alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
628 S.E.2d 883

#### In the Matter of Alex J. NEWTON, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 22, 2006.

ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel has filed a petition asking this Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and seeking the appointment of an attorney to protect respondent’s clients’ interests pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Respondent consents to the suspension.'

IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s license to practice law in this state is suspended until further order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Arthur L. Howson, Jr., Esquire, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent’s client files, trust aecount(s), escrow account(s), operating aceount(s), and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain. Mr. Howson shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent’s clients. Mr. Howson may make disbursements from respondent’s trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts) respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating accounts of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respon*172dent from making withdrawals from the account(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that Arthur L. Howson, Jr., Esquire, has been duly-appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that Arthur L. Howson, Jr., Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent’s mail and the authority to direct that respondent’s mail be delivered to Mr. Howson’s office.

This appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless request is made to this Court for an extension.

/s/ Jean H. Toal, C.J.

FOR THE COURT
#### The People *ex rel. v.*Portus B. Weare *et al.*and Same v. Gideon S. Thompson *et al.*and Same *v.*John Lewis *et al.*

*Opinion filed April 17, 1899.*

These cases are controlled by the decision in *People ex rel.*v. *Martin,*178 Ill. 611.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.

Charles S. Deneen, State’s Attorney, (Charles S. Cutting, and Green & Pringle, of counsel,) for appellant.

John P. Wilson, and H. R. Pebbles, for appellees.

Per Curiam:

The above styled cases are appeals from judgments dismissing petitions for writs of *quo warranto*against the appellees, respectively. The matter involved in each case was the validity of proceedings relied upon to effect the disconnection of territory from the incorporated town of Cicero, in the county of Cook, and to create the alleged towns of Grant, Berwyn and Oak Park. The case of *People ex rel.*v. *Martin,*178 Ill. 611, involved the same questions, and these cases were by agreement of the parties submitted with that ease for decision.

In accordance with the judgment entered in that case, the judgment appealed from in each of the above styled causes is reversed and each of the cases is remanded, with directions to the circuit court to sustain the demurrers to the pleas in the respective cases, and to enter judgment in each case that the appellees are without legal authority to exercise the official duties assumed by them, respectively.

*Reversed and remanded.*
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1864 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1864

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General 
investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in 
 response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2013

   Mrs. Walorski (for herself and Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General 
investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in 
 response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault.

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

SECTION 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF 
              RETALIATORY PERSONNEL ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO MAKING 
              PROTECTED COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING SEXUAL ASSAULT.

    Section 1034(c)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``sexual harassment or'' and inserting ``rape, sexual 
assault, or other sexual misconduct in violation of sections 920 
through 920c of this title (articles 120 through 120c of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice), sexual harassment, or''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ruths Hospitality Group, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter
ended June 27, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The
Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date: August 4, 2010



By

/s/ ROBERT M. VINCENTRobert M. VincentExecutive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer ofRuths Hospitality Group, Inc.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 9, 2011

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 10

‐ 2712

MARC E. THOMPSON, Petitioner

‐ Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

‐ Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 09 C 7685

Suzanne B. Conlon, Judge

.

O R D E R

On consideration of the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by Petitioner-Appellant on October 3, 2011, no judge in regular active service requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc.
The order of this court issued on August 19, 2011, is amended as follows:
Page 8 is amended by replacing the last full paragraph (beginning “Additionally, we note that . . .”) with the following:No. 10

‐ 2712 Page 2

Additionally, we note that while an expert may have testified that the cause of the fire was “undetermined,” meaning that causes other than arson could not be ruled out, we do not find a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694. As we noted on direct appeal, there was “plenty of other evidence from which a rational jury could find that Thompson caused the fire,” Thompson , 523 F.3d at 810, even a fire with an “undetermined” origin. To be sure, the relevant inquiry in this habeas matter does not concern the sufficiency of the evidence, rather, it is whether counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient, and if so, whether Thompson was prejudiced. See, e.g., Richey , 498 F.3d at 364 (“Although circumstantial evidence alone might have led to a conviction, the question before us is not one of the sufficiency of the evidence, but of undermining our confidence in the reliability of the re sult.”). We, however, find that under these facts, the evidence in this case prevents a finding of prejudice. See United States v. Reyes , 270 F.3d 1158, 1169 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Circumstantial evidence is of equal probative value to direct evidence and in some cases is even more reliable.”) (internal citations omitted).
In all other respects, all members of the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing.
Accordingly, the petition is D ENIED

.
exv10w19



 






EXHIBIT 10.19




Description of USF Corporation 

2005 Annual Incentive Plan




OBJECTIVES




     The objective of the USF Corporation 2005 Annual Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is to incentivize
certain officers and employees of USF to achieve two goals: (1) to meet corporate goals for 2005
and (2) to promote cooperation and assistance between USF operating companies.



SUMMARY OF PLAN CHARACTERISTICS




     In order for any participant to earn a bonus under the plan, USF must meet a minimum
“threshold” level of “operating income.”



     The calculation of “operating income” with respect to a specific individual may be determined
by (a) the operating income of USF on a consolidated basis (the year-end operating income of all of
USF’s business units after corporate overhead is applied but before taxes and interest), (b) the
operating income of an individual business unit of USF to which such individual’s services are
related or (c) a combination of (a) and (b).



     Each incentive goal has a minimum, target and maximum amount based on the position the
individual holds.



     A summary of the applicable basis for determining “operating income” for purposes of the bonus
and the maximum bonus (as a percentage of such person’s base salary) for certain officers of USF is
provided on Annex A hereto.



 









 





ANNEX A




2005 Proposed Bonus Plan




Bonus Profiles and Incentive Allocations




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Maximum Bonus
	 	 	 	 	 	 	(as a % of
	 	 	 	 	Basis of Operating Income	 	Individual’s Base
	Company	 	Position/Title	 	Determination (%)	 	Salary)
	USF Corporation
	 	CEO	 	USF Consolidated (100%)	 	150%
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Corporation
	 	CFO	 	USF Consolidated (100%)	 	100%
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Corporation
	 	SVP	 	USF Consolidated (100%)	 	80%
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Corporation
	 	VP	 	USF Consolidated (100%)	 	50%
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Corporation
	 	Director	 	USF Consolidated (100%)	 	25%
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Corporation
	 	Manager	 	USF Consolidated (100%)	 	12.5%
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Corporation
	 	Individual Contributor	 	USF Consolidated (100%)	 	5%
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Holland
	 	Business Unit President	 	Business Unit (60%)	 	100%
	USF Reddaway
	 	 	 	USF Consolidated (40%)	 	 
	USF Glen Moore
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Bestway
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Dugan
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Holland
	 	VP	 	Business Unit  (70%)	 	50% to 80%
	USF Reddaway
	 	 	 	USF Consolidated  (30%)	 	 
	USF Glen Moore
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Bestway
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	USF Dugan
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	Business Unit (80%)	 	100%
	USF Logistics
	 	Business Unit President	 	USF Consolidated (20%)	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	Business Unit (80%)	 	50%
	USF Logistics
	 	VP	 	USF Consolidated (20%)
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . P D - 0 9 9 2 - 1 5

A N T W A I N M A U R I C E B U R K S , A p p e l l a n t

v . T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S O R D E R R E G A R D I N G R E P R E S E N T A T I O N

F O R T B E N D C O U N T Y

T h i s o r d e r w a s d e l i v e r e d p e r c u r i a m . O R D E R
Appellant was convicted of tam p ering with evidenc e in cause number 12-DCR-061196 in the 400th District Court of For t Be nd County

. Appellant was sentenc ed to confine ment for 16 y ear s. The court of appeals affirmed the judgme nt of t he trial court. Bur ks v . S t at e, No

. 1 4-14- 00166-CR (Tex. App. — Houston, delivere d J uly 21, 2015). T he Appellant’s Pro se petition for discretionar

y revie w was g rante d by this Court on November 25, 2015. Ap p el l an t i s entitled to repr esenta tion befor e this Court at this time. See Article 1.051(a) (d)( 2), V.A.C.C.P. I t appea rs thatBU RKS -2

Appellant is without repr esenta tion in this court. Acc ording ly , the trial court is order ed to deter mine if Appellant is curr ently repr esente d by counsel, and if so, to inform this court who repr esents Appellant. I f Appe llant is not curr ently repr esente d by counsel a nd desires c ounsel, the trial cour t must first deter

mine whether Appellant is indige nt. I f the trial court finds Appellant is indige nt, that court shall appoint an attorney t o repr esent Appellant befor e this court in reg ard to PDR No. PD0992-15, in acc ord with the provisions of Articles 1.0 5 1 an d 26.04, V.A.C.C.P. Any hear ing conducte d pursuant to this order shall be held within 30 d ay s of the date of this order

. The trial court' s order appointing counsel, any finding s of fac t, aff id avits, or transcr iption of the court repor ter' s notes and any other supplementation of the rec ord shall be returne d to this court within 45 day s of the date of this order. I T I S SO ORDERED THI S THE 25 DAY OF NOVEMB ER, 2015 t h DO NOT PUBL I SH
EXHIBIT 10.2
 
  
       
 By signing below, I agree to accept the terms outlined herein. I understand and agree that this
letter is provided for information purposes only and does not guarantee employment for any definite
duration. I understand that my employment with the Company is at will and either party can
terminate this relationship at any time with or without cause. I agree to provide at least two (2)
weeks notice if I wish to terminate my employment. I acknowledge that this Supplement and the
Offer Letter represent the entire
agreement between myself and the Company and that no verbal or written agreements, promises or
representations that are not specifically stated are or will be binding on the Company.
 Brian McDonald                                          Date American Commercial Lines Inc.
#### The State ex rel. A.C. Leasing [Company], Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio; Baker, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. A.C. Leasing Co. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 114.]

(No. 96-2722

Submitted July 15, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.P.A.,*and *Richard A. Hernandez,*for appellee.

*Jurus Law Offices*and *Steve C. Carr,*for appellant.

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

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project

 Go to:     NAWQA Home

## Pesticide National Synthesis Project

HomePublicationsNational StatisticsDataPesticide UseWater-Quality BenchmarksPNSP Internal

                            Pesticides in Surface Waters
**EXHIBIT 32.2** **CERTIFICATION    OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Commercial    Lines Inc. (the “Company”) on    Form 10-Q    for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the    Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    “Report”), I, Christopher A. Black, Chief    Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to    18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to    § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report 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 the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    result of operations of the Company. /s/  Christopher    A. Black    Christopher A. Black    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     May 8, 2007
98-1275.

#### State v. Mock.

Cuyahoga App. No. 66682. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. DE STEFANO, Appellant, v. WOODBURY, Com’r, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of Matteo De Stefano, against John M. Woodbury, commissioner. C. E. Le Barbier, for appellant. T. Connoly, for respondent.

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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF L .A.

- K.,

A CHILD

. §

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00066

- CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2015DCM8567 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the part

of the judgment ordering Appellant to pay $1,020 monthly child support and $9,180 child support

arrearages. The Court also concludes there was error in the part of the judgment ordering

Appellant to pay cash medical support. We therefore reverse those portions of the trial court’s

judgment and remand those issues to the trial court for further proceedings

.

The remainder of the judgment is affirmed, in accordance wi th the opinion of this Court.

We further order that Appellee recover from Appellant and h is sureties, if any, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

43.5. for performance on the judgment and all costs in this Court , for which let execution issue.

This decision shall be cer tified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29 TH DAY OF JANUARY , 20 2 0.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNumerical modeling of spray combustion with an advanced VOF methodThis paper summarizes the technical development and validation of a multiphase computational fluid dynamics (CFD) numerical method using the volume-of-fluid (VOF) model and a Lagrangian tracking model which can be employed to analyze general multiphase flow problems with free surface mechanism. The gas-liquid interface mass, momentum and energy conservation relationships are modeled by continuum surface mechanisms. A new solution method is developed such that the present VOF model can be applied for all-speed flow regimes. The objectives of the present study are to develop and verify the fractional volume-of-fluid cell partitioning approach into a predictor-corrector algorithm and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the present approach by simulating benchmark problems including laminar impinging jets, shear coaxial jet atomization and shear coaxial spray combustion flows.Document ID19960033270Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsChen, Yen-Sen*(Engineering Sciences, Inc. Huntsville,AL United States)*Shang, Huan-Min*(Engineering Sciences, Inc. Huntsville,AL United States)*Shih, Ming-Hsin*(Engineering Sciences, Inc. Huntsville,AL United States)*Liaw, Paul*(Engineering Sciences, Inc. Huntsville,AL United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 27, 1995Subject CategoryInorganic And Physical ChemistryReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:201118NASA-CR-201118Meeting InformationMeeting: Annual Propulsion Symposium of PERCLocation: Huntsville, ALCountry: United StatesStart Date: October 23, 1995End Date: October 27, 1995Accession Number96N30074Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-40175Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960033270.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
Editorial Note on Part 1955
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1955.129 Business brokers. The services of business brokers or business opportunity brokers may be authorized by the appropriate Assistant Administrator in lieu of or in addition to real estate brokers for the sale of businesses as a whole, including goodwill and chattel, when: ( a ) The primary use of the structure included in the sale is other than residential;
( b ) The business broker is duly licensed by the respective state; and
( c ) The primary function of the business is other than farming or ranching.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Advisory 

Circular

Subject: Change 3 to MEASUREMENT, 

CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF SKIDRESISTANT AIRPORT PAVEMENT SURFACES 

Date: 8/25/04

Initiated by: AAS-100 

AC No: 150/5320-12C

Change: 3

1. PURPOSE. This change updates information regarding FAA qualified Continuous Friction 

Measuring Equipment.

2. PRINCIPAL CHANGES. The following editorial changes have been made:

 a. Appendix 4. Changes have been made to reflect updated information for manufacturers. 

PAGE CONTROL CHART

Remove 

Pages 

Dated Insert Pages Dated

Appendix 4 

pg. 1 (and 2)

4/16/04 Appendix 4 

pg. 1 (and 2) 

8/25/04 

DAVID L. BENNETT 

Director, Office of Airport Safety 

 and Standards 

8/25/04 AC 150/5320-12C

 Appendix 4 

Change 3 

APPENDIX 4. FAA-APPROVED CFME 

AIRPORT SURFACE FRICTION TESTER INDUSTRIES AB AIRPORT SURFACE FRICTION TESTER 

Metallgatan 7 +46 0 411 651 00 

271 39 Ystad, Sweden FAX +46 0 411 190 12 

SWEDEN Email: sales@ asft.se

AIRPORT TECHNOLOGY USA SAFEGATE FRICTION TESTER 

NO LONGER AVAILABLE 

DYNATEST CONSULTING, INC., RUNWAY FRICTION TESTER (M6800) 

(FORMERLY K.J. LAW ENGINEERS, INC.) (904) 964-3777 

13952 US Highway 301 South FAX (904) 964-3749 

Starke, FL 32091 

FINDLAY, IRVINE, LTD. GRIPTESTER FRICTION TESTER 

42-44 Bog Road, Penicuik +44 1968 672111 

Midlothian EH 26 9 BU FAX +44 1968 671237 

SCOTLAND www.findlayirvine.com

INTERTECH ENGINEERING TATRA FRICTION TESTER 

 NO LONGER AVAILABLE 

NEUBERT AERO CORP. MU METER 

4105 West DeLeon Street (727) 538-8744 

Tampa, FL 33609 FAX (727) 538-8765 

 Email: info@airportnac.com

NORSEMETER RUNAR RUNWAY ANALYSER AND RECORDER 

P.O. Box 125 +47 23 20 1270 

Bogstadvien FAX + 47 23 20 1271 

0323 0310 

NORWAY

PATRIA VAMMAS AEC BV-11 SKIDDOMETER 

P.O. Box 18 Vammaksentie + 358 20 4694041 

FIN-38201 Vammala FAX +358 20 4694250 

FINLAND www.patria.fi 

1 (and 2)
#### § 1774.24 Exception authority.

The Administrator may, in individual cases, make an exception to any requirement or provision of this part which is not inconsistent with the authorizing statute or other applicable law and is determined to be in the Government's interest. Requests for exceptions must be made in writing by the State Director and supported with documentation to explain the adverse effect on the Government's interest, propose alternative course(s) of action, and show how the adverse affect will be eliminated or minimized if the exception is granted. The exception decision will be documented in writing, signed by the Administrator, and retained in the files.
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-16 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-16 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-16 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-16 Filed 03/11/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-16 Filed 03/11/20 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-16 Filed 03/11/20 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-16 Filed 03/11/20 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-16 Filed 03/11/20 Page 8 of 8
#### J. M. Dixon, appellant, v. General Register Corporation, appellee.

Gen. No. 37,230.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

Danaher & .Harriott, for appellant. Joseph R. Harmon and Kenneth L. Karr, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.