alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Roberta Z. FENNEY *v.*William C. FENNEY

76-51

537 S.W. 2d 367

Opinion delivered June 7, 1976

[Rehearing denied July 6, 1976.]

*Carpenter, Finch & Dishongh,*for appellant.

*Wayne R. Foster,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Roberta Z. Fenney having been granted a divorce from appellee William C. Fenney appeals from the trial court’s holding that she was not entitled to one-third of her husband’s Air Force retirement pay. We affirm the trial court.

Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214 (Repl. 1962) provides that a wife who is granted a divorce “shall be entitled to one-third [1/3] of the husband’s personal property absolutely, and one-third [1 /3] of all the lands whereof her husband was seized of an estate of inheritance at any time during the marriage for her life, ...”

We do not consider the right to receive retirement pay from the armed forces to be personal property within the meaning of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214, *supra.*The right to a pension and retirement pay, not yet due and payable, cannot be assigned, sold, transferred, conveyed or pledged. See *In re Marriage of Ellis,*538 P. 2d 1347 (Colo. App. 1975).

Appellant relies upon cases from community property states, such as *Ramsey*v. *Ramsey,*96 Idaho 672, 535 P. 2d 53 (1975), and *Miser*v. *Miser,*475 S.W. 2d 597 (Tex. Civ. App. 1971), to support her position. For the reasons stated in *In re*
      *859
      *Marriage of Ellis, supra,*we do not find the decisions from the community property states to be persuasive. In effect, the community property jurisdictions treat armed forces’ retirement pay as alimony; otherwise, it is not collectible, 42 U.S.C. § 659 (Supp. IV, 1974).

Affirmed.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…South Africa

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: South Africa			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: South Africa  

## Government-by-Government Assessments: South Africa 

During the review period, the government published its executive budget proposal and enacted budget online within a reasonable period.  It did not publish its end-of-year report online within a reasonable period.  Publication of information on debt obligations, including major state-owned enterprise debt, was delayed.  The budget was substantially complete and generally reliable.  The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence.  It reviewed the government’s accounts and made reports publicly available.  The process for allocating licenses and contracts for natural resource extraction was outlined in law and appeared to be followed in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available.

South Africa’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Making its end-of-year report publicly available within a reasonable period; and
- Publishing timely information on government debt obligations, including for major state-owned enterprises.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: South Africa  

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentSouth Africa

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
42196.

#### GRINER v. TUTEN.

Argued September 6, 1966

Decided September 23, 1966

Rehearing denied October 14, 1966

*485*Hitch, Miller, Beckmann & Simpson, Luhr O. C. Beckmann, Jr., A. Martin Kent,*for appellant.

*Pierce, Ranitz & Lee, Thomas J. Mahoney, Jr.,*for appellee.

Jordan, Judge.

The plaintiff having proved that the collision occurred in the manner set forth in her petition as quoted above, that is, that the defendant crossed the center line of the highway in violation of *Code Ann.*§ 68-1640(a) and crashed head-on into the plaintiff’s automobile which was lawfully proceeding in the opposite direction, and it not being affirmatively shown by the plaintiff’s evidence that the defendant’s violation of this Code section was not intentionally or negligently done, the burden of proof was on the defendant to show that such *486action on his part was caused by the act of a third party in striking the rear of his vehicle and was without negligence on his part, as alleged in his answer to the petition. *Cruse v. Taylor,*89 Ga. App. 611 (1b) (80 SE2d 704). As stated in the *Cruse*case, at p. 615, “Where it is made to appear that the thing that happened would be a violation if done intentionally or if done negligently, and the evidence does not demand a finding that it was not done intentionally or negligently, this constitutes the establishment prima facie of negligence per se. It then devolves upon the defendant to produce evidence in his own behalf to satisfy the jury that the operation of the automobile was not a violation of a statute or ordinance because unintentional and not the result of any failure to exercise ordinary care on his part.”

While there is evidence in the record from which the jury could have reached the conclusion that a third vehicle was involved, the defendant’s testimony is to the effect that he did not see lights approaching from his rear and that he has no recollection about any impact to the rear of his vehicle. The record is void of testimony from the driver or any occupant of the alleged third vehicle.

The appellant cites and relies upon the case of *Jackson v. Martin,*89 Ga. App. 344 (79 SE2d 406). The present case is distinguishable since the plaintiff’s evidence in the *Jackson*case affirmatively showed that the defendant’s car was on the wrong side of the road without negligence on the part of the defendant driver. Such road conditions as there existed are not present here.

Questions of proximate cause are for the jury to resolve, and should a jury conclude from all the evidence that a third vehicle was involved it would be further authorized to conclude under the plaintiff’s evidence that the proximate cause of the collision was the changing of lanes by the defendant’s vehicle without proper warning to the vehicle approaching from his rear.

Since the evidence in behalf of the defendant did not demand a finding that his violation of the statute was unintentional and without negligence on his part, the trial court did not err in denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the mistrial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**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 Candela Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 27, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, F.Paul Broyer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.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) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date:  | May 7, 2004             |   | /s/ F. Paul Broyer |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|
|   | F. Paul Broyer          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 12.1

<TABLE>
Electronic Retailing Systems International, Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

<CAPTION>

                                       Year Ended December 31,
                                    -----------------------------
                                    1999        1998        1997
                                    ----		      ----		      ----
<S>							                          <C>		       <C>		       <C>
Pre-tax loss from continuing
 operations	                        $(36,693)	  $(34,313)	  $(26,873)

Fixed charges:
Interest expense & amortization		     18,844      16,886      14,024

Rentals:
  Buildings - 33%					                   263 	       315         141
  Office and other leased equipment
 - 33%	                                   11		         8          13

Total fixed charges				               19,118 	    17,209	     14,178

Earnings before income taxes,
 minority interest and fixed charges (17,575)	   (17,104)  	 (12,695)

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges		   (0.92) 	    (0.99)  	   (0.90)
                             							========	   ========	   ========
Deficiency of earnings to fixed
 charges	                           $ 36,693 	  $ 34,313 	  $ 26,873
                              						========   	========	   ========



</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 12, 2009, 8 a.m. to October 13, 2009, 12 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 22, 2009, 74 FR 48269-48273.                

The meeting will be held October 13, 2009 to October 14, 2009. The meeting time and location remain the same.

The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: September 24, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-23597 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Boundless Motor
Sports Racing, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Thomas L. Earnshaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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. /s/Thomas L. EarnshawThomas L. EarnshawChief Financial OfficerDate: March 2, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                          0

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Mar-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                      1
<CASH>                             991
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                   13,739
<ALLOWANCES>                     2,809
<INVENTORY>                      1,469
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                14,534
<PP&E>                          42,285
<DEPRECIATION>                  18,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  65,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           80,913
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                        46,080
<OTHER-SE>                      (5,790)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    65,345
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                11,954
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    9,337
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 7,724
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               1,237
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (6,344)
<INCOME-TAX>                        (2)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                    (6,342)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (.14)



</TABLE>
§ 1291.62 Bank reimbursement of AHP fund. ( a ) *By the Bank.* A Bank shall reimburse its AHP fund in the amount of any AHP subsidies (plus interest, if appropriate) not used in compliance with the commitments in an AHP application or the requirements of this part as a result of the actions or omissions of the Bank.
( b ) *By FHFA order.* FHFA may order a Bank to reimburse its AHP fund in an appropriate amount upon determining that: ( 1 ) The Bank has failed to reimburse its AHP fund as required under paragraph (a) of this section; or
( 2 ) The Bank has failed to recover the full amount of AHP subsidy due from a project sponsor, project owner, or member pursuant to the requirements of §§ 1291.60 and 1291.61, and has not shown that such failure is reasonably justified, considering factors such as those in § 1291.60(c)(2)(i).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000898437
<NAME> ANIKA THERAPEUTICS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      10,712,520
<SECURITIES>                                12,007,503
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,089,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (57,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,522,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,524,802
<PP&E>                                       6,376,405
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,809,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,392,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,448,079
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        99,919
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,794,771
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,392,894
<SALES>                                     12,369,712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,869,712
<CGS>                                        6,014,181
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,014,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,476,274
<INCOME-TAX>                                   127,557
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,348,717
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,348,717
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2623 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2007 

Received 

AUGUST 3, 2007 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the collection of copayments for all hospice care furnished by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

HR 2623 RFS

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON COLLECTION OF COPAY2 MENTS FOR ALL HOSPICE CARE FURNISHED 

3 BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 Title 38, United States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in section 1710(f)(1), by inserting ‘‘(except 

6 if such care constitutes hospice care)’’ after ‘‘nurs7 ing home care’’; 

8 (2) in section 1710(g)(1), by inserting ‘‘(except 

9 if such services constitute hospice care)’’ after ‘‘med10 ical services’’; and 

11 (3) in section 1710B(c)(2), by striking subpara12 graph (B) and inserting after subparagraph (A) the 

13 following new subparagraph (B): 

14 ‘‘(B) to a veteran being furnished inpatient or 

15 outpatient hospice care by the Department; or’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.S.L.M., A 

MINOR

PETITION OF: T.S., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 107 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.K.A.M., A 

MINOR

PETITION OF: T.S., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 108 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# Official Journal C 117/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.117.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 117 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 536 May 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.117.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 117

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 536 May 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2010/C 117/01 | 2010 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the ‘Education and Training 2010 work programme’ | 1 |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 117/02 | Euro exchange rates | 8 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2010/C 117/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 9 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2010/C 117/01

2010 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the ‘Education and Training 2010 work programme’

1

European Commission

2010/C 117/02

Euro exchange rates

8

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2010/C 117/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

9

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 117/04 | State aid — Slovak Republic — State aid C 5/10 (ex NN 48/09 and ex N 485/09) — Public loan granted to Železničná spoločnosť Cargo Slovakia, a.s. (ZSSK Cargo) — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU (1) | 13 |
| 2010/C 117/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5675 — Syngenta/Monsanto's Sunflower Seed Business) (1) | 21 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2010/C 117/04

State aid — Slovak Republic — State aid C 5/10 (ex NN 48/09 and ex N 485/09) — Public loan granted to Železničná spoločnosť Cargo Slovakia, a.s. (ZSSK Cargo) — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU (1)

13

2010/C 117/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5675 — Syngenta/Monsanto's Sunflower Seed Business) (1)

21

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Official Journal C 159/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.159.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 159 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5318 June 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.159.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 159

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5318 June 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2010/C 159/01 | Report on the audit of the operational efficiency of the management of the European Central Bank for the 2008 financial year: the systems and procedures established by the ECB for managing its Business Areas’ activities together with the replies of the European Central Bank | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Auditors

2010/C 159/01

Report on the audit of the operational efficiency of the management of the European Central Bank for the 2008 financial year: the systems and procedures established by the ECB for managing its Business Areas’ activities together with the replies of the European Central Bank

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN