alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Walt Whitman Game Room, Inc., Appellant, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding to review a determination of the respondent zoning board of appeals, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s application for a special exception permit, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 22, 1979, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Petitioner’s application for a special exception permit to operate a. game room in a shopping center was denied by the respondent zoning board of appeals on the ground that a game room is not a permitted use. There was evidence that two other game rooms were in existence in the same shopping center. In a prior proceeding we held that while the respondent zoning board of appeals interpretation of the ordinance was "clearly rational” and its interpretation would control in the absence of any evidence that the town board interprets this section of the ordinance in a contrary manner, on the record it was impossible to ascertain the true reason for the town board’s failure to act with respect to the existing game rooms *(Matter of Walt Whitman Game Room v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington,*62 AD2d 183). Accordingly, we remanded the matter to the respondent zoning board of appeals for a new hearing and determination so that the latter might explore the nature and scope of the operations of the other two game rooms and the intent of the town board in allowing them to continue operating and then make an intelligent interpretation of the ordinance. Upon the remand, additional testimony was taken and the respondent zoning board of appeals concluded that the town board viewed the ordinance in a manner consistent with that adopted by the zoning board of appeals and that the town board and the building and housing department acted expeditiously to enjoin the operation of an existing game room. The zoning board of appeals again denied the application. The petitioner then commenced this proceeding and Special Term dismissed the petition. It is clear from the record that the town board’s failure to act initially was due solely to the fact that the officials charged with enforcement of the ordinance were not aware of the violations and that they acted expeditiously as soon as they were informed of possible violations. The respondent zoning board of appeals properly concluded that it interpreted the ordinance in a manner consistent with the interpretation by the town board. The zoning board of appeals determination was therefore supported by substantial evidence and the judgment dismissing the petition must be affirmed. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Research Frontiers Incorporated:


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-53030, 33-86910,
333-08623, 333-34163, 333-80575, 333-63374, 333-106754 and
333-159094) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-133858, 333-40369,
333-115052,333-65219 and 333-159093) of Research
Frontiers Incorporated and subsidiary of our reports
dated March 10, 2010, relating to the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement
schedule and the effectiveness of Research Frontiers
Incorporated's internal control over financial reporting,
which appear in this Form 10-K.


                              /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                  BDO Seidman, LLP

  Melville, New York
  March 10, 2010
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2022 Workiva-->
<!--r:5735c22a-53af-4801-a3b9-c7ec379b280f,g:d1827c09-430e-4608-84c4-228474dc90f7-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:ndsn="http://www.nordson.com/20220822" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.nordson.com/20220822">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2022" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2022/dei-2022.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="ndsn-20220822_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="ndsn-20220822_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="Cover" roleURI="http://www.nordson.com/role/Cover">
        <link:definition>0001001 - Document - Cover</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2039 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2039

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to furnish headstones and markers for certain deceased 
       veterans buried in veterans' cemeteries of Indian tribes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2013

 Ms. Titus (for herself, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Cole, Mrs. Napolitano, 
     Ms. McCollum, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Cardenas, and Mr. Takano) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to furnish headstones and markers for certain deceased 
       veterans buried in veterans' cemeteries of Indian tribes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. HEADSTONES AND MARKERS FOR PLACEMENT IN TRIBAL VETERANS' 
              CEMETERIES.

    Section 2306 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting ``or in a veterans' 
        cemetery on land owned by or held in trust for a tribal 
        organization (as defined in section 3765(4) of this title)'' 
        after ``State''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``a veterans' 
        cemetery on land owned by or held in trust for a tribal 
        organization,'' after ``a veterans' cemetery owned by a 
        State,''.
                                 <all>
```
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 22, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00713

- CR

Daniel Joe Hernandez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 167TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.

### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 22, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 0071 4

- CR

Daniel Joe Hernandez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 167TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,925
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,483
<INVENTORY>                                    1,548
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,798
<PP&E>                                         47,686
<DEPRECIATION>                                 22,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 68,939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          76,948
<BONDS>                                        26,814
<COMMON>                                       81,843
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,005
<OTHER-SE>                                     (92,653)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   68,939
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               76,842
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  60,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               53,972
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (42,362)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,717
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (44,079)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (585)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (44,664)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.07)


</TABLE>
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




  The Board of Directors
  Research Frontiers Incorporated

  We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
  (No. 33-53030, 33-86910, 333-08623, 333-34163, 333-80575 and 333-63374)
  on Form S-8 and (No. 333-40369 and 333-65219 ) on Form S-3 of Research
  Frontiers Incorporated of our report dated March 1, 2002 relating to the
  consolidated balance sheets of Research Frontiers Incorporated and subsidiary
  as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statements of
  operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
   three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in the
  December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Research Frontiers
  Incorporated.


                              /s/ KPMG LLP
                                  KPMG LLP

  Melville, New York
  March 27, 2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to the Cases 

Identified on Exhibits A and B 

Case No. 3:19md2885 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon 

ORDER 

This Order addresses duplicate cases filed on the active docket which raised 

representation issues previously addressed by the Court. More specifically, on 

February 1, 2023, the Court identified those plaintiffs with more than one case filed 

on the active docket and gave them one final opportunity to dismiss the duplicate 

case. See ECF No. 3655 (warning that plaintiffs failing to resolve their overlapping 

representation issues would result in the dismissal of the later-filed cases). Counsel 

representing the plaintiffs listed on Exhibits A and B were required to “confer with 

one another and move to dismiss the case that is deemed to be the duplicate case” 

by February 22, 2023. Id at 2. Counsel for plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A complied,1

1

 Defendant 3M Company’s Master Answer, filed on October 31, 2019, is deemed adopted 

in every case pending in the MDL. See ECF Nos. 763 & 800. Plaintiffs McClenon, Taylor, Steele, 

and Whitiker failed to comply with Rule 41 by submitting notices of voluntary dismissal rather 

than motions to dismiss or stipulations of dismissal signed by all parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii); see also McClenon v. 3M Co., 8:20-cv-91121, ECF No. 6 (N.D. Fla February 21, 

2023); Taylor v. 3M Co., 8:20-cv-04866, ECF No. 6 (N.D. Fla February 10, 2023); Steele v. 3M 

Co., 8:20-cv-31802, ECF No. 12 (N.D. Fla February 22, 2023); Whitiker v. 3M Co., 7:20-cvCase 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3695 Filed 03/08/23 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

however, the firms representing the plaintiffs listed on Exhibit B failed to heed the 

Court’s warning. 

Accordingly: 

1. The motions identified on Exhibit A are GRANTED.

2. The plaintiffs’ cases identified on Exhibit B are hereby DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the Court’s Order,

ECF No. 3655.

3. The Clerk is directed to enter a copy of this Order on the main MDL docket

and on the individual dockets and close the cases in their entirety for all

purposes.

DONE AND ORDERED on this 8th day of March, 2023. 

_________________________________

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17760, ECF No. 11 (N.D. Fla February 17, 2023). However, the Court will construe the Plaintiffs’ 

notices as motions to dismiss. 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3695 Filed 03/08/23 Page 2 of 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 22, 2014

NO. 03-12-00713-CR

Daniel Joe Hernandez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 167TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 22, 2014

NO. 03-12-00714-CR

Daniel Joe Hernandez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 167TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000793631
<NAME> AEI REAL ESTATE FUND XV LTD PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         956,627
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               979,087
<PP&E>                                       5,548,847
<DEPRECIATION>                               (931,974)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,595,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          142,095
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,453,865
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,595,960
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               809,646
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  266,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                899,327
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            899,327
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   899,327
<EPS-BASIC>                                     121.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   121.45



</TABLE>
Notice of Final Permit

Documents
#### § 1570.1100 Drawback certification.

An offer submitted by an exporter to FAS for an export bonus under the SOAP or the COAP must contain, in addition to any other information required by FAS, a certification stating the following: “None of the eligible commodity (sunflowerseed oil and/or cottonseed oil) has been or will be used as the basis for a claim of a refund, as drawback, pursuant to section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313) of any duty, tax, or fee imposed under Federal law on an imported commodity or product.” This certification must be signed by the exporter, if the exporter is an individual, or by a partner or officer of the exporter, if the exporter is a partnership or a corporation, respectively. FAS will reject any offer that does not contain the prescribed certification.
#### The State ex rel. Byrdsong, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Byrdsong v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 346.]

(No. 96-898

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*Butler, Cincione, DiCuccio, Dritz & Barnhart*and *David B. Barnhart,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Cheryl J. Nester,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.97 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Easter Ware, Petitioner, v Carmen Shang, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the respondent State commissioner, dated June 1, 1977 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency to deny petitioner’s application for public assistance. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondents are directed to reinstate petitioner’s grant retroactive to June 5, 1976. The local agency failed to prove by substantial evidence that the petitioner did, in fact, receive notice of a court hearing at which she failed to appear, or that such notice was properly posted and *971mailed (see *Gardam & Son v Batterson,*198 NY 175; *Matter of Roach v Toia,*58 AD2d 652). Thus, it was improper to terminate petitioner’s grant upon the ground that her failure to appear constituted a failure to cooperate. We also hold that the local agency failed to provide petitioner with proper notice of its discontinuance of assistance. Petitioner’s request for a fair hearing was, therefore, not time barred by the provisions of former section 135-a of the Social Services Law, as improper notice of discontinuance tolls the provisions of said section (18 NYCRR 358.3; *Matter of Kantanas v Wyman,*38 AD2d 849; *Matter of Angelo v Toia,*61 AD2d 1121; *Matter of Garcia v Blum,*66 AD2d 781). Under the view of the case thus adopted, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the further issue of the manner and sufficiency of a notice which must be given to a recipient of an impending date where the failure to appear may result in a termination of benefits. Mangano, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Hargett, JJ., concur.
#### § 1786.161 Return of Qualified Notes and release of lien.

Upon payment to RUS at closing of the full amount specified in the notice delivered by RUS to the borrower pursuant to the terms of the prepayment agreement (see § 1786.158(e)), RUS will deliver to the borrower at closing those Qualified Notes which have been paid in full at such closing, and upon payment and discharge of all outstanding RUS debt obligations by the borrower, RUS will deliver to the borrower at the final closing a release of lien prepared by the borrower pursuant to the terms of the prepayment agreement.
#### KAUFMAN, Respondent, v. JUDAH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 25, 1906.)

Action by Carrie Kaufman against Jenme Judah. F. Bien, for appellant. E. Jacobs, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.