

Case No. 2010-07164-AD

Clerk Miles C. Durfey

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Diana West, filed this action against defendant, Ohio University, contending that the radiator on her 2007 Chrysler PT Cruiser was damaged as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of defendant in maintaining a hazardous roadway condition on a roadway area on the campus of Ohio University. In her complaint, plaintiff described her particular damage incident noting that “I turned on to Piggery Lane in the Ridges owned by Ohio University and because of the condition of the road, it ripped the bottom of my radiator out.” Plaintiff further noted that “Piggery Lane is a very narrow road and the bricks in t he center of it are a lot higher than my wheels were.” Plaintiff requested damage recovery in the amount of $419.52, the total cost of automotive repairs and related expenses. The $25.00 filing fee was paid and plaintiff requested reimbursement of that cost along with her damage claim. {¶ 2} “2) Defendant filed an investigation report stating that “Ohio University

does not contest this claim.” {¶ 3} “3) Plaintiff filed a response expressing her agreement with defendant’sposition.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 4} 1) Sufficient proof has been offered to establish the damage to the vehicle was proximately caused by negligence on the part of defendant. Lee v. University of Akron (1998), 97-12441-AD; Warren v. University of Akron (1999), 99- 01683-AD; Miller v. University of Akron (2001), 2001-04140-AD; Swigart v. Ohio Univ.

, Ct. of Cl. No. 2009-01581-AD, 2009-Ohio-2771. {¶ 5} 3) Defendant is liable to plaintiff for the damages claimed, $419.52, plus the $25.00 filing fee which may be reimbursed as compensable costs pursuant to R.C.

2335.19. See Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19, 587 N.E. 2d 990.



# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

DIANA WEST

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO UNIVERSITY

Defendant

Case No. 2010-07164-AD

Clerk Miles C. Durfey

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVEDETERMINATION

Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $444.52, whic h includes the filing fee. Court costs are assessed against defendant.

MILES C. DURFEY Clerk

Entry cc:

Diana West George T. Wendt 5 Coventry Lane Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 HDL Center 166H Athens, Ohio 45701 RDK/laa 7/22 Filed 8/17/10 Sent to S.C. reporter 12/10/10
EXHIBIT 4 

Case 9:20-cv-81063-RS Document 6-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 1 of 3
Case 9:20-cv-81063-RS Document 6-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 2 of 3
Case 9:20-cv-81063-RS Document 6-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 1:20-cv-21913 - -UU

JOSE PADILLA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

GULF COAST COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.,

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________/

JOINT PROPOSED ORDER SETTING

PRETRIAL DEADLINES AND TWO-WEEK TRIAL PERIOD

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida on ________________, 2020.

___________________________________

URSULA UNGARO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to:

All Counsel of Record 

06-17-2020 Initial Disclosures

08-03-2020 Joinder of parties and claims, and amendment of pleadings.

12-04-2020 Deadline to complete all discovery.

12-11-2020 Mediation must be completed.

01-08-2021

All dispositive and other pretrial motions not explicitly excluded by 

Local Rule 7.1(a)(1), and memoranda of law must be filed. 

05-11-2021 Joint pretrial stipulation must be filed pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(e). 

05-07-2021

Final proposed jury instructions (for jury trial) or findings of fact and 

conclusions of law (for bench trial) must be submitted.

05-18-2021 Final pretrial conference 

06-08-2021 Commencement of two-week trial period. 

Case 1:20-cv-21913-UU Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 1 of 1
<page>                                         EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dean Witter World
Currency Fund L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:  /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:	   Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:  President

Date:   May 17, 2004
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0677

Directorate Identifier: 2012NM105AD

GAMPS 4000, RF--- 1/4/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Case 0:00-cr-06218-NCR Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2003 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ANDRES GOMEZ,

 Plaintiff Case Number: 1:20-cv-22715-UU

Vince, LLC.,

Defendant

________________________________/

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) herby gives this Honorable Court notice of

dismissal of this action with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 20, 2020 / s / A l b e r t o R . L e al . 

Alberto R. Leal

Florida Bar No.: 1002345

E-Mail: al@thelealfirm.com

The Leal Law Firm, P.A.

Case 1:20-cv-22715-UU Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2020 Page 1 of 1
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Donald Kintner and :

Michelle Kintner :

:

v. : No. 532 C.D. 2018

:

Zoning Hearing Board of :

Smithfield Township and :

Township of Smithfield :

:

Appeal of: Township of Smithfield :

O R D E R

NOW, March 18, 2019

, having considered appell ee s ’ application for

reargument and appell ant ’s answer in response thereto , the application is denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

P resident Judge
No. 14,650.

#### Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County et al. *v.*Rocky Mountain Water Company.

(103 P. [2d] 686)

Decided June 10, 1940.

Mr. Harry Behm, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Hindry, Friedman &'Brewster, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Burke

delivered the opinion of the court.

These parties appeared in reverse order in the trial court. They are hereinafter referred to as the board and the company, respectively.

The board fixed the rate to be charged by the company for the carriage of irrigation water through its ditch and the company brought injunction to restrain the enforcement of that order. The rate fixed was $2.50 *277per inch. This the district court held confiscatory. Primarily for errors in the admission of evidence and failure to make requisite findings we reversed that judgment. *Commissioners v. Water Company,*102 Colo. 351, 79 P. (2d) 373. The cause was retried, the findings amended, and, in the judgment of the trial court, the errors noted were corrected. The rate of $2.50 was again enjoined and to review that judgment the board prosecutes the present writ. In fixing the base for calculation of a proper rate the trial court included $7,000 to the company for “working capital,” and $11,564.28 for valuation of its plant as a “going concern.” The allowance of these items forms the gist of the complaint now urged under the assignments. It appears from the record, and was admitted on oral argument, that irrespective of these elements the rate was confiscatory. It was fixed five years ago under article 7, chapter 90, p. 823, vol. 3, ’35 C.S.A., and particularly section 143, p. 829 thereof. It may be changed at any time “for good cause shown,” and two years after its date without such showing. Since the only thing enjoined is the enforcement of an admittedly erroneous rate, since such items as value of structures, equipment, and operating expense, are or may be variable, and since the board may now at any time readjust this rate, we find nothing to review. In fact the board must readjust, or enforce its former rate of $3.50. Such being the situation, and it being without our province to make orders in the premises, we find no justification for advisory suggestions.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard not participating.
§ 45.53 How may a party use a deposition in the hearing? ( a ) *In general.* Subject to the provisions of this section, a party may use in the hearing any part or all of a deposition taken under § 45.44 against any party who: ( 1 ) Was present or represented at the taking of the deposition; or
( 2 ) Had reasonable notice of the taking of the deposition.
( b ) *Admissibility.* ( 1 ) No part of a deposition will be included in the hearing record, unless received in evidence by the ALJ.
( 2 ) The ALJ will exclude from evidence any question and response to which an objection: ( i ) Was noted at the taking of the deposition; and
( ii ) Would have been sustained if the witness had been personally present and testifying at a hearing.
( 3 ) If a party offers only part of a deposition in evidence: ( i ) An adverse party may require the party to introduce any other part that ought in fairness to be considered with the part introduced; and
( ii ) Any other party may introduce any other parts.
( c ) *Videotaped deposition.* If the deposition was recorded on videotape and is admitted into evidence, relevant portions will be played during the hearing and transcribed into the record by the reporter.
Frequently Asked Questions 

Materials License Annual Fee 

What is the invoice for? 

The invoice is for the annual fee for the NRC license identified on the top of page two of 

your invoice [see Sample Invoice.] 

What period does this invoice cover? 

Materials licenses annual fees that are less than $100,000 are billed on the anniversary 

date of the license and cover a twelve month period. Licensees that are billed on the 

license anniversary date will be assessed the annual fee in effect on the anniversary 

date of the license. For purposes of proration for new licenses, terminations, and 

downgraded licenses, the annual fee is prorated based on the fiscal year, October 1 

through September 30 [see 10 CFR Part 171.17 Proration and 10 CFR Part 171.19

Payment for more detail.] 

What is an anniversary month? 

The anniversary month is the month the license was originally issued. 

We have more than one license. Why weren’t they all on the invoice we received? 

If you have multiple licenses or approvals and they have different anniversary months, 

invoices will be issued for the anniversary month of each license or approval. 

Where can I find NRC’s Fee Schedules? 

The materials annual fee schedule can be found under 10 CFR Part 171.16. Our fee 

schedules are published for notice and comment rulemaking in the Federal Register. 

The proposed and final fee schedules are available on the internet Regulations.gov

Termination Requests 

Our license was terminated. Why did we receive an invoice? 

The annual fee is not waived for termination requests filed on or after October 1 of a 

fiscal year. However, if you file a termination request during the period October 1 

through March 31 of the fiscal year, the NRC will prorate the fee 50 percent and will 

process a refund for any overpayment. The NRC will not prorate the annual fee for 

termination requests that are filed after March 31of the fiscal year and will send an 

invoice for the full annual fee in effect on the anniversary date of the license [see 10 

CFR Part 171.17 Proration, for additional information.] 
How can we avoid the annual fee next year? 

To avoid the annual fee for the next year, you must request termination or an 

amendment for possession or storage only, and you must permanently cease licensed 

activities before October 1 of the next fiscal year. 

How do we terminate our license?

Submit a termination request to NRC at least 30 days before the expiration date on your 

license. You should contact the appropriate NRC Regional Office [see Contacts section] 

for information on how to terminate your license. 

.
**Exhibit32.0**

 

**CertificationsPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The certification set forth below is being submittedin connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterended June 26, 2004 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the“Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode.

 

Anthony J. Cuti, the Chief Executive Officer and JohnK. Henry, the Chief Financial Officer of Duane Reade Inc., each certifies that,to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.                                       theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.                                       theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Duane Reade Inc.

 

 
|                       | /s/ Anthony J. Cuti     |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                       | Anthony J. Cuti         |
|                       | Chief Executive Officer |
|                       |                    |
|                       |                    |
|                       | /s/ John K. Henry       |   |
|                       | John K. Henry           |
| Date:  August 5, 2004 | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Duane Reade Inc.and will be retained by Duane Reade Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1: CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

            In connection with the accompanying Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
of Magna-Lab, Inc. for the quarter and six months ended August 31, 2004, the
undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:

            (1)   such Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter and six
                  months ended August 31, 2004 fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (2)   the information contained in such Quarterly report on Form
                  10-QSB for the quarter and six months ended August 31, 2004
                  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
                  condition and results of operations of Magna-Lab, Inc.


      October 14, 2004                          /s/ Lawrence A. Minkoff
                                                -----------------------
                                                Name: Lawrence A. Minkoff
                                                Title: President (principal
                                                executive officer)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHigh speed all optical networksAn inherent problem of conventional point-to-point wide area network (WAN) architectures is that they cannot translate optical transmission bandwidth into comparable user available throughput due to the limiting electronic processing speed of the switching nodes. The first solution to wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) based WAN networks that overcomes this limitation is presented. The proposed Lightnet architecture takes into account the idiosyncrasies of WDM switching/transmission leading to an efficient and pragmatic solution. The Lightnet architecture trades the ample WDM bandwidth for a reduction in the number of processing stages and a simplification of each switching stage, leading to drastically increased effective network throughputs. The principle of the Lightnet architecture is the construction and use of virtual topology networks, embedded in the original network in the wavelength domain. For this construction Lightnets utilize the new concept of lightpaths which constitute the links of the virtual topology. Lightpaths are all-optical, multihop, paths in the network that allow data to be switched through intermediate nodes using high throughput passive optical switches. The use of the virtual topologies and the associated switching design introduce a number of new ideas, which are discussed in detail.Document ID19900017333Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsChlamtac, Imrich*(Massachusetts Univ. Amherst, MA, United States)*Ganz, Aura*(Massachusetts Univ. Amherst, MA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryOpticsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:185311NASA-CR-185311Accession Number90N26649Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG2-578Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017333.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 99.2: CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
1350

      In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Magna-Lab, Inc. for the quarter ended August 31, 2002, the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

      (3)   such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended August
            31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (4)   the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
            for the quarter ended August 31, 2002 fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of Magna-Lab, Inc.

October 15, 2002                 /s/ Kenneth C. Riscica
                                 ----------------------
                                 Name:  Kenneth C. Riscica
                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Charles Horwitz, Respondent, *v.*United Firemen’s Insurance Company of Philadelphia, Appellant. Charles Horwitz, Respondent, *v.*North British and Mercantile Insurance Company of London and Edinburgh, Appellant. Charles Horwitz, Respondent, *v.*Equitable Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from orders of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 8th day of April, 1914, granting the plaintiff’s motion for a bill of particulars.

Per Curiam:

Subdivision 4of the notice of motion was entirely unnecessary considering the other clauses of the order as to which the defendants were required to give particulars. The orders are modified by striking out the fourth demand for particulars, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J, McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Orders modified as directed in opinion and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Order to be settled on notice.
(December 8, 1947.)

#### Nellie Brady, Appellant, v. Helen McCabe, Respondent.

- Motion for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division granted. Present — Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ.
#### Stephen K. Watts, Appellant, v. Doull Miller Company, Respondent.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, on the authority of *Dunk*v. *Dunk*(177 N. Y. 264). Present —Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.